Learning P-47 Thunderbolt acrobatics?

[Voyager]

Been trying out the P-47D-28 with the 3.010 flight model updates, and finding it is rather non-trivial doing any acrobatic maneuvers in it. 

 

So, I'm wondering if people know of good resources, and good practice routines to develop acrobatic ability in the aircraft? 

 

Currently, I'm doing maneuvers on 1060 liters or less of fuel, to ensure the auxiliary fuel tank is drained and trying to follow the instructions from the publicly available P-47N pilots handbook. 

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

Been trying out the P-47D-28 with the 3.010 flight model updates, and finding it is rather non-trivial doing any acrobatic maneuvers in it. 

 

So, I'm wondering if people know of good resources, and good practice routines to develop acrobatic ability in the aircraft?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NWaHlnI_LQ

 

Should do I hope... Notice what it says at 6:04 and what we have in the sim.

[Legioneod]

54 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NWaHlnI_LQ

 

Should do I hope... Notice what it says at 6:04 and what we have in the sim.

Good video.

Yep, unfortunately thats not the only thing wrong with the 47 at the moment. Still a fun aircraft to fly though.

 

For any type of turning maneuver I use flaps, the P-47 loves to stall for some reason so flaps help to offset this. Vertical maneuvers are pretty difficult sometimes and you have to either use flaps or time it perfectly.

 

Imo the P-47 is too maneuverable with flaps and not maneuverable enough without them.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Legioneod

[Voyager]

I'm trying to avoid depending on the flaps. At least according to the manual, they don't always deploy at the same time.

 

If that ever gets modelled, using them in a turn fight would become incredibly dangerous. 

[Legioneod]

23 minutes ago, Voyager said:

I'm trying to avoid depending on the flaps. At least according to the manual, they don't always deploy at the same time.

 

If that ever gets modelled, using them in a turn fight would become incredibly dangerous. 

Yep, they were rarely, if ever used in combat yet in-game the only way to get decent maneuverability is with flaps.

 

The P-47 isnt as maneuverable as it should be imo without flaps. It doesn't match up with first hand accounts. (I'm not saying it should be as maneuverable as it is with flaps)

 

One area where the P-47 is lacking quite heavily is it's high speed and high altitude maneuverability.

P-47 is a work in progress so hopefully these things will be adjusted over time.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Legioneod

[sevenless]

They were able to hunt down Guenther Rall (275 kills ace) in his G5/AS on 12th may 1944, so the P-47 needs some performance love still. 

 

[Legioneod]

6 hours ago, sevenless said:

They were able to hunt down Guenther Rall (275 kills ace) in his G5/AS on 12th may 1944, so the P-47 needs some performance love still. 

 

 

Yep. The P-47 is gimped currently. It does things it should never do yet can't do the things it actually did.

 

They made the jug into a low speed, low altitude, turn fighter instead of a high speed, high altitude fighter.

It lacks elevator authority so it can't BnZ properly, it can't dive to it's full potential because it loses parts, it's engine is gimped, and the list goes on. Yet I can outurn an I-16 and turn with a Spitfire and even outturn it.

 

I really like the P-47 but I'll be the first to admit that it's completely broken, with flaps down I can outturn everything in the game and become a UFO.

It angers me that I can't do what the Jug was really good at yet I can do something nearly impossible.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Legioneod

[smink1701]

I have to say the P47 is a great disappointment.  Beautiful to behold but with the grace of a pig on skates.  There is no way this could be used as an effective fighter at any altitude with the current FM.  I would love to hear from Jason on his flying experience fighting with the the Jug.  There is no way Gabreski or Johnson could have racked up their impressive number kills with this FM.

[Voyager]

To be fair, the manual I've got lists the loop entry speed as 350 ias, while the maximum IAS at 25,000 ft was 360mph.

 

30,000 is only 318 mph IAS! 

 

I'm beginning to think that the problems are that the high altitude models for most of the other aircraft are far to forgiving, and what we're seeing in the P-47D-28 FM are the realities of high altitude flight. 

 

Interestingly enough, I did run into an interview with Gabreski on YouTube, and what he liked about it was the excellent view out of the plane, and the ability to have 2000hp on tap all the way up to 30,000 ft meant he could always disengage. He does not say anything about manuverability. 

 

People forget that the K-4 was an end war super-prop that saw almost no meaningful service during the war, and that the 1.98 ata version may have only been a couple dozen planes.

 

I'll note that the only squadrons that liked the P-47 were the ones that trained on it. Other squadrons that transferred in from Spitfires or other high performance fighters generally regarded it with a mixture of hatred and contempt. I suspect that we will see the P-51 be the popular US fighter, but that we will also see a small number of P-47 downwards who master the plane and deliver surprising results with it that most other pilots won't be able to replicate. 

[smink1701]

Well said!

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

To be fair, the manual I've got lists the loop entry speed as 350 ias, while the maximum IAS at 25,000 ft was 360mph.

 

30,000 is only 318 mph IAS! 

 

I'm beginning to think that the problems are that the high altitude models for most of the other aircraft are far to forgiving, and what we're seeing in the P-47D-28 FM are the realities of high altitude flight. 

 

Interestingly enough, I did run into an interview with Gabreski on YouTube, and what he liked about it was the excellent view out of the plane, and the ability to have 2000hp on tap all the way up to 30,000 ft meant he could always disengage. He does not say anything about manuverability. 

 

People forget that the K-4 was an end war super-prop that saw almost no meaningful service during the war, and that the 1.98 ata version may have only been a couple dozen planes.

 

I'll note that the only squadrons that liked the P-47 were the ones that trained on it. Other squadrons that transferred in from Spitfires or other high performance fighters generally regarded it with a mixture of hatred and contempt. I suspect that we will see the P-51 be the popular US fighter, but that we will also see a small number of P-47 downwards who master the plane and deliver surprising results with it that most other pilots won't be able to replicate. 

 

The P-47 in game speed matches speeds on documents they used, and your right early other airplane models are to fast up high, especialy radials. That picture few posts up is nice but online your not fighting G6s your fighting unlimited K4 1.98s that are faster then it at any alt. And then you just need to drop that flaps and outturn them as P-47D is best turn fighter in game now, so forghet about what you read in ww2 books and just use it like fast Spitfire and youll be ok 

Its fun for 5-10min low alt, turn fights on berloga vs oponents it has to face in game, engine limitations are strange and flaps turn abilitys make it perfect turn fighter.

Edited February 6, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

To be fair, the manual I've got lists the loop entry speed as 350 ias, while the maximum IAS at 25,000 ft was 360mph.

 

30,000 is only 318 mph IAS! 

 

I'm beginning to think that the problems are that the high altitude models for most of the other aircraft are far to forgiving, and what we're seeing in the P-47D-28 FM are the realities of high altitude flight. 

 

Interestingly enough, I did run into an interview with Gabreski on YouTube, and what he liked about it was the excellent view out of the plane, and the ability to have 2000hp on tap all the way up to 30,000 ft meant he could always disengage. He does not say anything about manuverability. 

 

People forget that the K-4 was an end war super-prop that saw almost no meaningful service during the war, and that the 1.98 ata version may have only been a couple dozen planes.

 

I'll note that the only squadrons that liked the P-47 were the ones that trained on it. Other squadrons that transferred in from Spitfires or other high performance fighters generally regarded it with a mixture of hatred and contempt. I suspect that we will see the P-51 be the popular US fighter, but that we will also see a small number of P-47 downwards who master the plane and deliver surprising results with it that most other pilots won't be able to replicate. 

 

I agree the P-47 was never the most maneuverable aircraft but it was one of the best up high and could maneuver at all altitudes quite well.

What we have in-game is a P-47 that can't maneuver well without flaps but it better than a Spitfire when using flaps.

My friend recorded a video of me out-turning him in an I-16, the P-47 is completely broken and backwards compared to reality.

 

What the P-47 should be able to do:

-Dive without breaking structure

-Zoom climb very well (can sorta do this in-game)

-BnZ and other high speed attacks (can't do this very well because it lacks elevator authority and can't pull enough G.

-Be maneuverable at altitude (currently it stalls at the slightest touch of the stick when in reality it was regarded as the best allied fighter above 25,000 ft.)

-Have good elevator authority

-Have WEP for it's full 15 min water tank.

 

What the P-47 can do in-game.

-Stall fight a Bf-109 by dropping flaps and becoming a UFO

-Turn better than any aircraft currently in the game.

-Engine dies after 5 min at WEP.

-Is a dog up high and can't maneuver without stalling.

 

I know some of you may think I'm being too critical of the P-47 but it's obvious that it is broken. It's far too maneuverable with flaps (which were never be used to begin with iirc) and it can't maneuver very well without them.

 

In real life the 47 could turn with a 109 in certain circumstances but not in a slow speed turnfight like it does in-game. I want it to be realistic and have it's proper strengths (Dive, Zoom, Roll, high altitude maneuverability) and not be some crazy UFO like it is now.

 

I don't care if the Jug is a dog down low since it kinda was irl, it could hold it's own down low of course but it was never known to be the best down low. Irl the P-47 was king up-high and not much could beat it when it got into it's preferred territory. The Jug performed well above 10-15k ft irl and was excellent above 20-25k ft, yet in game it struggles to fight in a historical way and with tactics that it actually used.

 

I still have hope that it will be fixed but so far I'm a bit disappointed with the P-47, though I'll still fly it no matter what.

[CountZero]

How situation is in game better leve high alt fights to 190a3 or la5fn, we all know that are high alt fighters ?  there is reason why in ww2 vvs send p-47s north to watch ice melt around murmansk, it seams they already had high alt fighters like la5s  

Edited February 6, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

How situation is in game better leve high alt fights to 190a3 or la5fn, we all know that are high alt fighters ?  there is reason why in ww2 vvs send p-47s north to watch ice melt around murmansk, it seams they already had high alt fighters like la5s  

 

I'm surprised the Russians didn't love the P-47 with it's superior turn-rate and UFO like abilities.

Maybe the Russians didn't want another turn fighter?

[CountZero]

7 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I'm surprised the Russians didn't love the P-47 with it's superior turn-rate and UFO like abilities.

Maybe the Russians didn't want another turn fighter?

good point, but only yak can outturn axis airplanes, even i-16 cant outurn e7, so must be that its wrong that vvs liked turn fight, and them rejecting p-47 proves it ?

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

good point, but only yak can outturn axis airplanes, even i-16 cant outurn e7, so must be that its wrong that vvs liked turn fight, and them rejecting p-47 proves it ?

It all makes sense now. I'm surprised the Americans got so many kills in the P-47 when they were using it incorrectly.

Typical Americans, don't know how to fly.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Legioneod

[Voyager]

36 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

What the P-47 should be able to do:

-Dive without breaking structure

-Zoom climb very well (can sorta do this in-game)

-BnZ and other high speed attacks (can't do this very well because it lacks elevator authority and can't pull enough G.

-Be maneuverable at altitude (currently it stalls at the slightest touch of the stick when in reality it was regarded as the best allied fighter above 25,000 ft.)

-Have good elevator authority

-Have WEP for it's full 15 min water tank.

 

What the P-47 can do in-game.

-Stall fight a Bf-109 by dropping flaps and becoming a UFO

-Turn better than any aircraft currently in the game.

-Engine dies after 5 min at WEP.

-Is a dog up high and can't maneuver without stalling.

 

I'm going to take a bit of an issue with the discussion of high altitude manuverability. The Vne at 25,000 ft is the same as the minimum loop entry speed. That's one of the basic fundamental acrobatic manuvers. 

 

Are you contending that the plane should be able to perform the loop at that altitude? Or are you contending that the loop should be possible at less than 350 IAS? 

 

What standard are you using to define manuverability? What maneuvers at what entry speeds should be viable at which altitudes? 

 

I'm arguing, from the pilots handbooks, that the P-47,sans flaps, manuverability is correct; it is the *rest* of the aircraft that are probably wrong at 25,000 ft. 

[Ehret]

Just wait for the release of the P-51D... I have a weird feeling that we may end with "Zerostang" to accompany "Thunderspit". The former IRL was used with combat flaps settings sometimes; there are remarks about that in pilots encounter notes.

[Voyager]

Not sure I'd expect that, actually. The Mustang's wing had some nasty stall characteristics, and laminare flow wing in general has very different, and well defined aerodynamic characteristics from the S-foil used on the Seversky/Republic aircraft. 

 

Now I am very curious how they'll handle the fuel tanks; the combination of the three tanks is reported to have required constant trimming as they drained. First nose to tail as the aft one emptied, then side to side as the pilot alternated the wing tanks. 

[Legioneod]

35 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Just wait for the release of the P-51D... I have a weird feeling that we may end with "Zerostang" to accompany "Thunderspit". The former IRL was used with combat flaps settings sometimes; there are remarks about that in pilots encounter notes.

 

Def gonna happen. No doubt. I've also read of the P-51 using flaps though I've never read of an instance where the P-47 used them.

 

2 minutes ago, Voyager said:

Not sure I'd expect that, actually. The Mustang's wing had some nasty stall characteristics, and laminare flow wing in general has very different, and well defined aerodynamic characteristics from the S-foil used on the Seversky/Republic aircraft. 

 

Now I am very curious how they'll handle the fuel tanks; the combination of the three tanks is reported to have required constant trimming as they drained. First nose to tail as the aft one emptied, then side to side as the pilot alternated the wing tanks. 

 

If you really believe they will get the P-51 correct after getting the 47 so wrong you got another thing coming. It would amaze me if they got it correct after seeing the P-47.

 

I'll post a video later of how ridiculous the P-47 currently is.

[Voyager]

I'm not convinced that the non-flaps flight model is wrong, given that it lines up well with the pilots handbook descriptions of what you can, and cannot do in the plane. 

 

The primary issue I'm seeing with flaps is that they are modelled deploying symmetrically. If the asymmetric deployment alone is modelled, that will oblivate the issues with flap turns. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

 

 I'm arguing, from the pilots handbooks, that the P-47,sans flaps, manuverability is correct; it is the *rest* of the aircraft that are probably wrong at 25,000 ft. 

NACA report on P-47s flight characteristics describe the P-47s stall far different then they are in the game currently, namely that in an accelerated stall, lateral instability is easily controlled by the ailerons, ingame you drop a wing with no warning and with no way to save it.

Edited February 6, 2019 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[Voyager]

1 minute ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

NACA report on P-47s flight characteristics describe the P-47s stall far different then they are in the game currently, namely that in an accelerated stall, lateral instability is easily controlled by the ailerons, ingame you drop a wing with no warning and with now way to save it.

 

 

Very cool. This is the basic stuff we need to identify and analyze issues. Do you know where one can get a copy?

 

I am also curious if this was a razorback, bubbletop, or bubble top with tail fillet. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 minute ago, Voyager said:

 

 

Very cool. This is the basic stuff we need to identify and analyze issues. Do you know where one can get a copy?

 

I am also curious if this was a razorback, bubbletop, or bubble top with tail fillet. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/Naca_TN_2899__F-47D-30_Flight_Test.pdf
P-47D-30, but as far as I am concerned, it is suitable.The two major additions, the tail fin extension was to counter yaw instability, and dive flaps to aid in getting out of a high speed dive. Not what we are dealing with.

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

NACA report on P-47s flight characteristics describe the P-47s stall far different then they are in the game currently, namely that in an accelerated stall, lateral instability is easily controlled by the ailerons, ingame you drop a wing with no warning and with now way to save it.

This. This affects the maneuverability pretty significantly and this is one of the thins I meant.

[Voyager]

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/Naca_TN_2899__F-47D-30_Flight_Test.pdf
P-47D-30, but as far as I am concerned, it is suitable.The two major additions, the tail fin extension was to counter yaw instability, and dive flaps to aid in getting out of a high speed dive. Not what we are dealing with.

 

Thank you very much. I think I'd like to try running those tests myself. I'll see if I can record them to for uploading. It should be informative, and if nothing else, good practice. 

 

I'm finding this plane has a *lot* of moving parts; the more practice, the better. 

[HR_Zunzun]

3 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

I'm going to take a bit of an issue with the discussion of high altitude manuverability. The Vne at 25,000 ft is the same as the minimum loop entry speed. That's one of the basic fundamental acrobatic manuvers. 

 

Are you contending that the plane should be able to perform the loop at that altitude? Or are you contending that the loop should be possible at less than 350 IAS? 

 

What standard are you using to define maneuverability? What maneuvers at what entry speeds should be viable at which altitudes? 

 

I'm arguing, from the pilots handbooks, that the P-47,sans flaps, maneuverability is correct; it is the *rest* of the aircraft that are probably wrong at 25,000 ft. 

 

Maneuverability is not defined by the ability to perform a loop but more the ability to change a plane of motion effectively (or at least better than opposition). It can be at low or high speed (eg. zero vs 190 to put two extreme examples). Ideally at both high and low speed and in all planes of motion but perfect fighter doesn't exist.

In any case, looping is not what I consider a high altitude useful combat maneuver. I think that more useful is good speed at altitude, good dive, good climb or good zoom (to get above your enemy) and good elevator authority when diving. 

I completely agree with Legioneod in regard that the P-47 currently seems to lack high speed authority and, on the contrary, enjoy a low speed controlability very dubious (very fun but very dubious).

 

[Voyager]

6 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/Naca_TN_2899__F-47D-30_Flight_Test.pdf
P-47D-30, but as far as I am concerned, it is suitable.The two major additions, the tail fin extension was to counter yaw instability, and dive flaps to aid in getting out of a high speed dive. Not what we are dealing with.

 

Rather interesting reading through that. I'm trying to make sure I understand what the charts are saying. One of the things that jumped out at me was the high altitude, low speed turn charts:

Forward CoG (pg 45) | Rearward CoG (pg 47)

 

 

So, am I understanding the Rearward CoG turn chart: 199 mph, at 23,000 ft. Is that actually saying you need a *negative* stickforce to maintain a 2G turn? I.e. You roll over then push down on the stick to go up?

 

It also seems to be implying in the CoG forward configuration, that, in the right turn at 298mph at 24,500 ft, it requires 50lbs of stick for to get a 3g turn, with a total 4 degrees of deflection on the elevator?

 

Are those correct readings of what we're seeing in these charts?

 

Thank you,

 

Harry Voyager

[Voyager]

On a separate thread, tried some simple comparative flights with the Fw-190A-8, Bf-109K-4 and P-47D-28.

 

Basic profile was to take off and climb to 20,000 ft and do turns. One thing that jumped out is, I don't think the 190 or 109 can get there in a reasonable time in 'continuous' mode. The P-47 can. 

 

The other thing that jumped out at me was, for long climbs, the German plane end up having higher workloads, because of the lack of rudder trim and the clock watching. 

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, Voyager said:

On a separate thread, tried some simple comparative flights with the Fw-190A-8, Bf-109K-4 and P-47D-28.

 

Basic profile was to take off and climb to 20,000 ft and do turns. One thing that jumped out is, I don't think the 190 or 109 can get there in a reasonable time in 'continuous' mode. The P-47 can. 

 

The other thing that jumped out at me was, for long climbs, the German plane end up having higher workloads, because of the lack of rudder trim and the clock watching. 

Strange. I'd run the test again. The P-47 and A8 are close when it comes to climb performance but I find the A8 climbs faster. The K4 is a rocket and I can reach 20,000ft in no time at continuous mode. P-47 on the other hand takes a long time to climb on continuous.

[CountZero]

4 hours ago, Voyager said:

On a separate thread, tried some simple comparative flights with the Fw-190A-8, Bf-109K-4 and P-47D-28.

 

Basic profile was to take off and climb to 20,000 ft and do turns. One thing that jumped out is, I don't think the 190 or 109 can get there in a reasonable time in 'continuous' mode. The P-47 can. 

 

The other thing that jumped out at me was, for long climbs, the German plane end up having higher workloads, because of the lack of rudder trim and the clock watching. 

 

Why even climb on continues on K4, you can climb 10min using emergancy, then 10min using cmbat (while your emergancy recharges), then 10min emergancy, then 10min combat then 5min emergancy, and then you run out of fuel

On 47 you can do 5min emergancy, then 10min combat and then you have to fly 15 min continues to recharg combat and emergancy, its easy to see what timer and recharg system works better. You have to use continues in P-47 most of time, while on axis you dont have to ever use it.

It seams that P-47 engine is so fragile, its so amazing that germany was making so good and relaiable 1.98 engines in their last years of war, while poor allieds had to be so limited in using their poor engines as they would brake like glass if you just looked it wrong ?

Edited February 7, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[Aap]

4 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

K4, you can climb 10min using emergancy, then 10min using cmbat (while your emergancy recharges), then 10min emergancy, then 10min combat then 5min emergancy

 

Are you sure of that? It has a 30 minute limit for combat power, so are you saying that in the game it "recharges" combat timer, when you use 2800 RPM, 1.8 ata (emergency power) instead of 2600 RPM 1.45 ata (combat power)?

[CountZero]

it dosent waist combat timer when waists emergancy timer, so you can just use it like that 10+10+10+10+5

 

Here is also Talons post about it after witch i tested and saw same (thats the big advantage of how this timer recharg system of engines work in axis favor and hurts heavy usaf airplanes in game):

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[Blackhawk_FR]

On 2/6/2019 at 9:06 AM, Legioneod said:

Yet I can outurn an I-16 and turn with a Spitfire and even outturn it.

 

 

If you did it, it's just the Spitfire or I16 pilot don't know he have to pull on the stick to perform a tight turn. 

Edited February 7, 2019 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

 

If you did it, it's just the Spitfire or I16 pilot don't know he have to pull on the stick to perform a tight turn. 

Nope, friend was giving full deflection on the stick. P-47 is just broken.

[Blackhawk_FR]

58 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Nope, friend was giving full deflection on the stick. P-47 is just broken.

 

Before last update, to me it was already completely impossible to outturn a Spitfire with P47. 

It's even more impossible since last update due to P47 FM change.

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

Before last update, to me it was already completely impossible to outturn a Spitfire with P47. 

It's even more impossible since last update due to P47 FM change.

 

Well I can show you the video if you'd like. I've done it, and I have witnesses. (Keep in mind I'm talking about with flaps. Without flaps it's impossible)