What will counter the K4 up high?

[MiloMorai]

VIII Fighter Command at War 'Long Reach' has a section on fighting with the P-47 as well as P-38 and P-51. Worth reading.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=26OqCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

[LeLv76_Erkki]

9 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

That's wrong - the Airacobra has an advantage at the 3000m. 50% fuel, removed 0.30", rads at 60/40 (water/oil) and just combat power gives 506km/h and emergency 522km/h. The A3 manages 486km/h at combat and 501km/h at emergency.

 

I did not specify the 190 variant.

 

33 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Just counted for what long the WEP lasts on those settings and alt... could run whole 15m of the water supply - it actually runs out and then engine lowers its output! Not that surprising it's at lower MP/rpm (60-61"/2510rpm) than the max (64"/2700rpm) which is possible only when lower.

 

And one more test:

K4 @ 25% of fuel - 491km/h

P-47D @ 25% of fuel, 6 guns - 490km/h

 

K4? So what? A marginal performance advantage if at all when at high altitude, compared to much bigger and twice as heavy airplane. That's really something...

 

If being superior in every aspect of performance except in one 500 meter gap at rather high altitude is "marginal performance advantage" and even for that you need to give up guns, fuel and micromanage engine, then I want what you're having.

 

[Rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

The P-47 has much nicer flaps though, they drop the power-on stall speed under 30mph. You can turn like a butterfly.

I was noticing this yesterday. It is a bizarre bug. I’d much rather have the ability to turn better than K4 above 375mph IAS. It’s about the same if the K4 is normally trimmed and the 109 proceeds to pile on many more Gs if you wind up the stab trim.

[Ehret]

36 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

I did not specify the 190 variant.

 

If being superior in every aspect of performance except in one 500 meter gap at rather high altitude is "marginal performance advantage" and even for that you need to give up guns, fuel and micromanage engine, then I want what you're having.

 

The A5 can be little better than the A3 at combat/emergency (cowl fully closed) at 503/515km/h but P-39 remains faster, still. The A8 is finally better if the boost is enabled but it's stretching.

 

For giving guns... 4/6 are more than enough; even 2 (thought in a nose like in the P-39) are sufficient for shooting down fighters. You can mount gyro sight too which used properly can increase hit ratio by two, so... I'd not dismiss firepower of 4/6 guns Thunderbolts.

 

7000m rather high? I had chases over 9000m already and I could keep up.

For fuel? You realize how much the P-47 takes? 25% is 351l where the K4 at 25% takes a mere 100l. The R-2800 is a bigger engine, sure, but will not burn 3.5x more than the DB; especially that very high strung one in the K4s. Running out of fuel is not the Thunderbolt pilot problem.

 

For micromanaging... I managed before in the likes like P-40 or P-39; I will manage now in the P-47. It's interesting too; had to understand the turbo-supercharger system; something really new.

 

10 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

I was noticing this yesterday. It is a bizarre bug. I’d much rather have the ability to turn better than K4 above 375mph IAS. It’s about the same if the K4 is normally trimmed and the 109 proceeds to pile on many more Gs if you wind up the stab trim.

 

Does the P-47 descend when doing such maneuver? Can it stay that way for long? For few seconds it could be the inertia at work here.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Ehret

[LeLv76_Erkki]

4 minutes ago, Ehret said:

---

 

You underestimate people you talk with. 25 % is less than 100 gallons of fuel. Thats about 40 min even in fuel save mode. K-4 will have more endurance. ? We are discussing P-47 vs. K-4 in general, not just level speed at some very specific altitude. Going high will not make P-47 superior to K-4. 1.98 ATA or not. Plese dont keep dodging that. You guys can keep banging your heads against the wall but it wont make the current iteration of P-47 we have in the game perform better than K-4 in raw numbers. I dont care about your subjective experiences in game - I've won Yaks in turn fights in a 190 but that also doesnt make 190 better dogfighter than Yak. As for planes that have weak altitudes... well guess what, their pilots usually know about them.

[Rattlesnake]

12 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The A5 can be little better than the A3 at combat/emergency (cowl fully closed) at 503/515km/h but P-39 remains faster, still. The A8 is finally better if the boost is enabled but it's stretching.

 

For giving guns... 4/6 are more than enough; even 2 (thought in a nose like in the P-39) are sufficient for shooting down fighters. You can mount gyro sight too which used properly can increase hit ratio by two, so... I'd not dismiss firepower of 4/6 guns Thunderbolts.

 

7000m rather high? I had chases over 9000m already and I could keep up.

For fuel? You realize how much the P-47 takes? 25% is 351l where the K4 at 25% takes a mere 100l. The R-2800 is a bigger engine, sure, but will not burn 3.5x more than the DB; especially that very high strung one in the K4s. Running out of fuel is not the Thunderbolt pilot problem.

 

For micromanaging... I managed before in the likes like P-40 or P-39; I will manage now in the P-47. It's interesting too; had to understand the turbo-supercharger system; something really new.

 

 

Does the P-47 descend when doing such maneuver? Can it stay that way for long? For few seconds it could be the inertia at work here.

At full flaps and WEP you can hang it on the prop up at a very high angle and low speeds till the engine breaks. You can also do biplane-esque low speed loops. To me this is unbelievable. I’d much rather have good high speed handling and WEP, believable attributes for such a craft.

Edited November 27, 2018 by CMBailey

[Venturi]

4 hours ago, Talon_ said:

1.98ata is not overly historical for our scenario

 

But does this boost level have a scenario in which it is historical?

[Talon_]

1 minute ago, Venturi said:

 

But does this boost level have a scenario in which it is historical?

 

It's not overly clear if it was ever used in combat. Some users will tell you it was approved but there is no serious credible evidence for it, and even those that do exist point to its use with a few days left of the war in Europe.

[TWC_Ace]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

In the limited testing that the Pigs have done so far since they have been released, it's obvious that the K4 is "God mode".  There isn't one plane on the Allied side that can do anything about the K4 if it's even remotely flown in a semi competent manner.  None of the upcoming Allied fighters are going to change that either.  1 vs. 1 with equal pilot skill, the K4 will win every time.

Then add the 262 and Kurfurst gets his dream of Axis victory in 1945.

And I dont think thats wrong. K4 was bettter in every way. The problem was that germans didnt have many experienced pilots left plus the numbers were on the allied side, by large margin..also shortage of betetr fuel and parts in general crippled the already shaken luftwaffe. What we can do in MP we can limit Me262, tempest and K4 numbers.

[Kurfurst]

I would try the Spitfire IX HF with the Merlin 70 mod. The P-47D.... requires a very disclipined energy fighter like the Fw 190. And while the IXHF is not so fast as the K-4, but it at least have decent engine power high up and good turns and climbs. A good pilot can capitalize on that at higher altitude manouvering fight, which IMO is more fitting for most pilots. 

[mumbojumbo]

38 minutes ago, blackram said:

And I dont think thats wrong. K4 was bettter in every way. The problem was that germans didnt have many experienced pilots left plus the numbers were on the allied side, by large margin..also shortage of betetr fuel and parts in general crippled the already shaken luftwaffe. What we can do in MP we can limit Me262, tempest and K4 numbers.

 

One of the reasons myself and most likely others are a little disappointed that the xiv didn't come with the original planeset is that it would be an excellent fight. Two very fast, good climbing well armed fighters, the last of the 109's vs (almost) the last of the spitfires. But alas, I think we'd be in the same conundrum. "how can x combat y? If it can't then maybe it should be limited". Also disappointed as it will probably never come to the other game now that veao studios have pulled out for good. 

 

And as kurfurst says, has everyone forgotten the g14 and lf mk ix already? Being above is a huge advantage. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Tarks91

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

vs a 1.98 ata K-4 P-51D will be faster then it above 7.5km altitude fitted with the -7 engine, with the -3 engine providing we get it as a modification like Spitfire Mk IX it will match the K-4 in top speed at around 4.5km and be faster above 8.5km

Edited November 27, 2018 by RoflSeal

[TWC_Ace]

39 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

I would try the Spitfire IX HF with the Merlin 70 mod. The P-47D.... requires a very disclipined energy fighter like the Fw 190. And while the IXHF is not so fast as the K-4, but it at least have decent engine power high up and good turns and climbs. A good pilot can capitalize on that at higher altitude manouvering fight, which IMO is more fitting for most pilots. 

Good point Kurfurst. I mean I wasnt unsuccessful with P47 just when i switched to Spit IXHF I was more confident I cant dogfight 1 on 1. For sure i was able to take on K4 in spit.

[MiloMorai]

41 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

vs a 1.98 ata K-4 P-51D will be faster then it above 7.5km altitude fitted with the -7 engine, with the -3 engine providing we get it as a modification like Spitfire Mk IX it will match the K-4 in top speed at around 4.5km and be faster above 8.5km

 

P-51D/Ks only had -7 engine. The P-51B/C used both -3 and -7 engines.

 

"With the introduction of the P-51C-5-NT onto the Dallas production line and the P-51B-15-NA in the Inglewood production line, the Packard V-1560-7 engine was adopted as standard. It offered 1450 hp for take off and a war emergency rating of 1695 hp at 10,300 feet. Maximum speed at 20,000 feet was reduced from 440 to 435 mph, but increased from 430 to 439 mph at 25,000 feet. 398 P-51B-10-NAs, 390 P-51B-15-NAs, and 1350 P-51C-10-NTs were built, all powered by the V-1650-7 engine." 

 

 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

45 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

P-51D/Ks only had -7 engine. The P-51B/C used both -3 and -7 engines.

 

"With the introduction of the P-51C-5-NT onto the Dallas production line and the P-51B-15-NA in the Inglewood production line, the Packard V-1560-7 engine was adopted as standard. It offered 1450 hp for take off and a war emergency rating of 1695 hp at 10,300 feet. Maximum speed at 20,000 feet was reduced from 440 to 435 mph, but increased from 430 to 439 mph at 25,000 feet. 398 P-51B-10-NAs, 390 P-51B-15-NAs, and 1350 P-51C-10-NTs were built, all powered by the V-1650-7 engine." 

 

 

 

Nope, P-51Ds had the option of being fitted with both engines. The 1944 manual mentions conversion kits were sent together with the aircraft to convert a -7 to a -3 at the airfield was possible

 

I made a thread about it a while ago 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by RoflSeal

[BurBur]

7 hours ago, sevenless said:

however I seriously doubt there will be an antidote to a skilled K4 player in MP, regardless of 1.98 ata or altitude.

 

Hello darkness my old friend, ive come to talk with you again........ >>>    Mark XIV

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by BurBur

[9./JG27golani79]

Luftwhiner it was ... ? 

[Gambit21]

6 minutes ago, 9./JG27golani79 said:

Luftwhiner it was ... ? 

 

Knock it off.

Come back when there's a few years of history to call on.

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

8 hours ago, blackram said:

1 vs 1. Flying in MP Its clear now the K4 is the king of high alt dogfight. P47 cant do much (if both pilots are of the same quality), only in team vs team fight can do something. Yes there always be ppl who can do better. but let see what we will get in the future for the allies. P51D.....ehh, a great high alt fighter but certainly not better, doesnt turn as well on med to low speeds, considerably slower climber, weaker armament than K4.... and K4 we have can bring 1.98 Ata (engine mod). Tempest was super fast down low and has very good armament but it wasnt an high alt fighter. P38 cant be taken seriously in 1 vs 1 fighter role.

Dont get me wrong I dont think something is wrong with K4 but currently it turns an average pilot like me into a f monster in such "occasions".

Then again I wouldnt like to see the plane reduced in MP missions, that would cause an rage.

 

You seriously underestimate the P-38, especially the J-25LO and later versions.

 

Of course, the current engine modeling silliness may neuter it completely but the P-38 shines up high and should be much better than either the Pony D or the Jug.

[DSR_A-24]

A P-47M, P-47D-30 or Spitfire MK14 would all work as a nice counter weight to the K4 at high altitude. I haven't tested it but by overspending the turbo I'm sure you can match the K4s performance above 7km.

 

You don't necessarily have to beat the K4 on paper as the plane flys like its suffering from arthritis. Just from flying on the skirmish server I have yet to face a 109 pilot that uses their power to weight ratio as an advantage.

Edited November 27, 2018 by DSR_T-888

[MiloMorai]

22 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

 

Nope, P-51Ds had the option of being fitted with both engines. The 1944 manual mentions conversion kits were sent together with the aircraft to convert a -7 to a -3.

 

I made a thread about it a while ago 

 

 

Please note in the link in the other thread is dated Sept 17 1948.

 

Also the manual you are using for a reference was revised May 7 1947.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

7 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Please note in the link in the other thread is dated Sept 17 1948.

 

Also the manual you are using for a reference was revised May 7 1947.

Pages that have been revised in 1947 are noted as such. The pages I'm referring to are from 1944

 

Of course to TO is going to be in 1948, that is not long after when the -9A was available, kinda implies that both -3 and -7 were fitted before this date.

 

 

 

[BurBur]

27 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

A P-47M, P-47D-30 or Spitfire MK14 would all work as a nice counter weight to the K4 at high altitude. I haven't tested it but by overspending the turbo I'm sure you match the K4s performance above 7km.

 

Mark XIV would be the closest adversary imo ! Expect epic battles meeting on equal terms.

 

P51D / P38J / Tempest V will be great adversaries to the K4, however still wont match acceleration and climbrate.

 

Only the mark XIV is in the same league imho.  Am i playing a tiny violin here ? 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by BurBur

[Legioneod]

46 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

A P-47M, P-47D-30 or Spitfire MK14 would all work as a nice counter weight to the K4 at high altitude. I haven't tested it but by overspending the turbo I'm sure you can match the K4s performance above 7km.

 

You don't necessarily have to beat the K4 on paper as the plane flys like its suffering from arthritis. Just from flying on the skirmish server I have yet to face a 109 pilot that uses their power to weight ratio as an advantage.

 

The P-47M would kinda be overkill imo, it would need a worthy adversary like the 152.

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, BurBur said:

 

Hello darkness my old friend, ive come to talk with you again........ >>>    Mark XIV

 

Absolutely. Would love to see it. Can´t wait for their announcement for collector planes. Mk XIV makes definitiively sense both for MP and SP.

[LColony_Kong]

10 hours ago, Warpig said:

Yea, but it's here. No reason to bicker about it anymore. There was already entire threads dedicated to the subject. Should we continue to bring it up in every thread available?

More like the exact opposite. Now that it here, we need to get it removed. 

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

The P-47M would kinda be overkill imo, it would need a worthy adversary like the 152.

 

I agree.  The 152 would be a great counterpart ...

 

[Rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

The P-47M would kinda be overkill imo, it would need a worthy adversary like the 152.

I don't see why you say this at all. The P-47M at typical arena altitudes would have a speed advantage (marginal down low) but still be out-climbed and out-turned. As opposed to being out-everything'd. Sounds balanced to me. And even this advantage would last only 5 minutes as currently modeled. And unlike 1.98 ATA K4s we are at least sure P-47Ms were used.
Climb
Speed

Edited November 28, 2018 by CMBailey

[ShamrockOneFive]

3 hours ago, BurBur said:

 

Mark XIV would be the closest adversary imo ! Expect epic battles meeting on equal terms.

 

P51D / P38J / Tempest V will be great adversaries to the K4, however still wont match acceleration and climbrate.

 

Only the mark XIV is in the same league imho.  Am i playing a tiny violin here ? 

 

 

 

Hard to say for sure but I think it has a chance of happening. It would follow along from other examples like the La-5FN and Bf109G-6 in that its a modification of an existing aircraft. Also... a Mark that is quite popular and probably would attract a decent number of sales.

 

I'd be doubly excited if it were one of those bubble canopy versions but I'm not choosy on this

[Rattlesnake]

For comparison here is K4 climb. If I did my math right it's maximum climb rate works out to a mile a minute, as compared to 3700fpm maximum for the P-47M.

K4 Climb

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

I don't see why you say this at all. The P-47M at typical arena altitudes would have a speed advantage (marginal down low) but still be out-climbed and out-turned. As opposed to being out-everything'd. Sounds balanced to me. And even this advantage would last only 5 minutes as currently modeled. And unlike 1.98 ATA K4s we are at least sure P-47Ms were used.
Climb
Speed

True, but a 30mph+ speed advantage is pretty significant imo. Don't get me wrong I really really really want to see a P-47M in this game eventually.

[Rattlesnake]

34 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

True, but a 30mph+ speed advantage is pretty significant imo. Don't get me wrong I really really really want to see a P-47M in this game eventually.

If a plane that is out-turned and out-climbed doesn't have the speed advantage then WTF does it have? Having one area of performance superiority doesn't equal uber, it just equals "not crippled".
Besides according to this chart the P-47M is actually slower than the K4 at sea level (375 per this chart versus 381 per the game specification figures). Using the same sources the K4 goes 443mph at 20,000 compared to 440mph for the P-47M. And remember that the vast majority of combat tends to take place below 20K. At 26,000 feet the K4 is still going 425 but indeed the M has made it up to 450. Good luck finding anyone there...

I honestly don't feel like converting meters/second to fpm to do the climb comparison right now, but I'm guessing the K4 will retain it's climb advantage at least as high as it retains its speed advantage.

So assuming nothing changes with WEP the 109K4 with 1.98 ATA will remain slightly faster, better climbing, and better turning at the alts where 90% of planes are at, while having twice or thrice at much time at high power settings available.
 

Edited November 28, 2018 by CMBailey

[MiloMorai]

If you fly furballs then you get your butt kick. Try using real life tactics.

[PatrickAWlson]

31 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

If you fly furballs then you get your butt kick. Try using real life tactics.

 

Under 20K is real life tactics in this sim.   There was a whole front where 26K was pretty much never seen in four years, and that is the front and the combat style that is modeled in this sim.  Even the turn to the west is tactical.   26K only happens with strategic bombers.  Without strategic bombers flying at 26K is sight seeing.

[Ehret]

8 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Under 20K is real life tactics in this sim.   There was a whole front where 26K was pretty much never seen in four years, and that is the front and the combat style that is modeled in this sim.  Even the turn to the west is tactical.   26K only happens with strategic bombers.  Without strategic bombers flying at 26K is sight seeing.

 

You can zoom by 10k ft in the Thunderbolt; the tactic would be to patrol at the 26k, do very fast bounces and climb back. It will not bring a good gun solution every time but distract the enemy and help your fighters which are lower. That's a teamwork; it's not plane's fault it doesn't happen too often.

[TWC_Ace]

Spit XIV isnt on the Bodenplatte list....maybe as an collector plane...maybe....For sure it would be justified since we have (and would have) 1.98 K4, late Dora and Me262....

We are talking about announced planes here.

Edited November 28, 2018 by blackram

[Ribbon]

9 hours ago, BurBur said:

 

Hello darkness my old friend, ive come to talk with you again........ >>>    Mark XIV

 

I really hope we'll get Spit mk.XIV with Griffon 65 engine, tear-drop canopy, clipped wings mod and cut back fuselage as a collector plane!

Also 150 octane fuel form mid 1944 and +25lbs boost.

It really will be K-4 antidote!

 

[7.GShAP/Silas]

5 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

You can zoom by 10k ft in the Thunderbolt; the tactic would be to patrol at the 26k, do very fast bounces and climb back. It will not bring a good gun solution every time but distract the enemy and help your fighters which are lower. That's a teamwork; it's not plane's fault it doesn't happen too often.

 

 

The tactical war is on the ground and above the trees.  A fighter patrolling at 26k is useless to a ground attacker or a friendly formation of troops.  Without strategic bombers those altitudes serve no purpose but jousting for fun.  These aircraft were used outside of that context in reality and will have to be in the sim as well.  At least in MP that isn't just dogfighting for the sake of it.

[E69_geramos109]

I think there is nothing wrong or disapointing with the P47 in the game. It is how it is. Maybe people see the comparation and thinks thay the P47 is shit. But remember when this two planes face each other. K4 was not there till october 1944 and the P47 was on the early verssions fighting from 43. If you compare the P47 with the G6s and G6 AM that luft had on 43 and early 44 the american is a excelent fighter. We just dont have the theatre to show the superiority of this plane.

I would like to see a theatre on Italy battle of gustav line or whatever fighting with the P47D22 against A5s and 109s G6.

[PatrickAWlson]

8 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

You can zoom by 10k ft in the Thunderbolt; the tactic would be to patrol at the 26k, do very fast bounces and climb back. It will not bring a good gun solution every time but distract the enemy and help your fighters which are lower. That's a teamwork; it's not plane's fault it doesn't happen too often.

 

Ground attackers will be at 3K (feet) or less.  Medium bombers doing tactical work will be between 3K and 12K.  Dive bombers will be at around 12K, although by 1944 nobody was doing dive bombing on the western front.  You are at 26K.  First, I doubt that you even spot the EA.  Second, if you do, what you are proposing is a 14K - 25K nose dive followed by a 10K zoom (I question the 10K zoom but will let others with more info confirm or refute). 

 

In order to get your zoom you have to start it at tremendous speed.  Obviously you want to shoot at something before zooming.  So what you are saying is that you are going to spot a target thousands of feet below you (clouds?), perform a maximum speed dive, get guns on target at the end of a maximum speed dive (control issues at max speed?), effectively fire (time on target will be very short), and then zoom almost back to your original perch, or as close to it as you can get. 

 

I don't see it.  Even if that works out your end point after the dive/zoom is probably closer to 20K at best, not back to 26K.    Do it gain and you will be lower after each iteration.  In the end you will be safe but you will probably not be effective.