Jump to content
Legioneod

P-47 Flight Model Discussion

Recommended Posts

It is just my person opinion but its look like we have in game P 47 B or C...This plane is soooo lazy and has problem to get speed but should not be because better propeller. Our P47 D has same problem like Fw 190  had before. I think this plane need more love. Yeah i know about do not take full fuel etc... so what do you think guys? and just look on youtube where P 47D fly in real live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Art said:

It is just my person opinion but its look like we have in game P 47 B or C...This plane is soooo lazy and has problem to get speed but should not be because better propeller. Our P47 D has same problem like Fw 190  had before. I think this plane need more love. Yeah i know about do not take full fuel etc... so what do you think guys? and just look on youtube where P 47D fly in real live.

IMO the P-47 seems to climb and maneuver mostly as I would expect. If you look at the model they based it off of and compare the numbers you get in game they are pretty close. The P-47 was just not a good climber, even with the improved propeller. The roll rate is very good, as in real life. Much is made of the P-47 not diving well in game but I don't find that to be the case, its just that pilot anecdotes have set people up for some physics-breaking expectations of dive performance in the Jug. The only issue in the dive IMO is the P-47 losing control surfaces, which I think should not happen and compressibility effects should instead be better simulated to show dive limits.

The issues seem to be the flaps, the damage model, and the engine timers not really representing the kind of stress the engine could be put under. 

I'm convinced that the flaps behaviour is some kind of global issue, given other stated issues with the 190, Spitfire, etc. I've followed so many discussions on it that I just finally have to acknowledge that I don't know enough to offer constructive opinions on it, every discussion veers into aeronautical knowledge I don't have, which just shows how hard it is to get these things right. I just don't use the flaps in combat on the P-47 and ignore that particular issue, as far as I can tell flaps were not used in combat for the P-47, and when in landing configuration they seem to work as expected.

And its the same with the engine timers - they just use the manual figures so they can hang their hat on something specific, rather than trying to guess at how hard you should really be able to push the engine. Its a global issue that affects aircraft with more restrictive manual instructions than aircraft that don't have those restrictions. The only way that's getting fixed is a more sophisticated engine damage model that ditches timers, which I do hope to see at some point in the future.

The damage model for the P-47 is too fragile IMO. I don't expect the legendary flying tank that people talk about but I find the engine is less durable than contemporary inline engines and the P-47 seems to lose pieces and wings very easily.

BTW, when I first started flying the Jug I found it to be incredibly sluggish too, and the issue was twofold: I had my mixture set too low, and I was not using the turbo correctly. The Auto-rich setting for the P-47 is around 84%, whereas other planes have the auto rich setting much lower, like at 66%, so if you are setting things by the tech chat then you may not be getting a rich enough mixture for full performance. 

The other thing is that unless you are flying really slow at high settings, the P-47 does not really need its cowl flaps open at all, and in fact you shouldn't have them open above 200 mph. Even having them open a little causes a huge reduction in speed.

Once you get to altitude in the P-47, its performance increases dramatically, and with full boost on it can be a beast. The Jug is hampered in the game by the fact that nearly all the action takes place below 10000 feet, and probably 75% of that takes place below 7000 feet. At 10000 feet the Jug is just starting to find its legs.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed wise the P-47 seems pretty close but the bubbletop adds tons of drag compared to the Razorback versions. I did some testing and the bubbletop seems to cause significant loss in speed (upwards of 18-20mph) at lower/similar power settings other than WEP.

 

My only complaint with the P-47 dive performance is that it losses parts in the dive which shouldn't happen. The P-47 was very well built and it could survive dives past it's critical mach number, in game we start to lose parts right around critical mach iirc, which shouldn't happen. Basically the P-47 should never lose parts due to high speed dives, it would reach it's limiting mach (fastest it could possibly dive) before losing any parts.

 

The DM is the biggest flaw with the P-47 currently, it's way to weak compared to other aircraft and does not live up to the real life counterpart.

 

My only other "complaint" is that we don't have 150 octane fuel, it's not a necessity but would be very nice to have when flying at lower altitudes and would give a decent boost in performance.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Speed wise the P-47 seems pretty close but the bubbletop adds tons of drag compared to the Razorback versions. I did some testing and the bubbletop seems to cause significant loss in speed (upwards of 18-20mph) at lower/similar power settings other than WEP.

 

My only complaint with the P-47 dive performance is that it losses parts in the dive which shouldn't happen. The P-47 was very well built and it could survive dives past it's critical mach number, in game we start to lose parts right around critical mach iirc, which shouldn't happen. Basically the P-47 should never lose parts due to high speed dives, it would reach it's limiting mach (fastest it could possibly dive) before losing any parts.

 

The DM is the biggest flaw with the P-47 currently, it's way to weak compared to other aircraft and does not live up to the real life counterpart.

 

My only other "complaint" is that we don't have 150 octane fuel, it's not a necessity but would be very nice to have when flying at lower altitudes and would give a decent boost in performance.

I actually hope at some point we will see a razorback in sim. Of course, checking six in it will be nearly impossible.

Share this post


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

I actually hope at some point we will see a razorback in sim. Of course, checking six in it will be nearly impossible.

Me too, Razorbacks are my favorite P-47 type. They were fast as well, especially the later versions like the D-22, it was faster than the bubbletops and had a better prop than the D-28 that we have in-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest complaint with the P-47 performance right now is the OPs limits on the engine. Especially with emergency eating your combat power, the plane is next to useless. The 47 needs all its power to be competitive and the way it is now you cant really use any of that power because of the way the OPs limits are done.

 

This is an issue that really needs to be addressed, not just with the P47. This really is a meme at this point since we now have planes in this game that make this look more silly than ever before, like the spitfire having an hour of climb power but the P-51 cant hold and hour at an equivalent power setting.

 

Stuff like this ends up really skews the performance of alot of airplanes. On the P-47 you cant really dare use even little combat power outside of a fight because you will need every single ounce of it if you get into even one fight. The only thing you can use WEP for is dogfighting, since using it for speed is literally a waste of time. IF you manage to run someone down by using max power, you wont be able to use it once you get into the fight.

 

And this is problem on other planes as well, where planes that have similar top end performance have to choose between having power for a dogfight or using that power to chase someone. And heaven forbid you have to run away, because if you commit to a long chase where your on the defensive you might as well just head home as you will be out of useful power by the time its over. This is presuming some 109 with 10min of wep doesn't just outlast you.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I actually hope at some point we will see a razorback in sim. Of course, checking six in it will be nearly impossible.

 

I don't think the rear vis is that bad, the rear cutouts seem to be pretty large, in the P-40 they work rather well, it has decent rear visibility. Also we could get mods with Malcom Hood which would improve it.

 

1 hour ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

he spitfire having an hour of climb power but the P-51 cant hold and hour at an equivalent power setting.

 

Just small correction, the P-51 does run at roughly 1 hour at the same power setting than the Spitfire LF Mk IX, 12 boost at 2850 RPM vs 54" at 2850 RPM. I think the Spit doesn't last for 15 min at the equivalent of 61" at 3000 RPM (+15 boost) as it is considered emergency power unlike in the P-51.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

My biggest complaint with the P-47 performance right now is the OPs limits on the engine. Especially with emergency eating your combat power, the plane is next to useless. The 47 needs all its power to be competitive and the way it is now you cant really use any of that power because of the way the OPs limits are done.

 

This is an issue that really needs to be addressed, not just with the P47. This really is a meme at this point since we now have planes in this game that make this look more silly than ever before, like the spitfire having an hour of climb power but the P-51 cant hold and hour at an equivalent power setting.

 

Stuff like this ends up really skews the performance of alot of airplanes. On the P-47 you cant really dare use even little combat power outside of a fight because you will need every single ounce of it if you get into even one fight. The only thing you can use WEP for is dogfighting, since using it for speed is literally a waste of time. IF you manage to run someone down by using max power, you wont be able to use it once you get into the fight.

 

And this is problem on other planes as well, where planes that have similar top end performance have to choose between having power for a dogfight or using that power to chase someone. And heaven forbid you have to run away, because if you commit to a long chase where your on the defensive you might as well just head home as you will be out of useful power by the time its over. This is presuming some 109 with 10min of wep doesn't just outlast you.

Yes, engine limits need alot of work and the P-47 is a special case imo. The P-47 unlike most aircraft has ADI and only 15min of it, once the ADI runs out it has to run at reduced power and can no longer run at WEP.

My suggestion is to allow the P-47 to use it's 15min of WEP in one go, it could be done irl and is suggested in some manuals and training videos.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Planes which had combat flaps of course could use them and propably used them too. But in BoX you see everyone and their granny dropping FULL flaps in dogfight without much punishment. 109´s and 190´s drop them seldom as you loose E in turns like hell anyway so every bit of preserved E means life expectancy is a bit longer. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree with you guys. Maybe I make a mistake. I mean engine thrust. I have feel when you lost speed you have big problem and long time to get new one. Our D28 has Hamilton Standard propeller, right? Maybe is about octane fuel i dont know but i am rly disappoint about this plane and his engine power to get speed. This disagree about what i read or i have bad information :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Art said:

Yes I agree with you guys. Maybe I make a mistake. I mean engine thrust. I have feel when you lost speed you have big problem and long time to get new one. Our D28 has Hamilton Standard propeller, right? Maybe is about octane fuel i dont know but i am rly disappoint about this plane and his engine power to get speed. This disagree about what i read or i have bad information :D

Our P-47 has the AO Smith Prop

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Yes I agree with you guys. Maybe I make a mistake. I mean engine thrust. I have feel when you lost speed you have big problem and long time to get new one. Our D28 has Hamilton Standard propeller, right? Maybe is about octane fuel i dont know but i am rly disappoint about this plane and his engine power to get speed. This disagree about what i read or i have bad information 😄

AO Smith ingame, but was fitted with the Curtis Electric from the factory. Why they went with the AO Smith idk.

D-28 never used Hamilton prop, curtis props were slightly worse in level speed (around 9mph) but everything else was roughly equal between the Hamilton and Curtis.

 

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Our P-47 has the AO Smith Prop

Is there any performance difference between the Curtis and AO Smith? I know there was a speed difference of around 9mph when using the Hamilton vs the Curtis, but I havent been able to find any info regarding the AO Smith.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AO Smith was a 12'2" paddle blade prop, so yes, there'd be a difference. On wwiiaircraftperformance you can find a test with an AO Smith prop, intended to be comparative, but the aircraft caught fire mid air on there's only performance with one AO Smith prop. It's pretty bad compared to other tests, but this could be the particular aircraft.

 

According to the internet, the 28RE came with Curtiss props, the 28RA's with AOS props.

Share this post


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

The AO Smith was a 12'2" paddle blade prop, so yes, there'd be a difference. On wwiiaircraftperformance you can find a test with an AO Smith prop, intended to be comparative, but the aircraft caught fire mid air on there's only performance with one AO Smith prop. It's pretty bad compared to other tests, but this could be the particular aircraft.

 

According to the internet, the 28RE came with Curtiss props, the 28RA's with AOS props.

Man, I know how that feels.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now with the announcement of Battle of Normandy and a P-47D (Razorback) the P-47D-28 will hopefully get 150 octane.

Will also be interesting to see which D model we are getting

(a Early model like a D-5 or a late D-23 etc) and how it will compare with our P-47D-28.

Share this post


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

Now with the announcement of Battle of Normandy and a P-47D (Razorback) the P-47D-28 will hopefully get 150 octane.

Will also be interesting to see which D model we are getting

(a Early model like a D-5 or a late D-23 etc) and how it will compare with our P-47D-28.

I truly hope for the D-22. It was the BEST Razorback block ever made. 

 

Hamilton Standard Prop

150 octane option for 70”

Faster than all other Razorbacks and most Bubbletops when using later boost settings.

P-47D-22 is my dream, D-23 doesn’t really interest me just because it has a Curtis Prop and has slightly poorer performance.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 7:14 PM, Matt said:

Actually all guns have a delay. In case of WW2 guns, it's set to 1 ms ingame (it's 2 ms for the WW1 guns of FC). So it's easily possible to create a desynchronized behaviour by copying the guns and changing the delay for each gun. Then editing the plane files to use those different guns. Takes less than 5 minutes.

 

I suggested it a few years ago for the P-40.

Flying the P-47 and the synced guns bother me a lot. I remember in the old Il-2 it took years and too many topics addressed to devs to desync .50s, so I am quite surprised that we have this "problem" here again. If it's really 5 minutes of work, it should have been implemented long time ago, I hope that devs will do it soon.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Flying the P-47 and the synced guns bother me a lot. I remember in the old Il-2 it took years and too many topics addressed to devs to desync .50s, so I am quite surprised that we have this "problem" here again. If it's really 5 minutes of work, it should have been implemented long time ago, I hope that devs will do it soon.

Yep, one of the things that bother me the most with American aircraft. The guns need to be desynced.

 

Gun desync and harmonization patterns are some of the things I want most for American aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if wing mounted guns on other aircraft were synchronized IRL? What about Spitfires mkIs, IIs, later mks, Hurricanes, Typhoons/Tempests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really about the FM, but can someone tell my why the P-47 doesn't have HVARs? 

The P-47's from the 9th AF received them right after D-Day, why don't they have them in Bodenplatte??p47sss.jpg.67c10f966a73ef4b4e882ac18096c8db.jpg
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Y-29.Silky said:

Not really about the FM, but can someone tell my why the P-47 doesn't have HVARs? 

The P-47's from the 9th AF received them right after D-Day, why don't they have them in Bodenplatte??p47sss.jpg.67c10f966a73ef4b4e882ac18096c8db.jpg
 

Wasn't as common in the ETO and the D could only carry 4 of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CountZero What are your top speeds for the P-47 at high altitude around 29K ft? I remember you did some test so I'm curious how it compares to mine. 

From my test the P-47 is too slow at high altitudes and doesn't produce the proper manifold pressure.

 

My best speed at 29,000 was only 421mph TAS and at 32,000 it was only 392mph TAS. I was also only able to produce 52" of manifold which is incorrect.(I think)

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

@CountZero What are your top speeds for the P-47 at high altitude around 29K ft? I remember you did some test so I'm curious how it compares to mine. 

From my test the P-47 is too slow at high altitudes and doesn't produce the proper manifold pressure.

 

My best speed at 29,000 was only 421mph TAS and at 32,000 it was only 392mph TAS. I was also only able to produce 52" of manifold which is incorrect.(I think)

680kmh so around 422mph TAS, but if i use manual rpm and incresed rpm to around 2900 it can do 700kmh ( 435mph)   but for 2-3min and you risk braking engine.

 

Top speeds dont look like problem for me in most amrican airplanes they are limited by to strick engine timers, and then add to that devs not fixing bug wth techmessages that would tell you like for other things when timer is out, your basicly playing airplane with random failures, so i just skip them as mutch as posible untill devs fix atleast techchat, so i know when system they decided to use to limit engines wonts me to stop, real pilots were not limited like that so if we are limited by game, THEN WE NEED TO BE INFORMED BY GAME WHEN DEVS WONTS US TO STOP USING POWER SETTINGS 😄

Edited by CountZero

Share this post


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

680kmh so around 422mph TAS, but if i use manual rpm and incresed rpm to around 2900 it can do 700kmh ( 435mph)   but for 2-3min and you risk braking engine.

 

Top speeds dont look like problem for me in most amrican airplanes they are limited by to strick engine timers, and then add to that devs not fixing bug wth techmessages that would tell you like for other things when timer is out, your basicly playing airplane with random failures, so i just skip them as mutch as posible untill devs fix atleast techchat, so i know when system they decided to use to limit engines wonts me to stop, real pilots were not limited like that so if we are WE NEED TO BE INFORMED WHEN GAME WONTS US TO STOP USING POWER SETTINGS :P

The speed at altitude is wrong then and needs to be checked by the devs.

 

High speed at full power(2700 rpm) should be 435mph at 32,000ft and 443mph at 29,000ft at least from what this report is telling me.

 

Also we should be able to get 56” at 29,000ft but we can only get 52” which is probably why we see errors in the high speed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The speed at altitude is wrong then and needs to be checked by the devs.

 

High speed at full power(2700 rpm) should be 435mph at 32,000ft and 443mph at 29,000ft at least from what this report is telling me.

 

Also we should be able to get 56” at 29,000ft but we can only get 52” which is probably why we see errors in the high speed.

Its exactly same as speed on alt from documents they show they worked it out for airplane. I think Gavric posted it when P-47 was first out, as ppl complained that top speed at alt is to slow. So he show that its exactly as in doc they used.

Share this post


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

Its exactly same as speed on alt from documents they show they worked it out for airplane. I think Gavric posted it when P-47 was first out, as ppl complained that top speed at alt is to slow. So he show that its exactly as in doc they used.

 

It is too slow above critical altitude. P-47 should be able to get 56" at 29,000 ft but in-game we can only get 52". This leads to lower speeds than what we should be able to get. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pm Han or Gavrick and maybe they fix it then, to me it looks fast enought up high, and maybe something got changed when they fixed high alts speeds of airplanes last year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:

Not really about the FM, but can someone tell my why the P-47 doesn't have HVARs? 

The P-47's from the 9th AF received them right after D-Day, why don't they have them in Bodenplatte??p47sss.jpg.67c10f966a73ef4b4e882ac18096c8db.jpg
 

That picture is an N model P-47 that only seen service in the pacific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-47 documents/performance reports are so confusing. I've been researching the different power levels/critical altitudes and it seems the reports sometimes conflict with each other.

I don't have all the documents available right now but as soon as I do I'll write something up and post it here for others to examine and give their input on if I'm correct or not.

 

For now I'll just post this interesting and confusing bit that I'm working on solving. (numbers are off the top of my head but should be within 1-2mph. Speeds are at respective critical altitudes)

 

P-47D: 56" 2700 rpm has a critical altitude of 29,000ft and a high speed of 443mph.

P-47D :64" 2700 rpm has critical altitude of around 24,500ft and high speed of 443mph

P-47D: 70" 2700 rpm has critical altitude of 21,500ft and high speed of 445mph.

 

My question is why is a P-47 at 64/70" shown as being slower above it's critical altitude even though it can still produce the same power that it previously could?

For instance a P-47D running 70" at 21,000ft can still produce 56" at 29,000ft, so why are the speeds listed as being different when it could achieve similar speeds at both altitudes. Why does there seem to be a loss of performance up high when running higher power at lower altitude even though it can achieve same lower power as before?

 

What am I missing? Based off the power/numbers listed above the P-47 performance curve should stay relatively constant up to 29,000ft without any major gain or loss of relative performance above 21,500ft. Basically between 21,000 and 29,000 the performance (top speed) should be rather unchanging until above 56" CA of 29,000ft.

 

Anyone know how to solve this puzzle? From the info I've gathered not much changed in regards to the turbo system so it seems reasonable that a P-47 producing 56" at 29000ft would get the same performance at that altitude as it did before getting high MAP of 64/70".

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Gentlemen and dear dev team.
This is very good video how taking off in P-47 should looks like.
Pilot was able to easy take off with RPM 2550 and MP about 43" with speed about 120 mPh.
This beauty was probably fueled almost to full :)
We can not  take off in that configuration in  IL2BoX :(

 

Edited by 303_HOLY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 303_HOLY said:

We can not  take off in that configuration in  IL2BoX :(

 

Sure you can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear LukeFF.
Before u put any very Biiiiig answer please just insert a video sir.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Sure you can. 

No You Can`t Sir in BoX!.In this film from YouTube we see P-47 D Block 40ER whit almost fuel full. We know that because pilot who fly this plane Sir  John Shoffner wrote in comments about fule load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power at lower MP is something I've been looking into for the Il2 P-47. I don't have it all compiled yet but in some cases it seems the P-47 is underperforming at lower MP than it should.

Not 100% on this yet but it's something I've noticed and I'm trying to compile the data to make sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2020 at 10:18 AM, Legioneod said:

P-47 documents/performance reports are so confusing. I've been researching the different power levels/critical altitudes and it seems the reports sometimes conflict with each other.

I don't have all the documents available right now but as soon as I do I'll write something up and post it here for others to examine and give their input on if I'm correct or not.

 

For now I'll just post this interesting and confusing bit that I'm working on solving. (numbers are off the top of my head but should be within 1-2mph. Speeds are at respective critical altitudes)

 

P-47D: 56" 2700 rpm has a critical altitude of 29,000ft and a high speed of 443mph.

P-47D :64" 2700 rpm has critical altitude of around 24,500ft and high speed of 443mph

P-47D: 70" 2700 rpm has critical altitude of 21,500ft and high speed of 445mph.

 

My question is why is a P-47 at 64/70" shown as being slower above it's critical altitude even though it can still produce the same power that it previously could?

For instance a P-47D running 70" at 21,000ft can still produce 56" at 29,000ft, so why are the speeds listed as being different when it could achieve similar speeds at both altitudes. Why does there seem to be a loss of performance up high when running higher power at lower altitude even though it can achieve same lower power as before?

 

What am I missing? Based off the power/numbers listed above the P-47 performance curve should stay relatively constant up to 29,000ft without any major gain or loss of relative performance above 21,500ft. Basically between 21,000 and 29,000 the performance (top speed) should be rather unchanging until above 56" CA of 29,000ft.

 

Anyone know how to solve this puzzle? From the info I've gathered not much changed in regards to the turbo system so it seems reasonable that a P-47 producing 56" at 29000ft would get the same performance at that altitude as it did before getting high MAP of 64/70".

 

Was this all on the same fuel? 150 grade and 100 grade are not equivalent when run at the same MAP.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PFT_Orph3us said:

No You Can`t Sir in BoX!.In this film from YouTube we see P-47 D Block 40ER whit almost fuel full. We know that because pilot who fly this plane Sir  John Shoffner wrote in comments about fule load.

 

He said

"@303_HOLY During this flight it was likely nearly full on the main but less than 25gal on aux. It's normal to fly to an airshow and burn the aux down to 20 or so and then do the show on the main, usually topped off since the Thunderbolt just doesn't care. Thanks for the interest."

 

So its 230gl (Main tank capacity 205gal+25aux) which is far from Full(370gal)...and we dont know what fuel he used. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Apanos9 said:

 

He said

"@303_HOLY During this flight it was likely nearly full on the main but less than 25gal on aux. It's normal to fly to an airshow and burn the aux down to 20 or so and then do the show on the main, usually topped off since the Thunderbolt just doesn't care. Thanks for the interest."

 

So its 230gl (Main tank capacity 205gal+25aux) which is far from Full(370gal)...and we dont know what fuel he used. 

Pretty sure all flying warbirds run on 100LL or 145 Octane (if they are racers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Was this all on the same fuel? 150 grade and 100 grade are not equivalent when run at the same MAP.

Reports don't say but I've seen the figures for 56"/64" with 100 and 150, 70" only for 150 of course.

 

Either way the performance is lacking at certain power settings and altitudes. 56" isn't attainable for the most part at 29,000 ft (been a while since I checked) even though it should be, and the speed figures are way off when using water injection at those altitudes.

 

I haven't gotten all the data I need for a report yet but I'll post it here when I do.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Apanos9 said:

 

He said

"@303_HOLY During this flight it was likely nearly full on the main but less than 25gal on aux. It's normal to fly to an airshow and burn the aux down to 20 or so and then do the show on the main, usually topped off since the Thunderbolt just doesn't care. Thanks for the interest."

 

So its 230gl (Main tank capacity 205gal+25aux) which is far from Full(370gal)...and we dont know what fuel he used. 

Dear Apanos9.
John Shoffner is a real - normal person and u can just ask him for his fuel.
After short conversation with him I know now that P-47 in IL2 BoX is far from acceptable.
Reagards Holy

Edited by 303_HOLY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...