Jump to content
51st_FC

The Big Fat Girl 7 Tons of Fun P-47

Recommended Posts

http://www.mediafire.com/file/5bzyhdt758292zy/p-47n.zip/file    

Here is a link to one of the P-47 Manuals currently available online not sure how much helpful information for use in gameplay, but if your a Fan of the Jug it is awesome Reading.  I am an old USAF Crew Chief to bad the Jug was before my time have had a love affair with this Plane since the first time I ever saw a picture of it. Have had the opportunity to get up close to several over my time in the Air Force. Reading stories about Johnson, Gabby and Zemke one can only Imagine what she was like to fly in the war.  I had not seen this  manual posted here so I just wanted to get a link for those like me who Love the Big Girl...  Everyone gives credit to the Mustang, But before the Mustang ever was a spot on the drawing board the Big Girl was fighting with some of Germany's best. Up high not much could beat a smart pilot in his Jug,  down low she was the terror of the countryside.  All hail the Fat Girl.....

P-47N-Thunderbolt.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember Zemke's Tactics DIVE FIRE RECOVER, AKA Boom & Zoom it is what she was born for....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CptSiddy said:

as soon as the dive is modeled so that you dont lose bits....

Agreed.

More importantly imo, elevator effectiveness seems a bit off from all that I've read, it was quite maneuverable at high speeds yet in-game it's quite stiff which makes it hard to BnZ effectively. 190s and 109s feel much better at higher speeds oddly enough, at least in my limited experience.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure more work is to come on modeling compressibility and high speed maneuvering, especially if the Me-262 is to be modeled. We're still in early access after all.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChiefWH said:

 

Come now, surely that's a fib. (Wiki says there was a prototype p51 flying in Oct 1040)

He's speaking of widespread service. P-47s (and P-38s) did the bulk of the work in 43 and 44 and fought the luftwaffe when they still had some real fight left in them. P-51s came in later when the luftwaffe was in poor repair.

 

If you want to look at the American fighter that contributed most in Europe it was most certainly the P-47.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own it yet so I can not comment on the performance in game, I flew it daily in IL2 for over 13 years and still do,  counting the days till I can get her up again in this Sim.   No matter how well or realistic it is modeled in this game it can never be totally accurate. It is impossible to model all the factors that determine Performance, in a Simulation.  Some of the Best B&Z Pilots I ever came across would gain altitude find there prey turn off there Motor and they were flying 109's and were almost always in the highest ranked pilots on the War Clouds server. They were excellent Pilots who found a way to use there aircraft as modeled in game to be successful.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ChiefWH said:

(Wiki says there was a prototype p51 flying in Oct 1040)

 

Medieval technology at its finest. 

  • Haha 8

Share this post


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

 

Come now, surely that's a fib. (Wiki says there was a prototype p51 flying in Oct 1040)

Early P-51s were equipped with Allison engines with poor performance at high altitude. the RAF bought a bunch and then largely put them on low-level recon/army cooperation squads (The RCAF flew a bunch in this role) because of this. Later, when they equipped them with Merlin engines from the B model onwards, they got the high altitude performance they needed, as well as (I believe) modifications to extend their range. P-51s didn't make it to the escort groups until 1944, when it largely supplanted the P-47 (though one fighter group kept the Jugs until the end of the war I think.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that little comment( spot on the drawing Board) is all I have to worry about I think I'll have a great Christmas this Year...    

 

 

Share this post


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

109s feel much better at higher speeds oddly enough, at least in my limited experience.

 

109 has the heaviest controls of any airframe in this sim. Not sure what you mean by that?

Share this post


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

 

109 has the heaviest controls of any airframe in this sim. Not sure what you mean by that?

I agree to some extent but I can pull out of a dive in a k4 much easier than I can in a P-47.

All I'm saying is that the P-47s elevator effectiveness is lacking in the game, situations where I should be able to black myself out just by pulling on the stick is impossible in-game without trim, this is unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Early P-51s were equipped with Allison engines with poor performance at high altitude. the RAF bought a bunch and then largely put them on low-level recon/army cooperation squads (The RCAF flew a bunch in this role) because of this.

 

One has to to be careful beating the early Mustangs - in fact they were the fastest or in the top three of fastest airplanes in the low/ medium altitudes.

All things considered, it was a Fw 190A with more range and less stellar armament.

 

It's mostly down to USAAF-leadership dumbassery that the Mustang only got introduced in large numbers when somebody figured out how to fit a Merlin into the airframe and they had the right airplane pop up at the right time. The basic airplane was superior to the P-40 in all areas. It could have been introduced in Africa much earlier on and would have sped up the successes of the DAF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the hate the Allison has. It is modeled to self destruct in IL-2 with a slightest provocation. 

 

It is not a weak engine, and it got refined... same as merlin and DB engines trough the war. 

 

One of my favorite planes, the p-38, is powered by them. 

 

 

In reality this engine had ok performance in the hands of VVS in planes like AirCobra. Also leads me to believe that our engine limitations of WEP was largely ignored by the VVS pilots, because real Allison engine did certainly not self destruct after 1.2 nanosecond of overtime on WEP....

Edited by CptSiddy
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

109 has the heaviest controls of any airframe in this sim. Not sure what you mean by that?

Mig 3 is heavier to control at high speeds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-51 story 
I started this post because i have seen and read an ever increasing number of post's about the Jug..  I thought 180 pages of fact about the Big girl might be found as useful information to those who want to fly it in this Sim.
 The British came looking for an American builder to produce P-40's for them (Fact) North American  promised them a new airframe and deliver it to them within 120 days(Fact) 
The first Mustangs prototype were designated NA-73X built with the Allision engine V-1710 not even close to being called a P-51...  That was May 1940 102 days later out rolled the aircraft in Sept 1940(fact)   Apparently no one quibbled over the fact that it didn't have an engine, nor brakes, nor paint, nor actual gun mounts. 

Oct. '40 - Flight of NA-73X Prototype
Oct. '41 - Mustang Mark I Reaches Britain
While North American (NAA) had developed the prototype quickly, the first stage of production moved along more slowly. The first NA-73 production aircraft did not fly until April 23, 1941, six months after NA-73X. It carried no weapons and was kept by NAA for testing and development. The second production airplane (armed with four .30's and four .50's) arrived in Liverpool in October, 1941 - a year after the prototype's first flight. 
Nonetheless, the Mustang was so promising that in late 1941 the RAF ordered another 300 and the USAAF 150. As the exigencies of war demanded, 93 of these 150 (factory designated NA-91) ended up in British service, as Mustang IA's, equipped with four 20mm cannon. The remaining 57, equipped with four .50 caliber machine guns, and known as P-51's, ended up in US service. 
Feb. '42 - Tactical Recon: No. 26 Sqn Issued Mark I's

Oct. '42 - the Merlin Engine
As early as May, 1942, Ronald Harker, a Rolls Royce test pilot, first recommended mating the Mustang airframe to the Merlin engine, an idea which would transform the P-51 into a decisive weapon, capable of escorting American bombers all the way to Berlin. Harker test-flew an RAF Mustang on April 30, 1942, and noted that it was 30 MPH faster than the Spitfire Mk V and had almost double the range. Harker's memo recommending the Merlin-Mustang combination (in which he erroneously identified Edgar Schmued as a former Messerschmitt employee) got the attention of Rolls Royce management, who borrowed five RAF Mustangs to test the idea. The British flight-tested the Mustang X in October, and found that the experimental craft significantly out-performed the Allison at high altitudes, generating 200 more horsepower at 20,000 feet and almost 500 more HP at 30,000 feet. While the British research was valuable, the American Merlin Mustang program proceeded almost independently. 
In the summer of 1942, Packard Motors was negotiating with Rolls Royce to license-build the Merlin engine at its Detroit plant. Learning of Rolls Royce' Merlin-Mustang plans, Major Thomas Hitchcock, the American military attache in London, and others, pushed for the development of a Mustang powered by the Packard-built Merlin. Authorized in July, 1942, North American began its Merlin Mustang development in August.
The XP-51B included these changes: 
a Packard Merlin engine, instead of the Allison V-1710
a four-bladed propeller
stronger underwing racks 
a strengthened airframe
a relocated carburetor air intake, from above to below the nose,

June '43 - A-36's with USAAF in MTO, Sicily
The first U.S. unit to fly the Mustang in combat was the Morocco-based 154th Observation Squadron, which used 35 P-51-2NA's for a few weeks in April-May, 1943. 
300 A-36A's (a variant of the Mustang known as "Apache" and "Invader") made a larger impact, when the 27th and 86th Bombardment Groups began flying them. In June, 1943, the 27th BG flew missions against Pantelleria, in the build-up for the Sicily invasion. Dive bombing was a challenge, the recommended technique being a dive from 8,000 - 10,000 feet at 90 degrees, with dive brakes extended to keep speed below 400 MPH. At 3,000 feet, the pilot dropped two 500-pound bombs and pulled out at 1,500 feet. With this extended straight-in bomb run, they were vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. 
German and Italian fighters engaged also engaged them. One A-36 pilot, Lt. Mike Russo of the 27th BG, made ace, the only man to do so while flying an Allison-powered Mustang. He counted four different types among his five aerial victories: two Fw-190's, a Bf-109, a Ju-52, and a Fieseler Storch. 

The 27th and 86th were reduced to three squadrons each in September, due to the heavy losses they had incurred. As the Italian campaign progressed, they increasingly used strafing and glide bombing tactics, which reduced their losses to flak. In early 1944, both Groups transitioned to P-47's and turned over their A-36's for training. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope devs model a dorsal fin it should’ve at least come standard if it wasn’t a modification, it was just too common. Sorry people are probably tired of hearing this 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

One has to to be careful beating the early Mustangs - in fact they were the fastest or in the top three of fastest airplanes in the low/ medium altitudes.

All things considered, it was a Fw 190A with more range and less stellar armament.

 

It's mostly down to USAAF-leadership dumbassery that the Mustang only got introduced in large numbers when somebody figured out how to fit a Merlin into the airframe and they had the right airplane pop up at the right time. The basic airplane was superior to the P-40 in all areas. It could have been introduced in Africa much earlier on and would have sped up the successes of the DAF.

Oh I wasn't bashing them. Just explaining that even though wiki has them introduced in 1940, they wouldn't have been used for high alt escorts until they got the Merlin.

The RCAF used them extensively for low-alt recon/army coop work precisely because they were so fast at those altitudes that they were difficult to catch. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, catchthefoxes said:

I really hope devs model a dorsal fin it should’ve at least come standard if it wasn’t a modification, it was just too common. Sorry people are probably tired of hearing this 

Like a broken record 😋. In all seriousness sometimes the best way to get things changed is to keep talking about it and bringing it up. I do the same thing when it comes to engine limits and dive performance of the Jug and it's high speed authority.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I agree to some extent but I can pull out of a dive in a k4 much easier than I can in a P-47.

All I'm saying is that the P-47s elevator effectiveness is lacking in the game, situations where I should be able to black myself out just by pulling on the stick is impossible in-game without trim, this is unrealistic.

 

The elevator effectiveness in the P-47 is marginally low I agree, I can black out 350mph - 370mph IAS but only with trim.  At higher speeds nearing compressibility it is quite normal for the P-47 to have poor elevator response.

 

Here is a link to a P-47D pilots stating his P-47D stick felt like it was "set in concrete" but that as much G can be pulled as the pilot could stand.

 

http://www.510fs.org/wwii/war-stories/item/221-p-47-compressibility-dive

 

The reason the Bf109 can pull out of a very high speed dive more easily is because the trim works easily when it shouldn't.  Test reports on Bf109 trim wheel in high speed dives was that the trim wheel was "practically impossible to move above 350mph IAS".

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

 

"The Elevators harden up at high speeds and retrimming is necessary, which is difficult as the twin wheel hardens up and becomes almost solid in a dive. Some force is needed on the stick, but accelerations as high as the pilot can stand can be put on."

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me-109g2-trop.html

 

So both the P-47D and the Bf109 had high stick forces at high speed dives but both should pull as much G as the pilot can stand without the need to use trim.  The problem In BoX ALL aircraft can trim easily as there is no impact from higher speeds and using any amount of trim.  It's just full up or full down trim at the press of a button, or even easier if it has trim on an axis.  If I dive a P-47D and Bf109K at high speed both aircraft suffer with stiff elevators at high speed ~500mph IAS and they are pretty much ineffective without trim but this is not correct as shown above.  If I don't touch trim both aircraft will be almost impossible to recover but using trim is not an issue when it should be.

 

Focusing exclusively on one aircraft when it is a game limitation is not helpful.  There is literally nothing in those flight reports that would indicate a P-47D (without dive recovery flaps) is easier than a Bf109 to pull out of a dive.  Both had stiff controls, yet both could pull G forces as high as the pilot could stand.

 

Let's focus on the wider issue as IMHO it's a game engine limitation, same as controls coming off as a "deterrent" to high speed dives.  BoX needs the FM for dives improved as well as how trim behaviour works.

 

 

 

Edited by ICDP
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

The elevator effectiveness in the P-47 is marginally low I agree, I can black out 350mph - 370mph IAS but only with trim.  At higher speeds nearing compressibility it is quite normal for the P-47 to have poor elevator response.

 

Here is a link to a P-47D pilots stating his P-47D stick felt like it was "set in concrete" but that as much G can be pulled as the pilot could stand.

 

http://www.510fs.org/wwii/war-stories/item/221-p-47-compressibility-dive

 

The reason the Bf109 can pull out of a very high speed dive more easily is because the trim works easily when it shouldn't.  Test reports on Bf109 trim wheel in high speed dives was that the trim wheel was "practically impossible to move above 350mph IAS".

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

 

"The Elevators harden up at high speeds and retrimming is necessary, which is difficult as the twin wheel hardens up and becomes almost solid in a dive. Some force is needed on the stick, but accelerations as high as the pilot can stand can be put on."

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me-109g2-trop.html

 

So both the P-47D and the Bf109 had high stick forces at high speed dives but both should pull as much G as the pilot can stand without the need to use trim.  The problem In BoX ALL aircraft can trim easily as there is no impact from higher speeds and using any amount of trim.  It's just full up or full down trim at the press of a button, or even easier if it has trim on an axis.  If I dive a P-47D and Bf109K at high speed both aircraft suffer with stiff elevators at high speed ~500mph IAS and they are pretty much ineffective without trim but this is not correct as shown above.  If I don't touch trim both aircraft will be almost impossible to recover but using trim is not an issue when it should be.

 

Focusing exclusively on one aircraft when it is a game limitation is not helpful.  There is literally nothing in those flight reports that would indicate a P-47D (without dive recovery flaps) is easier than a Bf109 to pull out of a dive.  Both had stiff controls, yet both could pull G forces as high as the pilot could stand.

 

Let's focus on the wider issue as IMHO it's a game engine limitation, same as controls coming off as a "deterrent" to high speed dives.  BoX needs the FM for dives improved as well as how trim behaviour works.

 

 

 

 

In my case, I wrote about the P47D because it is what I have read the most about it. I cannot tell how the other planes are modelled. Neither I was comparing the p47D against other planes. The comparison I did was against a specific test regarding stick forces in the jug. This test showed that the p47D could attain G forces enough to black the pilot out without the need of trim. That happening in high speeds (300-400mph even a bit higher depending on altitude). Obviously, once you get into compressibility you lose this.

In the game, same as you, I can only black out if I trim the plane with the tail very heavy (above +40). That doesn´t sound right. I can´t tell about other planes but with the P-47D there is some evidence that seems to support this. It is a pity that we ca n´t record G-forces. AFAIK, the other thing we don´t know in the sim is the maximum stick forces applied by the virtual pilot. With those figures, we could directly compare the plane with the study.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

In my case, I wrote about the P47D because it is what I have read the most about it. I cannot tell how the other planes are modelled. Neither I was comparing the p47D against other planes. The comparison I did was against a specific test regarding stick forces in the jug. This test showed that the p47D could attain G forces enough to black the pilot out without the need of trim. That happening in high speeds (300-400mph even a bit higher depending on altitude). Obviously, once you get into compressibility you lose this.

In the game, same as you, I can only black out if I trim the plane with the tail very heavy (above +40). That doesn´t sound right. I can´t tell about other planes but with the P-47D there is some evidence that seems to support this. It is a pity that we ca n´t record G-forces. AFAIK, the other thing we don´t know in the sim is the maximum stick forces applied by the virtual pilot. With those figures, we could directly compare the plane with the study.

 

Please don't take what I have typed as an attack on any individual, it is more about the message that is inadvertently being delivered by some.  Yes, the P-47D "seems" wrong in BoX on how it behaves in elevator effectiveness compared to flight tests.  The thing is, so does the Bf109, in the exact same way.  So simply concluding "P-47D elevator effectiveness needs fixed" would be wrong IMHO and this made me look at another reason.  Hence the tests on how trim works in sim compared to real life tests.

 

We run into a dangerous game if we focus testing on only one aircraft and declare it broken, without at least testing other aircraft to see if it is a more universal issue.

Edited by ICDP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Please don't take what I have typed as an attack on any individual, it is more about the message that is inadvertently being delivered by some.  Yes, the P-47D "seems" wrong in BoX on how it behaves in elevator effectiveness compared to flight tests.  The thing is, so does the Bf109, in the exact same way.  So simply concluding "P-47D elevator effectiveness needs fixed" would be wrong IMHO and this made me look at another reason.  Hence the tests on how trim works in sim compared to real life tests.

 

We run into a dangerous game if we focus testing on only one aircraft and declare it broken, without at least testing other aircraft to see if it is a more universal issue.

No offence was taken, sorry if I sounded like I did. It was more a clarification. Regarding the bf109 I can´t speak. What I have encountered it is more pilots impressions than any specific test. Does it have any comparable test as the p47D?

Regarding the trim. I am not so sure if it is the cause. For recovering from compressibility speed yes, I understand what you are saying but not for the speed range we are talking about. At least it is what I interpret from those tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

No offence was taken, sorry if I sounded like I did. It was more a clarification. Regarding the bf109 I can´t speak. What I have encountered it is more pilots impressions than any specific test. Does it have any comparable test as the p47D?

Regarding the trim. I am not so sure if it is the cause. For recovering from compressibility speed yes, I understand what you are saying but not for the speed range we are talking about. At least it is what I interpret from those tests.

 

I think there are more than one topic of debate going on, (1) high speed compressibility and (2) elevator authority at ~350mph IAS.

 

(1) Compressibility in sim is "broken" in all the fighters I have tested because IMHO the trim is modelled in a very simplistic way.  Trim in sim is always exactly the same in any particular aircraft.  It is possible to go from full negative trim, to full positive trim at exact same time delay regardless of speed and with total impunity at any speed.  Note the use of the phrasing I have bolded and italicised bellow.  At no point in any test I have done in any fighter have I encountered such a requirement.

 

Dive

16.            The P-47C dives very fast. Its initial acceleration is good an it quickly reaches its limiting figures (520 m.p.h., I.A.S. at 10,000 feet, 450 m.p.h. at 20,000 feet). At these speeds the recovery needs several thousand feet and can only be effected by careful use of the trimming tab. There is no tendency to recover fiercely from the dive, but a large amount of left trim is required on the rudder to hold the aircraft straight.

 

In sim, trim should be harder, much slower to change and have worse consequences at higher IAS.  This affects all fighters.

 

(2) The other issue we can agree on is that the P-47D elevator authority at ~350-400mph IAS "seems wrong" compared to tactical test reports.  The problem is we should not be concluding "it's easier in the 109, ergo the P-47D is wrong".  Unless someone shows this should not be the case, then it is wrong to conclude the P-47D is wrong "because it is worse than a 109".

Share this post


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

 

I think there are more than one topic of debate going on, (1) high speed compressibility and (2) elevator authority at ~350mph IAS.

 

(1) Compressibility in sim is "broken" in all the fighters I have tested because IMHO the trim is modelled in a very simplistic way.  Trim in sim is always exactly the same in any particular aircraft.  It is possible to go from full negative trim, to full positive trim at exact same time delay regardless of speed and with total impunity at any speed.  Note the use of the phrasing I have bolded and italicised bellow.  At no point in any test I have done in any fighter have I encountered such a requirement.

 

Dive

16.            The P-47C dives very fast. Its initial acceleration is good an it quickly reaches its limiting figures (520 m.p.h., I.A.S. at 10,000 feet, 450 m.p.h. at 20,000 feet). At these speeds the recovery needs several thousand feet and can only be effected by careful use of the trimming tab. There is no tendency to recover fiercely from the dive, but a large amount of left trim is required on the rudder to hold the aircraft straight.

 

In sim, trim should be harder, much slower to change and have worse consequences at higher IAS.  This affects all fighters.

9

I I agree that compressibility in the simulation seems incomplete.

1 hour ago, ICDP said:

(2) The other issue we can agree on is that the P-47D elevator authority at ~350-400mph IAS "seems wrong" compared to tactical test reports.  The problem is we should not be concluding "it's easier in the 109, ergo the P-47D is wrong".  Unless someone shows this should not be the case, then it is wrong to conclude the P-47D is wrong "because it is worse than a 109".

 

That is why it is better using some specific test to compare if available. Even direct comparison in flight trials can be misleading. Problem is not always this kind of information is readily available to us (or at all).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I I agree that compressibility in the simulation seems incomplete.

 

That is why it is better using some specific test to compare if available. Even direct comparison in flight trials can be misleading. Problem is not always this kind of information is readily available to us (or at all).

 

 

 

Exactly my point.

 

Concluding the P-47D has wrong elevator authority purely because "the 109 does it easier in the sim" is illogical.  By the same logic I could compare the P-47D to the Spitfire, see it is easier in the Spitfire and conclude, "the P-47D is correct".

 

Now as you say, using tactical trials and flight test reports is far more logical.

Share this post


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

 

Exactly my point.

 

Concluding the P-47D has wrong elevator authority purely because "the 109 does it easier in the sim" is illogical.  By the same logic I could compare the P-47D to the Spitfire, see it is easier in the Spitfire and conclude, "the P-47D is correct".

 

Now as you say, using tactical trials and flight test reports is far more logical.

I wasn't saying that the P-47D is wrong because the 109 is better, I was saying the P-47D is wrong because it is wrong based off of test and what I've read.

 I was just using the 109 as a comparison, not really the best thing to do I agree.

 

Does compressibility need more work? Yes

Does the P-47 lack elevator authority? Yes

Does trim need a rework, to work slower the faster you go? Yes

 

All of these things need work but that doesn't mean they are all tied together, fixing one won't necessarily fix another. And each aircraft has it's own unique FM so to say that it is an overall problem may not be correct. For instance the 109 might be correct but the P-47 could be wrong so you have to look at each aircraft individually.

 

What I do know is that the P-47 has issues when it comes to high speed elevator authority and I'm not just talking about compressibility, I'm talking about speeds where compressibility is not even a factor.

 

I won't go into dive limits or trim tabs because that is a product of the current game design, once compressibility is further modeled then structural limits can be modeled accurately, and trim tabs may even be affected eventually depending on what the devs decide.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say after a couple weeks now of Flying the Plane I am impressed with many things,   Much thanks to the Dev's.  I look forward to the future updates of the Big Girl she is a Sweetie!!

  • Upvote 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

×