Jump to content

P-47 Flight Model Discussion


Recommended Posts

Well, in either case, although there are many questionable aspects of P-47 performance in this sim, takeoff doesn't seem to be THAT far off what we can see in the video. 230 US gal is about 960 liters (68% in game). With no ammo (as warbirds don't carry any), concrete runway, spring map, flaps up, 2550 RPM, 43" MAP "our" Thunderbolt lifts off at about 125-130. The one on the vid does so closer to 100-110 actually, but we don't know if it has armour plates on it (doubt it) and guns (or their replicas).

Edited by Art-J
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Art-J said:

but we don't know if it has armour plates on it (doubt it) and guns (or their replicas).

 

I have not seen any warbird flying that has any armor installed besides thicker glass for the windscreen installed. It would be a stupid thing to do. Most flying P-47 don‘t even have a functional turbocharger installed. Also, 100LL is much better fuel than the turd they put in back then. At partial power settings, you‘ll have a better running engine today as you‘d have back then. One should really be careful when comparing „the original“ with an original rebuild. There are many factors that can alter plain specs to a degree that matters to us.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

I am really looking forward to new DM.

 

I hope there will be bigger resolution for parts and better partial damage of an engine that can lead to blown out cylinder and still flying. 

IIRC they are not overhauling the engine modeling on this pass. They are just doing effects on airframe structures (and some ground objects too). Overhauled Engine damage modeling is apparently going to come later. Which is a shame, because the engine on the P-47 is just as fragile as the airframe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres not much out there but I've superimposed the table data on the prototype AO Smith blades (the one mounted on our P-47) with the 150 Octane test which was done on a P-47 that had the Curtis 836 series paddle prop
Respective reports

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47D_42-74616_Eng-47-1649-A.pdf

 

Both aircraft weigh around 13,200 lb, but the 150 Octane P-47 had wing racks fitted, so they reduce top speed by a little. The Redline is for the P-47 with the AO smith prop at 52" hg as that was the only data available

Spoiler


unknown.png
unknown.png

 

According to this the AO smith blade has better perfromance in level flight at high altitudes by up ~10mph, but the same as you go lower. The climbrate is the opposite, with the AO smith blade being better at Sea level by ~300ft/s and equalizing as you go higher. 

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I have some questions that i figured this thread was still the best place for.

 

Now with the 150 octane introduced the high end performance for the P-47 feels great.

 

But on lower powersettings i still have some question marks.

 

When looking at this chart.

p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

It feels like the P-47 is underperforming at 52 inches manifold pressure,

at 56 inches i get speeds that compare with this chart,

but at 52 inches i fall 10mph short. (345 mph TAS at 5000ft with the D-22 without 150 grade fuel)

 

Is there something im overlooking.

 

 

Edited by mattebubben
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mattebubben said:

I have some questions that i figured this thread was still the best place for.

 

Now with the 150 octane introduced the high end performance for the P-47 feels great.

 

But on lower powersettings i still have some question marks.

 

When looking at this chart.

p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

It feels like the P-47 is underperforming at 52 inches manifold pressure,

at 56 inches i get speeds that compare with this chart,

but at 52 inches i fall well short.

Are you reducing the boost lever until you can only just achieve 52" MP? That might get you a few MPH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Are you reducing the boost lever until you can only just achieve 52" MP? That might get you a few MPH.

If i move the boost lever back at all (more then 3-4%) i instantly fall below 52" with a loss of speed as a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2020 at 10:42 PM, sevenless said:

Yep, after dealing with low flying trees both of them (Jug and Tiffy) made it back to base. Amazing.

 

 

 

Dude Trev probably has never heard of the concept of conservation of momentum.

Flying through a treee with a 7t Jug at 250kts is different to flying against a tree in a 700kg airplane at 40 kts.

 

Also, there's little (evident) deep structural damage on both the Jug and the Tiffie - mostly just a bent cowling and somewhat damaged nose-radii of the wing.

That will make your flight back home interesting (and moreso the landing), but it won't instantly take you out.

The engine-block took the brunt of the impact and that's what made them survive - just like flying through the branches in the treetops, rather than trying to fly through the trunk of a redwood or a 500yr old oak.

 

Tunnel-through-a-redwood pun in 3..2..1..

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2020 at 8:27 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

Dude Trev probably has never heard of the concept of conservation of momentum.

Flying through a treee with a 7t Jug at 250kts is different to flying against a tree in a 700kg airplane at 40 kts.

 

Also, there's little (evident) deep structural damage on both the Jug and the Tiffie - mostly just a bent cowling and somewhat damaged nose-radii of the wing.

That will make your flight back home interesting (and moreso the landing), but it won't instantly take you out.

The engine-block took the brunt of the impact and that's what made them survive - just like flying through the branches in the treetops, rather than trying to fly through the trunk of a redwood or a 500yr old oak.

 

Tunnel-through-a-redwood pun in 3..2..1..

Its like comparing a mack truck after a collision with a pole vs. a Ford Focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 7:16 PM, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Our P-47 has the AO Smith Prop

 

 

I also don't understand that choice for the Smith propeller. Curtiss is much more cited as having equipped the P-47 and had a reputation for giving this plane a great advantage in terms of power and agility. If the Smith propeller were replaced by the Curtiss propeller, the P47's performance would be much better in the game. According to author Martin Bowman, “ thanks to its paddle-blade propellers and water injection, the Thunderbolt was faster in level flight and could out-turn both the Bf 109G and the Fw 190A in a high-speed climbing turn. The "bubbletop" P-47D-25, with its two-inch rudder extension, could also turn tighter than both German fighters at lower speeds too, as well as effectively "turn around its tail" while in a vertical climb without stalling out”.   (p.62-63) [1]

The P-47D-25 and later versions were factory mated with the
paddle blade propeller.  Other models were retro-fitted with the
new props.  Introduction of the paddle blade prop enabled the
thunderbolt amazing climbing and turning ability.” (http://www.368thfightergroup.com/P-47-R2800.html)

It is also clear that placing a keel on the tail on the P-47 would improve its stability. Many P-47D-28s have undergone an overhaul that has fixed the keel:

http://www.368thfightergroup.com/P-47-2.html

P-47D%252C+1%25C2%25BA+Grupo+de+Avia%25C

[1] Martin Bowman. P-47 thunderbolt vs Bf 109 G-K: Europe 1943-45. New York: Osprey, 2008.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The D-25 did not use the CE paddle though.

It used the Hamilton Standard Paddel prop (same as on the D-22).

 

The Curtiss Padde prop (Which gave a worse top speed as compared to the Hamilton prop)

was the Factory standard for the D-28.

 

But it was not uncommon for airplanes to have their CE props replaced with the asymmetrical AO Smith prop blades.

 

Im not sure what the performance difference is between the CE prop and the AO Smith though.

Also have not seen any direct reason stated why many were fitted with the AO Smith prop.

 

But its obivious that there was one since they would not replace the factory standard CE Paddle with the AO Smith for no reason as that is extra cost and logistics.

(Especially as they Standardzied on the CE prop for both factories starting with the D-28 but AO Smith props kept being retrofitted)

 

But im also confused why we did not get the standard prop.

(Since while the AO Smith prop did see use on the D-28 the CE was much more common as it was Factory standard)

And would love if they added the CE Paddle as a Mod option,

 

Though that probably wont happen since its a lot of work (Finding the Data and then modifying the FM and Visual model)

for very little ingame difference.

Edited by mattebubben
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GAVCA/Jambock__28 said:

“ thanks to its paddle-blade propellers and water injection, the Thunderbolt was faster in level flight and could out-turn both the Bf 109G and the Fw 190A in a high-speed climbing turn. The "bubbletop" P-47D-25, with its two-inch rudder extension, could also turn tighter than both German fighters at lower speeds too, as well as effectively "turn around its tail" while in a vertical climb without stalling out”.

 

Testing one aircraft with emergency boost against another one without usually makes the one with the boost come out on top.

I don't think a P-47 can ever outturn a Bf 109 at slow speeds. It should be fairly comparable to a contemporary 190 (excluding the Doras).

 

The turn around it's tail - is that suppoed to be a hammerhed? Any aircraft can perform that one.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Testing one aircraft with emergency boost against another one without usually makes the one with the boost come out on top.

I don't think a P-47 can ever outturn a Bf 109 at slow speeds. It should be fairly comparable to a contemporary 190 (excluding the Doras).

 

The turn around it's tail - is that suppoed to be a hammerhed? Any aircraft can perform that one.

 

Anecdotal but I've read a P-47 pilot talking about how during Bodenplatte he got stuck with a Razorback and could turn with the 109s, not necessarily outturn them though.

 

Interesting to note that in-game the max performance turn of the P-47 does get better than that of the 109 and 190 above 10,000ft, P-47 does need a bit higher speeds though like you said.

 

One thing I'm interested in knowing is if the P-47s turn performance should decrease as much the higher it goes due to having all that reserve power available. Currently it's around 30s and increasing above 10,000ft yet it still has all 2800 HP available to help it with maneuvering up high. Pilot accounts tend to agree that it felt sluggish down low but up high it was said to be rather maneuverable.

 

I do feel slightly more maneuverable in-game the higher I go but nothing significant imo. In-game having full power at 20k+ doesnt feel like a large advantage like it was irl, but then again I'm not the best pilot and mostly fight K4s.

Edited by Legioneod
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Anecdotal but I've read a P-47 pilot talking about how during Bodenplatte he got stuck with a Razorback and could turn with the 109s, not necessarily outturn them though.

 

Interesting to note that in-game the max performance turn of the P-47 does get better than that of the 109 and 190 above 10,000ft, P-47 does need a bit higher speeds though like you said.

 

One thing I'm interested in knowing is if the P-47s turn performance should decrease as much the higher it goes due to having all that reserve power available. Currently it's around 30s and increasing above 10,000ft yet it still has all 2800 HP available to help it with maneuvering up high. Pilot accounts tend to agree that it felt sluggish down low but up high it was said to be rather maneuverable.

As far as I understand it:

The higher you go, the higher your TAS compared to your IAS. If you are turning at 20000ft altitude at said 240mph (not much Gs available) your are still going at 320mph true. That makes for a very large turning circle.

I think that maneuverability up high is graded in relation to your adversary. The advantage of the p-47 here I (I think you are right) relies in the availabity of full power at very hight altitudes. Specially influencing the sustained turn territory. While the p-47 is still able to use its full power the typical german plane is now struggling due to the loss of HP (more the fw190 than the 109).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any anecdotal comment regarding out-turning needs to be taken carefully in context, in general the P-47 cannot easily offset its enormous weight difference with most other (lighter) single engine fighters and the effect this has on maneuvering is fundamental here as a principle.

 

However, with regards to altitude this is a very valid comment - the P-47 fuselage is basically a funnel for one massive turbo-supercharger and from many of the reports - the P-47's operating at extreme high altitude were much more agile compared to when they were caught lower down because of this. Compared to other smaller fighters which were running out of power up there using small inline engines with smaller superchargers, pilots were very surprised by the sharp maneuvers it could pull up there (upwards of 8 - 9km) for its huge size.

 

The Fw 190 A wasn't going to compete much above 5 to 6km and the Bf 109G/K will tail off above 8km - 9km so you could expect the P-47 to be a pretty capable performer up there. However I wouldn't translate that to being anything other than average in agility at medium altitudes and below par at low altitudes, for the reasons described.

 

I'd be surprised if it could perform a tighter turning circle even at extreme altitude.. I suspect it just had better energy retention due to that enormous power output being sustained at altitude - in other words it can sustain maneuvering for longer and has greater energy reserve to expend where other smaller or lighter fighters might be more prone to stalling or having to dive away to keep enough speed to fight.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Was brought up in another thread and it got me thinking, is the maneuverability of the P-47 correct in-game? I flew the DCS P-47 and it's very noticeable how different the aircraft is modeled compared to Il2. The DCS version is still a WIP so I'm not putting too much weight on it's accuracy just yet but it is strange how different it flies compared to Il2. I never got the same feelings with the P-51 in DCS or Il2, they both feel similar and not so different whereas the P-47 is vastly different by comparison.

Clearly both models can't be right. I'm curious which model is more accurate DCS or Il2? Or are they both wrong?

 

Another interesting thing I've come across is the P-38 vs P-47 in turn performance. I've always thought the P-38 had a great turn but it seems some documents and books say the 38 wasn't that much better than the P-47 in turn. In-game the P-38 is quite better than the P-47 (20s vs 27s)

 

P-47C vs P-38F so could factor in to performance.

Capture1.PNG.0ba8fdc29b873516cc7612ff06d1aed7.PNG

 

This is from Americas Hundred Thousand and it seems to agree with the above statement that the P-38 and P-47 are similar with the P-38 being slightly better. (If I'm wrong please correct me)

IMG_1081.thumb.JPG.0603a4858e599da7b7f517f0ee6c30f0.JPG

 

Any thoughts? Not saying Il2 is wrong but the other thread got me thinking about it, and then flying DCS got me even more curious.

 

EDIT:

Also what's the turn radius index number? What's it supposed to represent? It's not the rate in seconds is it?

Edited by Legioneod
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Probably because of the P-38's boosted ailerons. 

They help in the turn? I figure they'll help get into the turn a bit quicker but never figured they help tighten the overall turn. Maybe I'm confusing things though.

Edited by Legioneod
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the in-game number of the P-38 for flaps out? They're maneuvering-flaps, after all.

The flaps do add significantly to both CLmax and wing-area.

 

The P-38 is about 20% heavier and has roughly 10% more wing-area and CLmax each. It also probably has a better L/D ratio due to it's more favourable aspect-ratio.

Add the significant additional installed power (50-60ish %) blowing over the wings of the P-38 and you'll have it all even out between it and the P-47.

Now, if you pop those flaps...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2020 at 8:00 PM, Legioneod said:

Was brought up in another thread and it got me thinking, is the maneuverability of the P-47 correct in-game? I flew the DCS P-47 and it's very noticeable how different the aircraft is modeled compared to Il2. The DCS version is still a WIP so I'm not putting too much weight on it's accuracy just yet but it is strange how different it flies compared to Il2. I never got the same feelings with the P-51 in DCS or Il2, they both feel similar and not so different whereas the P-47 is vastly different by comparison.

Clearly both models can't be right. I'm curious which model is more accurate DCS or Il2? Or are they both wrong?

 

Another interesting thing I've come across is the P-38 vs P-47 in turn performance. I've always thought the P-38 had a great turn but it seems some documents and books say the 38 wasn't that much better than the P-47 in turn. In-game the P-38 is quite better than the P-47 (20s vs 27s)

 

P-47C vs P-38F so could factor in to performance.

Capture1.PNG.0ba8fdc29b873516cc7612ff06d1aed7.PNG

 

This is from Americas Hundred Thousand and it seems to agree with the above statement that the P-38 and P-47 are similar with the P-38 being slightly better. (If I'm wrong please correct me)

IMG_1081.thumb.JPG.0603a4858e599da7b7f517f0ee6c30f0.JPG

 

Any thoughts? Not saying Il2 is wrong but the other thread got me thinking about it, and then flying DCS got me even more curious.

 

EDIT:

Also what's the turn radius index number? What's it supposed to represent? It's not the rate in seconds is it?

 

Yeah, after trying DCS and seeing vastly difference in manoeuvrability it made me think too. As you, I would put DCS FM in the freezer as a valid comparison until it comes out of early access.  

As you, I was looking into available information regarding turning performance. It strikes me very much the huge difference in max sust turning (27sec in the dev's table) compared to the other planes. Not that we expect the jug is anything near a good turning performer. It was considered a mediocre one but there are different grade of "mediocre" I suppose. Also different anecdotical reports indicate many cases of jugs turning in luftberrys contests with both 190 and 109s and holding its ground (not always at high altitude.). Not putting a lot of stress on this but just mentioning that in certain circumstances it could turn.

Looking at the basic figures (wing loading and power loading) is clearly worse than the majority of planes but doesn't look like the margin is as big as the difference in turning performance suggest. I compared this data to the A8 and seems estrange that two planes with so similar basic parameters had such a difference in turning performance (if we considered true the devs figures). Obviously sustained turning performance is more than this and it could be completely right. Maybe Holtzauge could run a simulation in his program to confirm the ball park.

More than the sustained turn I think the difference with the other sims (bar the EA state) is the elevator authority. In il2 is very sluggish while in DCS is more briskly. If we compared the data avialable (NACA longitudinal stability study) it seems more close to the other sim than our Il2 jug. In the study, depending of the altitude and speed the jug could be considered even neutral stable in longitudinal axis and warning was given at high altitude with stick reversal. That is clearly not the feeling with il2 jug (while, currently right or wrong seems more in line with the DCS one).

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Is the in-game number of the P-38 for flaps out? They're maneuvering-flaps, after all.

The flaps do add significantly to both CLmax and wing-area.

 

The P-38 is about 20% heavier and has roughly 10% more wing-area and CLmax each. It also probably has a better L/D ratio due to it's more favourable aspect-ratio.

Add the significant additional installed power (50-60ish %) blowing over the wings of the P-38 and you'll have it all even out between it and the P-47.

Now, if you pop those flaps...

Not 100% sure, the spec page doesn't say iirc.

 

3 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

Yeah, after trying DCS and seeing vastly difference in manoeuvrability it made me think too. As you, I would put DCS FM in the freezer as a valid comparison until it comes out of early access.  

As you, I was looking into available information regarding turning performance. It strikes me very much the huge difference in max sust turning (27sec in the dev's table) compared to the other planes. Not that we expect the jug is anything near a good turning performer. It was considered a mediocre one but there are different grade of "mediocre" I suppose. Also different anecdotical reports indicate many cases of jugs turning in luftberrys contests with both 190 and 109s and holding its ground (not always at high altitude.). Not putting a lot of stress on this but just mentioning that in certain circumstances it could turn.

Looking at the basic figures (wing loading and power loading) is clearly worse than the majority of planes but doesn't look like the margin is as big as the difference in turning performance suggest. I compared this data to the A8 and seems estrange that two planes with so similar basic parameters had such a difference in turning performance (if we considered true the devs figures). Obviously sustained turning performance is more than this and it could be completely right. Maybe Holtzauge could run a simulation in his program to confirm the ball park.

More than the sustained turn I think the difference with the other sims (bar the EA state) is the elevator authority. In il2 is very sluggish while in DCS is more briskly. If we compared the data avialable (NACA longitudinal stability study) it seems more close to the other sim than our Il2 jug. In the study, depending of the altitude and speed the jug could be considered even neutral stable in longitudinal axis and warning was given at high altitude with stick reversal. That is clearly not the feeling with il2 jug (while, currently right or wrong seems more in line with the DCS one).

 

Agreed which is why I posted here to try and get some more info. Another thing I'm curious about is the turn at altitude, in every books or document I've read the P-47 is stated as being very nice at altitude when it comes to maneuverability. Nearly all pilots agreed that is was fair-poor in maneuverability at altitude but many also state that high up it had good maneuverability. One pilot said "at high altitude it had the most amazing maneuverability of any aircraft I've ever flown".

 

I'm not saying the maneuvering would suddenly get better than at low altitude (would it?) but that due to the P-47 being able to maintain all it's power at high altitude it shouldn't lose much at all in maneuverability whereas other aircraft could struggle due to not having full power available. So at higher altitude the P-47 iirc has a better power/weight ratio compared to other fighters due to it having full power at altitude (wouldn't this help maintain maneuverability while other aircraft with less power would start to decline, unless they could maintain full power?)

In-game turning at altitude is difficult for me, the P-47 just loves to stall at the slightest onset of G. Maybe I'm just a ham fisted pilot (probably) but it's still frustrating to stall at the slightest touch even though you really haven't pulled any g or lost hardly any speed. (will need more high alt flight time to confirm though, I've only flown a little bit at higher altitudes)

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

Agreed which is why I posted here to try and get some more info. Another thing I'm curious about is the turn at altitude, in every books or document I've read the P-47 is stated as being very nice at altitude when it comes to maneuverability. Nearly all pilots agreed that is was fair-poor in maneuverability at altitude but many also state that high up it had good maneuverability. One pilot said "at high altitude it had the most amazing maneuverability of any aircraft I've ever flown".

 

I'm not saying the maneuvering would suddenly get better than at low altitude (would it?) but that due to the P-47 being able to maintain all it's power at high altitude it shouldn't lose much at all in maneuverability whereas other aircraft could struggle due to not having full power available. So at higher altitude the P-47 iirc has a better power/weight ratio compared to other fighters due to it having full power at altitude (wouldn't this help maintain maneuverability while other aircraft with less power would start to decline, unless they could maintain full power?)

In-game turning at altitude is difficult for me, the P-47 just loves to stall at the slightest onset of G. Maybe I'm just a ham fisted pilot (probably) but it's still frustrating to stall at the slightest touch even though you really haven't pulled any g or lost hardly any speed. (will need more high alt flight time to confirm though, I've only flown a little bit at higher altitudes)

I share your impression at altitude too.

The maneuverability up high degrade in all planes as the TAS is higher than the IAS so turning circle increases. But comparatively, it should be better than other planes with worse power available there. 

Every time I have tried to out fly other enemy fighters (109g14, 109k4 and D9. The K4 shouldn't loose much advantage I think) I have been disappointed. Not that I expected running circles around them but not losing advantages that soon. Could it be that I too am doing something wrong and not getting all out of her there.

I think it would need some sort of testing to find out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

One of the things I've noticed recently is the sensitivity of the P47s control surfaces. I know their large area is what helped offset the planes weight and allow it to be as maneuverable as it was. But they don't seem to be very progressive  and require very gentle inputs to fly the plane smoothly. At very high speed, providing you are progressive with the controls, the plane flys exactly how I would expect. But the onset of AoA when inputting comparatively minimal stick movement is what feels off for me. Especially when you compare it to planes that have not too disimilar wing loading and comparatively small control surfaces (D9/A8), not even taking into account the differences in wing type that benefit the 47.

 

The 47 was definitely described as sluggish, but very stable and comparatively agile for it's size and weight. In comparison to the P38 we have the 47 is very blobby and mushy and seems to wallow around a lot. It fundamentally doesn't feel that great to fly.

Edited by Cass
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been spending a lot of time in the P-47 and was also initially disappointed with the FM. It seemed to stall all the time, much like the IL-2 1946 FW190. A big issue is that the P47 loses speed very quickly in a turn and is prone to stall when the speed gets too low.

 

However, this is what I have been working on and it makes the P47 much more maneuverable:

 

1. do not do a horizontal turn, instead do a shallow diving turn (i.e. 30-45 degree angle from the horizon) so gravity increases your speed and then use the extra energy to climb back to your original altitude;

2. do not use the rudder to turn, this seems to increase the possibility of a stall, instead roll to the direction you want to go and then just pull back on the stick.(ideally, try to stay off the rudder altogether);

3. keep your speed up, at least 150 IAS, ideally over 200 IAS.

 

still a work in progress though.

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also as long they use this arcade system for engine timers american airplanes are to be hurt in this game, i just hope next DLC goes to east front and last american airplane we get for long time is P-51C that again no one will be using here.

 

 

Was watching this video about seafires few days ago and they say pilots (7min 36s) asked about 2min 18lbs boost limit and how long they can use it i real life, and engine representative toled them you can use it for how long you wot when ever you wont, just mined overheating and fuel amount, dont care about what manual say. Logic not arcade BS we have in game that makes engines made in US have redicouluss limitations and in total performances of engines worst then engines build by slaves in bunkers with poor materials, just because one side putt in manuals to strickt limitations and other to lack ones as airplane would not even last that long... 

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Also as long they use this arcade system for engine timers american airplanes are to be hurt in this game, i just hope next DLC goes to east front and last american airplane we get for long time is P-51C that again no one will be using here.

 

 

Was watching this video about seafires few days ago and they say pilots (7min 36s) asked about 2min 18lbs boost limit and how long they can use it i real life, and engine representative toled them you can use it for how long you wot when ever you wont, just mined overheating and fuel amount, dont care about what manual say. Logic not arcade BS we have in game that makes engines made in US have redicouluss limitations and in total performances of engines worst then engines build by slaves in bunkers with poor materials, just because one side putt in manuals to strickt limitations and other to lack ones as airplane would not even last that long... 

 

So much salt. I don't mind the engine limits one bit. Just something to keep in mind while flying.

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

Just something to keep in mind while flying.

Pierre Clostermann said in an interview about the Spitfire (long after the war) that another thing he felt special about th Spitfire (IX) was the absence of any panel in the cockpit indicicating any limits. No "dive faster than this" or whatever. They had absolute confidence that whatever they asked from the plane, the plane would take it. And they would make use of that whenever required. This in contrast to Amerivan planes that featured these warning card in cockpit. This much about the pilots point of view.

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

 

He does have a point, though.


Yeah I’m a bit torn on the subject.  One the one hand, we know the engines could run way past the manual limits.  On the other hand, nobody flew these planes around with the throttle pinned the whole time.

 

Flap speeds are kind of a similar subject.  The two aircraft in game that had unusually high flap speed limitations to allow for high speed use are essentially punished for having limits published for partial flap settings.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they had a randomised engine state that the engine damage was based off of. They understandably aren't modelling the engine limits as that is an enormous amount of work. But if the damage was based off of a determined engine state that was randomised at the start of each flight where we'd be able to push it a bit further but would run the risk of issues.

 

Say you have the best engine state you would be able to run 10 mins in emergency and in the worst state you'd be limited to 5/6. You wouldn't know what engine you got so any push past the factory limits would be considered a risk.

 

Anyway, back to the FM. I feel guilty commenting on it as they have tirelessly researched data and built a model off of it. To come along and say it doesn't "feel" right is a bit dickish...

 

So, feel. Under normal flying conditions the current P47, from my perspective, feels less stable in the air that an D9. In terms of rolling stability, pitching and inputting rudder the D9 seems so much nicer to fly and will sit nicely in the air providing you aren't pushing it. In the 47, the onset of AoA is very severe even with medium control input. It seems to wallow and mush like the surfaces aren't enough to keep it in pointing in the right direction. I use the D9 as an example as it has much shallower wings with a higher loading, it's a much more maneuverable aircraft when pushed hard at low to medium altitudes, but should it feel more stable than a much bigger aircraft with lower wing loading? I can't say for sure but it doesn't seem right to me.

 

I mean you look at the stats of the 38 vs 47:

 

P38

Standard Weight: 7890 kg

Wing Span: 15.85 m

Wing Area: 30.4 m2

Wing Loading: 259.54 kg/m2

Length: 10.89 m

Stall Speed: 111 - 137 mph

 

P47:

Standard Weight: 6503 kg

Wing Span: 12.43 m

Wing Area: 27.87 m2

Wing Loading: 233.33 kg/m2

Length: 11 m

Stall Speed: 111 - 138 mph

 

I know this is very basic stuff and scratches the surface in terms of aircraft performance. The P38 obviously should outperform the P47 in maximum turns. But when flying these two planes well inside their limits the P38 is an absolute gem when compared the P47, where arguably their stability should be fairly similar.
 

The P47 has some pretty hefty disadvantages compared to other fighters and that's absolutely correct. When pushed hard it has large controls surfaces so definitely should pull high AoA if you're not progressive with your inputs. But at the moment it doesn't fly like big stable plane with big elliptical wings, it flies like a fat P51.

Edited by Cass
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2020 at 2:52 PM, HR_Zunzun said:

 

Yeah, after trying DCS and seeing vastly difference in manoeuvrability it made me think too. As you, I would put DCS FM in the freezer as a valid comparison until it comes out of early access.  

 

More than the sustained turn I think the difference with the other sims (bar the EA state) is the elevator authority. In il2 is very sluggish while in DCS is more briskly. If we compared the data avialable (NACA longitudinal stability study) it seems more close to the other sim than our Il2 jug. In the study, depending of the altitude and speed the jug could be considered even neutral stable in longitudinal axis and warning was given at high altitude with stick reversal. That is clearly not the feeling with il2 jug (while, currently right or wrong seems more in line with the DCS one).

 

Another big difference between DCS and IL2 is that you don't get those instant "my wing tip is suddenly in concrete" stalls (then your plane flips over) when pulling a hard turn at higher speeds.  This happens to both the P-47 and P-51 in IL2.   I know that an accelerated stall is a real thing, but in DCS it complains first, so you know you're pushing it too far.  In IL2 you get no warning and it comes on at the least expected times.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Having flown both back to back now, the D22 definitely doesn't seem to have the same issues as the D28. Perhaps this is because of the bubble canopy and the reason the the stabilization fin was retroactively fitted to them. 

  • Upvote 1
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...