P47 review

[Sublime]

Id like everyomes thoughts on the p47. Its the first USAAF fighter in the BoX series and I want to hear the thoughts about it.

Also the 8 .50s. How devastating are they to those tiny 109s? Ill always remember readin an anecdote from 44 who said the 8 .50s would literally "push" 109s sixeways with the impact of rounds

[BubiHUN]

8 minutes ago, Sublime said:

8 .50s would literally "push" 109s sixeways with the impact of rounds

never heard about that, and I dont really think they were that pwerful. It wasnt famous about its power, but its fire rate. 
Right now, the P-47 is a very good ground pounding plane, and fast at high altitude(above 7000 meters.)

Edited April 6, 2019 by -[HRAF]BubiHUN

[Sublime]

Its an anecdote but.. Hiw effective are the 8 50s?

[JonRedcorn]

6 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

never heard about that, and I dont really think they were that pwerful. It wasnt famous about its power, but its fire rate. 
Right now, the P-47 is a very good ground pounding plane, and fast at high altitude(above 7000 meters.)

LOL

 

 

 

That's one 50 cal, now imagine 8 of those firing together, or even 6. One's enough to knock a 4k lb car off it's wheels and blocks.

2 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Its an anecdote but.. Hiw effective are the 8 50s?

They were devastating.

 

For some reason it seems people like to imagine 50 cal rounds as .303's or something. They are monster rounds with devastating kinetic energy.

[Legioneod]

24 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Id like everyomes thoughts on the p47. Its the first USAAF fighter in the BoX series and I want to hear the thoughts about it.

Also the 8 .50s. How devastating are they to those tiny 109s? Ill always remember readin an anecdote from 44 who said the 8 .50s would literally "push" 109s sixeways with the impact of rounds

 

It's decent but some of the modeling is incorrect. 

 

Speed: Speed is pretty accurate to real life ad it is one of the fastest aircraft above 20k and has little trouble when flying at high altitudes.

 

Dive: Dive is good (one of the best in-game) but it's structural limit is much lower than it should be. Also some of the negative effects of high speed dive's aren't modeled very much if at all. (aileron reversal isnt modeled and mach tuck is minimal.)

 

Roll: Roll rate is lacking compared to real life (at least in my experiences) from all accounts and charts I've read, the P-47D should have an excellent roll rate, it was said to be the bet of any mainline American fighter (P-38, P-51). In game it is much lower than what it should be.

 

Zoom: Zoom is good and I've had little to no problem staying with any aircraft in a zoom.

 

Turn: Turn isnt the best but with flaps it becomes one of the greatest turn fighters in-game (completely inaccurate to reality)

 

High Speed maneuverability:  The high speed maneuverability which is what the P-47 was known for (besides dive and roll) is ok but not where it should be, it has a very hard time pulling lead at high speeds due to the elevator effectiveness. I'm still doing research on this but I believe the elevator should be a bit better.

 

Armarmant: P-47 has great firepower and if you manage to hit anything it will do plenty of damage (though it may not bring the aircraft down immediately)

One problem with the guns is their dispersion/harmonization. They all fire at the same time when they shouldn't, and they don't spread as much as they should, which can make hitting small targets difficult.

 

Climb: Climb rate of the P-47 is decent but not great when fully loaded. Once the P-47 sheds alot of fuel it becomes a very good climber imo and seems to feel very light.

 

Overall the P-47 is a decent aircraft but due to some of it's model errors it's not where it should be. Fun to fly but can get annoying once you know what's wrong with it.

 

EDIT: Forgot climb.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Legioneod

[Sublime]

44 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

It's decent but some of the modeling is incorrect. 

 

Speed: Speed is pretty accurate to real life ad it is one of the fastest aircraft above 20k and has little trouble when flying at high altitudes.

 

Dive: Dive is good (one of the best in-game) but it's structural limit is much lower than it should be. Also some of the negative effects of high speed dive's aren't modeled very much if at all. (aileron reversal isnt modeled and mach tuck is minimal.)

 

Roll: Roll rate is lacking compared to real life (at least in my experiences) from all accounts and charts I've read, the P-47D should have an excellent roll rate, it was said to be the bet of any mainline American fighter (P-38, P-51). In game it is much lower than what it should be.

 

Zoom: Zoom is good and I've had little to no problem staying with any aircraft in a zoom.

 

Turn: Turn isnt the best but with flaps it becomes one of the greatest turn fighters in-game (completely inaccurate to reality)

 

High Speed maneuverability:  The high speed maneuverability which is what the P-47 was known for (besides dive and roll) is ok but not where it should be, it has a very hard time pulling lead at high speeds due to the elevator effectiveness. I'm still doing research on this but I believe the elevator should be a bit better.

 

Armarmant: P-47 has great firepower and if you manage to hit anything it will do plenty of damage (though it may not bring the aircraft down immediately)

One problem with the guns is their dispersion/harmonization. They all fire at the same time when they shouldn't, and they don't spread as much as they should, which can make hitting small targets difficult.

 

Climb: Climb rate of the P-47 is decent but not great when fully loaded. Once the P-47 sheds alot of fuel it becomes a very good climber imo and seems to feel very light.

 

Overall the P-47 is a decent aircraft but due to some of it's model errors it's not where it should be. Fun to fly but can get annoying once you know what's wrong with it.

 

EDIT: Forgot climb.

Thank you.

The structure being weaker in dives is worrying. The 47s dive was its trump card.

Also worrying is the roll comment. From what I heard the p38 had the best roll of all alliwd fighters...?

Turn

This bothers me. 47s should be BnZ fighters. I should know I suck at that tactic.  Turning fights sound great for me. But not so much jf its unrealistic ?

without me bringing the B word into it do you feel yet another US plane mysteriously has underperforming engines or was that seemingly a lendlease issue?

p.s. forget. Climb? What part or all of ur statement?

thanks!!

Edited April 6, 2019 by Sublime

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Thank you.

The structure being weaker in dives is worrying. The 47s dive was its trump card.

Also worrying is the roll comment. From what I heard the p38 had the best roll of all alliwd fighters...?

Turn

This bothers me. 47s should be BnZ fighters. I should know I suck at that tactic.  Turning fights sound great for me. But not so much jf its unrealistic ?

Structurally it's weaker than it should be irl but it is by no means inferior to any other aircraft in-game. The P-47 in-game can dive faster than any other fighter except for the 109, the 109s structure holds out longer than the P-47.

 

P-38 was fast in a roll but only with boosted ailerons, apart from the boosted P-38 the P-47 was faster in roll vs the P-51 and P-38 non boosted. (Keep in mind I'm not including any pacific aircraft in this comparison the corsair was known for it's good roll rate as well iirc)

 

In reality the P-47 had a good instantaneous turn and the razorbacks could turn with a 109 and stay on him. Bubbletops had a little bit worse turn rate but it wasn't horrible. What we see in game with flap is very unrealistic though, P-47s shouldn't be able to turn with everything at every speed like they can with flaps.

Flap use in combat is pretty unrealistic in and of itself. Flaps turn the 47 into a ufo.

 

P-47 is a decent BnZ but it's not a easy as some aircraft due to the P-47 poor elevator.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Legioneod

[Sublime]

Yes the flao thinf worries me but Im sure theyll fix it. I WILL own bodenplatte. But prolly nit for years hophopefullt they at least sell the p38 seperate?

im in love with the plane itself. Noomes gonna convince me otherwise.

i need the other planes but.. Time just likenthat f14 module. Plus i cant unless I got it like that my 8 yr old gamer son always wins in my hesrt and wallet and rightfully so.

enjoy those planes and the kuban fellas I envy you quite a bit. Even useless in MP and with no Kubam campaign first sale I can get both for 20 Im getting the FN and yak 1b for MP and SP to help 1c and love of the game. Othereise everything else I got is premium but no collector planes.

my real regret is my planes now are old news to you guys.  See I have many I havent even played with. I took an mc202 up last night first time.wow really liked it!! But I digress - I just wish I could catch up with Kubam or Kuban planes unless we fly esrly war Im hopelessly outclassed and yeahhh the new planes are dreams. I mean I love the Dora too. I never liked the K4. Idk why. Im am F4 109 fanboi. The 190D though.. Yea. 47.. Yeah. The 51 i was lesz than impressed with in THE OTHER GAME. I realiEd it wasnt a wonder plane. It was a capable plane with great range flown in groups with good pilots would hsndle it.  Not the same feeling as a spit or 109.  That said still interested. But nit as interested in

P38

Tempest

P47

190D.

My .02

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

never heard about that, and I dont really think they were that pwerful. It wasnt famous about its power, but its fire rate. 
 

 

Read a book.

 

 

 

You can start here.

 

Hell Hawks

[=362nd_FS=Campbell]

I second everything said above, except the fact that the K4 and D9 super planes can run circles around it. It can turn with them with flaps but get just above 400mph in a dive and it becomes a fat brick with zero handling. And unfortunately  no it can’t out dive the super 109k4 and it can’t take a hit, it’s as fragile as a wooded built Russian plane.  It’s good offensive if you control your energy, and except for dropping lots of flaps and turning hard it has zero defensive ability and pretty pitiful roll rate. It can be fun but IMHO it’s a piss poor modal it’s not even war rated at late war power settings. I stopped flying it cause It was just easy kills for the K4. The new Combat Box server looks promising, no K4 or D9 and only a few available when they do have them. That’s more historically accurate 

Edited April 6, 2019 by =362nd_FS=Campbell

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm personally a fan of the P-47 but I like to employ it more like some of the 9th Air Force units doing fighter-bomber strikes at lower altitudes. That's not where it's the best fighter... for that you need to be above 20,000 feet where the P-47 has a lot of advantages particularly in speed. Below that and the fight is more even or even favouring the opponents aircraft depending on the comparison.

 

The subject of roll rate always comes up with the P-47 across multiple flight sims. I've gone searching for roll rate data that suggests that the P-47 here is too slow but nothing I find gives me that information. So, either they got it right, or there's some documentation out there that nobody seems to know about that would show it truly to be better than it is. That said, my opinion is that the P-47s roll rate is still decent and it doesn't take much to get it roll quickly (especially rudder assisted). It's also very even across its useful speed range which is a nice feature.

 

For me, the P-47 is a big fighter with a ton of firepower and a lot of weight to throw around and the one we have here absolutely feels like that. The cockpit looks great, the K-14 gunsight is excellent, the eight .50cals hit hard, and still reasonably fast even when loaded down. Drop the weight and you're still one of the better fighters out there. That's worth a lot in my book.

 

Again, I like to fly it more in a 9th AF fighter-bomber role. The eight .50cals make short work of vehicles, the M8 Bazooka's can take out trains, vehicles and tanks if you can pinpoint them effectively, and the heavy bombload with 500lb and 1000lb bombs works wonders on targets. I'm going to have a lot of fun flying Career mode with this aircraft.

Edited April 6, 2019 by ShamrockOneFive

[Higaluto]

6 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Structurally it's weaker than it should be irl but it is by no means inferior to any other aircraft in-game. The P-47 in-game can dive faster than any other fighter except for the 109, the 109s structure holds out longer than the P-47.

 

P-38 was fast in a roll but only with boosted ailerons, apart from the boosted P-38 the P-47 was faster in roll vs the P-51 and P-38 non boosted. (Keep in mind I'm not including any pacific aircraft in this comparison the corsair was known for it's good roll rate as well iirc)

 

In reality the P-47 had a good instantaneous turn and the razorbacks could turn with a 109 and stay on him. Bubbletops had a little bit worse turn rate but it wasn't horrible. What we see in game with flap is very unrealistic though, P-47s shouldn't be able to turn with everything at every speed like they can with flaps.

Flap use in combat is pretty unrealistic in and of itself. Flaps turn the 47 into a ufo.

 

P-47 is a decent BnZ but it's not a easy as some aircraft due to the P-47 poor elevator.

Flaps was used alot in the P51, there are many pilot reports where pilots deploy flaps. Ken Wagner that fly the P51 Lady Alice at air shows also talks about deploying flaps to tighten the turn in one of his videos, so its not totaly unrealistic. I have also read a few books with the german aces, where some talk about situastions where they deployed flaps to force an overshoot or thighten the turn. 

But i agree with the P47 flaps, but i think this will change when bodenplatte is released.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Higaluto

[Sheriff88]

Except for firepower, the way it's modeled ,it's most underwhelming aircraft in the game. I shouldn't be able to down three of them ( on Ace setting) flying an Me-110 at any altitude!!

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Sheriff88
error

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=Campbell said:

I second everything said above, except the fact that the K4 and D9 super planes can run circles around it. It can turn with them with flaps but get just above 400mph in a dive and it becomes a fat brick with zero handling. And unfortunately  no it can’t out dive the super 109k4 and it can’t take a hit, it’s as fragile as a wooded built Russian plane.  It’s good offensive if you control your energy, and except for dropping lots of flaps and turning hard it has zero defensive ability and pretty pitiful roll rate. It can be fun but IMHO it’s a piss poor modal it’s not even war rated at late war power settings. I stopped flying it cause It was just easy kills for the K4. The new Combat Box server looks promising, no K4 or D9 and only a few available when they do have them. That’s more historically accurate 

 

Yep. Hopefully they'll improve the model and give us higher octane rating.

52 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I'm personally a fan of the P-47 but I like to employ it more like some of the 9th Air Force units doing fighter-bomber strikes at lower altitudes. That's not where it's the best fighter... for that you need to be above 20,000 feet where the P-47 has a lot of advantages particularly in speed. Below that and the fight is more even or even favouring the opponents aircraft depending on the comparison.

 

The subject of roll rate always comes up with the P-47 across multiple flight sims. I've gone searching for roll rate data that suggests that the P-47 here is too slow but nothing I find gives me that information. So, either they got it right, or there's some documentation out there that nobody seems to know about that would show it truly to be better than it is. That said, my opinion is that the P-47s roll rate is still decent and it doesn't take much to get it roll quickly (especially rudder assisted). It's also very even across its useful speed range which is a nice feature.

 

For me, the P-47 is a big fighter with a ton of firepower and a lot of weight to throw around and the one we have here absolutely feels like that. The cockpit looks great, the K-14 gunsight is excellent, the eight .50cals hit hard, and still reasonably fast even when loaded down. Drop the weight and you're still one of the better fighters out there. That's worth a lot in my book.

 

Again, I like to fly it more in a 9th AF fighter-bomber role. The eight .50cals make short work of vehicles, the M8 Bazooka's can take out trains, vehicles and tanks if you can pinpoint them effectively, and the heavy bombload with 500lb and 1000lb bombs works wonders on targets. I'm going to have a lot of fun flying Career mode with this aircraft.

 

In regards to roll rate the P-47 feels slower than it should be. P-47C had a roll rate of 80-85 deg/sec at most of its speed range yet I don't see that ingame. First hand accounts of the P-47D state it rolled as well if not better than the P-51B yet we don't see anywhere near that roll rate in-game.

I know people love to state the NACA chart but there are other first hand accounts that state the P-47D had a greater roll than stated on that chart.

 

First hand accounts also state that the controls were extremely light and you had no feeling that you were in such a huge fighter. It is also said that ailerons are extremely effective, doesn't really seem that way in-game.

 

It's roll isn't the worst but I don't think it's where it should be based on first hand accounts and flight/combat trials.

 

25 minutes ago, Higaluto said:

Flaps was used alot in the P51, there are many pilot reports where pilots deploy flaps. Ken Wagner that fly the P51 Lady Alice at air shows also talks about deploying flaps to tighten the turn in one of his videos, so its not totaly unrealistic. I have also read a few books with the german aces, where some talk about situastions where they deployed flaps to force an overshoot or thighten the turn. 

But i agree with the P47 flaps, but i think this will change when bodenplatte is released.

 

I'm aware of flap use in the P-51, but in the P-47 it rarely happened in combat, if ever.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Legioneod

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

50 minutes ago, Higaluto said:

Flaps was used alot in the P51, there are many pilot reports where pilots deploy flaps. Ken Wagner that fly the P51 Lady Alice at air shows also talks about deploying flaps to tighten the turn in one of his videos, so its not totaly unrealistic. I have also read a few books with the german aces, where some talk about situastions where they deployed flaps to force an overshoot or thighten the turn. 

 But i agree with the P47 flaps, but i think this will change when bodenplatte is released.

Problem with the P-47s flaps were they tended to deploy assymetrically, so they were not useful for combat

[Rattlesnake]

The guns were more like the 8 .303s in early Hurris/Spits as modeled in other games for awhile after the big DM change, but after recent patches they are brutal again, and reach out far. I can even see how their potential for sniping might someday be somewhat game-breaking. 

 

The high speed handling is the worst problem the thing has, and almost disallows it from being flown to its historic strengths. It’s barely moving in pitch at 400mph IAS, at least as bad as the 109 in-game, a plane known for unfortunate high speed handling. Meanwhile the 190 is pulling as much G as the pilot can stand easily at such speeds.*

 

Gun platform stability seems a little bad, again which is different from what pilots who flew the thing would lead you to believe.

 

With flaps it transforms into a Hawker Hurricane, albeit the gun platform stability becomes worse.

 

The P-47D is never going to be as strong a performer as the 109K or D9 at the relatively low alts at which most online fighting takes place. And the engine management is much more complex than the single lever ease of German planes. But to make up for this the devs have also given it lower maxiumum settings than were common for late war American fighters and half the time on high power settings as the above-mentioned German fighters get, with a worse “recharge” mechanic.

 

Overall I wouldn’t at this time reccommend BoBp if your primary interest in it is the Jug. Adopt a wait and see approach.

 

*

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[SCG_motoadve]

Graphically looks great.

Performance wise I think it will be tuned (hopefully) the flap behavior too.

And hope its durability gets improved, because right now is nothing special and easy to de wing.

[Rattlesnake]

19 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

And hope its durability gets improved, because right now is nothing special and easy to de wing.

Unmm...It’s getting shot by 30mm cannons, multi-banks of 20mm , 13nm machine guns, or some combination thereof. Gun packages designed to bring down 4 engine bombers IOW. I’m a fan as well, but asking for a literal flying tank is unreasonable.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[ACG_Smokejumper]

12 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

LOL

 

 

 

That's one 50 cal, now imagine 8 of those firing together, or even 6. One's enough to knock a 4k lb car off it's wheels and blocks.

They were devastating.

 

For some reason it seems people like to imagine 50 cal rounds as .303's or something. They are monster rounds with devastating kinetic energy.

 

 

sO....... Does this mean BoX .50's are anemic?

 

 

Spoiler

I think this video show's that BoX .50's are under powered.

 

[Sublime]

13 hours ago, Sheriff88 said:

Except for firepower, the way it's modeled ,it's most underwhelming aircraft in the game. I shouldn't be able to down three of them ( on Ace setting) flying an Me-110 at any altitude!!

 

Are you DerSheriff on youtube?

This is what I feared.  Well.. Im still gonna try to finagle a P38. And a tempest. But looks like I may be lookong for at the Kuban and those 2 collectors planes... (FN and 1b)

[FTC_DerSheriff]

49 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Are you DerSheriff on youtube?

Nah. And AI combat is not a good test bed as well. Even a toaster can look good against the AI.
Regardless how accurate the P-47 is, most complains I read are due to lack of pilot skill. The aircraft is good when used correctly. That a plane which weights twice as much as the adversaries is not the best dogfighter should come at no surprise.

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

6 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Nah. And AI combat is not a good test bed as well. Even a toaster can look good against the AI.
Regardless how accurate the P-47 is, most complains I read are due to lack of pilot skill. The aircraft is good when used correctly. That a plane which weights twice as much as the adversaries is not the best dogfighter should come at no surprise.

Tell that to the F-15

[Rattlesnake]

14 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Nah. And AI combat is not a good test bed as well. Even a toaster can look good against the AI.
Regardless how accurate the P-47 is, most complains I read are due to lack of pilot skill. The aircraft is good when used correctly. That a plane which weights twice as much as the adversaries is not the best dogfighter should come at no surprise.

It's fine in a dogfight thanks to magically delicious flaps. It's when trying to use it as Jugs were actually used that it falls apart. If you're practically locked up on the controls diving at 400mph IAS at low altitudes, and the opposition does 370-380mph in *level* flight at low altitudes then boom and zoom isn't an effective thing at all. The fact that you can only use it on anything resembling competitive power for 1/2 the time its opponents get (kind of less, if you figure the different "recharge" mechanic) is just insult to injury.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[ShamrockOneFive]

55 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Are you DerSheriff on youtube?

This is what I feared.  Well.. Im still gonna try to finagle a P38. And a tempest. But looks like I may be lookong for at the Kuban and those 2 collectors planes... (FN and 1b)

 

I take a contrary viewpoint on the firepower. The eight .50cals rip aircraft to shreds... at convergence. There's also a huge advantage to having 8 guns spraying high calibre machine gun bullets around with good muzzle velocity and rate of fire backed up by an ample ammo supply. You can make deflection shots with confidence that a hit will matter and that you have the ammo supply to try again.

[Rattlesnake]

1 minute ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I take a contrary viewpoint on the firepower. The eight .50cals rip aircraft to shreds... at convergence. There's also a huge advantage to having 8 guns spraying high calibre machine gun bullets around with good muzzle velocity and rate of fire backed up by an ample ammo supply. You can make deflection shots with confidence that a hit will matter and that you have the ammo supply to try again.

At first they were murderous. Then for awhile after the big DM update it was like using the 8 .303s on Spit/Hurri MkIs in other games, and I bought Flying Circus determined to not even fool with BoBp again if that continued. Now a few patches later they are indeed murderous again, as they should be. At least 4 of of the guns are *always* hitting at  about the same place, regardless of convergence.

[ShamrockOneFive]

2 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

At first they were murderous. Then for awhile after the big DM update it was like using the 8 .303s on Spit/Hurri MkIs in other games, and I bought Flying Circus determined to not even fool with BoBp again if that continued. Now a few patches later they are indeed murderous again, as they should be. At least 4 of of the guns are *always* hitting at  about the same place, regardless of convergence.

 

For sure! The damage model update process (in three steps :)) may have had a few folks try things out during that time and not go back and check how things are now.

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

22 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

That's one 50 cal, now imagine 8 of those firing together, or even 6. One's enough to knock a 4k lb car off it's wheels and blocks.

 

 

The concrete block supporting the car is hit and the car crushes down the rest. There's no "car moving off the block" involved.

 

There's not nearly enough transfer of momentum to knock anything around, over, or sideways.

That is especially true for aircraft-skin (e.g. duraluminium) which is just punched through like paper by a cal 50 round.

 

A little less whishful thinking, please.

 

14 hours ago, Legioneod said:

First hand accounts of the P-47D state it rolled as well if not better than the P-51B yet we don't see anywhere near that roll rate in-game.

I know people love to state the NACA chart but there are other first hand accounts that state the P-47D had a greater roll than stated on that chart.

 

The NACA-chart shows both airplanes rolling very much equal up to about 230mph, where the P-47 tapers off and the P-51B keeps going - peaking at about 320mph, where it outrolls the P-47 by roughly 15°/s. The P-47 has a slight edge (maybe 1-2°/s give or take) up to 230mph.

 

I just read an account of Urban Drew yesterday, and he'd rather take a Mustang into combat.

It's all down to pilot's preference. He flew both, Ds (stateside) and Ns (PTO) after his TDY in the ETO on P-51s.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Bremspropeller

[Ehret]

24 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I take a contrary viewpoint on the firepower. The eight .50cals rip aircraft to shreds... at convergence. There's also a huge advantage to having 8 guns spraying high calibre machine gun bullets around with good muzzle velocity and rate of fire backed up by an ample ammo supply. You can make deflection shots with confidence that a hit will matter and that you have the ammo supply to try again.

 

At the convergence point it's a saw but it's not what you want when your target is a nimble and small fighter. Wings guns should be setup as stated in the official harmonization manual for the P-47D (and others) would be a welcome addition. It's especially important for getting repeatable results from the gyro-sight.

 

Other weird thing in the game is wings guns seem to be shooting in a synchronized-manner where they should be free (or ripple) firing. That's not good thing either because consecutive valleys of 8 rounds will be spaced at about 60m. A small target (the 109 is about 10m in wingspan) with high enough angular velocity can slip not damaged.

 

IRL all was setup to allow average (read mediocre) fighter pilots to land hits with some reliability. Being an ace should not be mandatory.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Ehret

[Rattlesnake]

I think I should explain why I'm on about the Jug's high speed handling, and why it is such a handicap to the plane, the worst it currently has. Worse even than whatever misgivings one might have about the engine modeling.

The P-47 really needs to function as an energy fighter. Yet at most game altitudes it doesn't have a power to weight ratio advantage. In fact, it is at a disadvantage.

This means it really needs to be able to convert altitude to a big speed advantage over targets it opportunistically discovers beneath it, and actually be able to use that speed advantage. This is true of all planes whose primary positive attributes are altitude performance, top speed,  dive speed and a low drag, heavy airframe that is good at holding onto speed. IOW American planes.

The ideal boom and zoom attack run (WWII prop meta), somewhat simplified but here goes: Attacker spots defender below, and dives in with 100mph speed advantage, sometimes more. Defender doesn't see and gets shot. Or, defender sees, but does an evasive that is too soft or too late, attacker makes an adjustment and a brief high G pull for the deflection shot. *This requires adequate control authority*. Or, the defender does everything right to deny a shot. This necessitates using up a fair amount of defender's energy. Attacker goes vertical to avoid overshooting the flight path and stay generally in the defender's rear quarter, converting speed back into altitude, ready to keep the pressure on by converting it back into speed with another run on the defender's tail. *This many times also requires a good bit of control authority* Eventually if the attacker is patient and does everything correctly he will be approaching an enemy in the rear quarter whose speed is also relatively depleted, minimizing the amount of G that can be pulled in defense and giving the attacker a decent chance at a shot. Though this can take a long time if the defender has plenty of altitude to keep converting into energy.

Oh, and if everything is done correctly and the defender tries to follow the attacker into the vertical he doesn't get much of a shot, and will stall out beneath and be vulnerable.

Now let's look at this scenario if the attacker doesn't have good control authority at the speeds he needs to dive at. First, the defender may not see and the attacker still not be able to get him because of a slight miscalculation of flight path or a random slight maneuver by the defender. Second, if the attacker has no control authority the defender knows he can evade with soft nothing-burger flight path changes that hardly burn any energy at all. This means that in many cases the defender may be able to prop-hang simply snipe away at the attacker on their vertical reset, especially if there is also a flight path overshoot because the attacker didn't have the control authority to pull their nose up in a timely manner. Basically without adequate control authority the boom and zoom attacker can not threaten the bandit into burning off energy like he needs to do, cannot reliably avoid falling prey to gross overshoots and otherwise keep himself in the right position, and cannot even aim well enough to pick off bandits who never see him coming with 100% reliability.

For reference:

Boom and Zoom Tactics: The Hit and Climb by Andy Bush

 

[Bremspropeller]

Just flew the P-47 in Jägermeister's excellent campaingn yesterday and had to fight a couple of Fw 190A-5s.

Haven't felt so helpless in an airplane in a while - I did survive, but I was pretty much worthless in the airplane any my only hope was running and trying to re-engage after my pursuers had broken off.

[Garven]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The NACA-chart shows both airplanes rolling very much equal up to about 230mph, where the P-47 tapers off and the P-51B keeps going - peaking at about 320mph, where it outrolls the P-47 by roughly 15°/s. The P-47 has a slight edge (maybe 1-2°/s give or take) up to 230mph.

Isn't that with only a set amount of force on the stick?  Read something last night the P-47C model had a better roll than P-40 or P-51.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-afdu.html

Edited April 7, 2019 by Garven

[Bremspropeller]

10 minutes ago, Garven said:

Isn't that with only a set amount of force on the stick?  Read something last night the P-47C model had a better roll than P-40 or P-51. 

 

It claims to be superior to the 'Mustang X', which was the initial experimental* Mustang that had an RR Merlin shoehorned into it.

It's not by any means a P-51B. It also does not have the aileron gap-seals installed.

Those would be called 'Mustang III' in RAF-lingo.

 

___

* Six airframes in total.

 

[Legioneod]

4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Just flew the P-47 in Jägermeister's excellent campaingn yesterday and had to fight a couple of Fw 190A-5s.

Haven't felt so helpless in an airplane in a while - I did survive, but I was pretty much worthless in the airplane any my only hope was running and trying to re-engage after my pursuers had broken off.

Shouldn't happen, or at the very least you shouldn't be helpless. In reality the P-47 vs Fw-190 down low was dangerous but wasn't said to be a helpless situation. Combat reports said that a P-47 pilot should be cautious when engaging 190s down low but that it wasn't really superior to the P-47.

 

3 hours ago, Garven said:

Isn't that with only a set amount of force on the stick?  Read something last night the P-47C model had a better roll than P-40 or P-51.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-afdu.html

Pilots could put more force on the stick but in that report it's only measured with 50lbs. Another thing to note is that that NACA report used model mockups in a wind tunnel (from what I've read not 100% sure though as I haven't read the whole report) and not actual aircraft in flight.

 

I have seen other charts that show different roll rates than what is shown on NACA 868, especially for the Spitfire.

Did anything change in the Spitfire that increased it's roll rate, besides the clipped wing?

 

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It claims to be superior to the 'Mustang X', which was the initial experimental* Mustang that had an RR Merlin shoehorned into it.

It's not by any means a P-51B. It also does not have the aileron gap-seals installed.

Those would be called 'Mustang III' in RAF-lingo.

 

___

* Six airframes in total.

 

 

I've read that report above but I've also read first hand accounts of trials between a P-51B (gap sealed), P-47D, and P-38. P-51B was said to roll better than all allied fighters except for the P-47D.

 

First hand accounts also boast about the P-47 having excellent aileron authority but it doesn't feel that way in-game. 

I'm not saying it's completely wrong but I don't think it's as quick as it should be. I'm still doing research on the subject so I don't have all the info yet.

 

EDIT: If anyone is interested here is the full NACA 868 Report.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930090943.pdf

Edited April 7, 2019 by Legioneod

[Bremspropeller]

3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Shouldn't happen, or at the very least you shouldn't be helpless. In reality the P-47 vs Fw-190 down low was dangerous but wasn't said to be a helpless situation. Combat reports said that a P-47 pilot should be cautious when engaging 190s down low but that it wasn't really superior to the P-47.

 

I'd have to add that I'm anything but an expert in the -47 so far.

Having bomb-racks sticking out surely didn't help improving the performance.

 

I'm just slowly getting to grips with the correct power-settings and managing MAP and RPM.

 

4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I've read that report above but I've also read first hand accounts of trials between a P-51B (gap sealed), P-47D, and P-38. P-51B was said to roll better than all allied fighters except for the P-47D. 

 

The NACA-chart supports a slight (!) edge of the Thunderbolt over the Mustang up to roughly 230mph, where the two airplanes do cross and the P-51B rolls quicker.

Keep in mind that the chart compares achievable roll helix-angles for 50lbs stick-force, which are the geometric optimum any airplane could achieve. Real airplanes will roll less and actual performance might differ slightly. The ballpark/ qualitative reasoning should be correct and to scale, though.

By that reasoning, there's very little between those airplanes up to 230, whith the Mustang having a remarcable but not necessarily decisive edge above that.

The edge peaks out at 15°/s at 320mph.

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

I'd have to add that I'm anything but an expert in the -47 so far.

Having bomb-racks sticking out surely didn't help improving the performance.

 

I'm just slowly getting to grips with the correct power-settings and managing MAP and RPM.

 

 

The NACA-chart supports a slight (!) edge of the Thunderbolt over the Mustang up to roughly 230mph, where the two airplanes do cross and the P-51B rolls quicker.

Keep in mind that the chart compares achievable roll helix-angles for 50lbs stick-force, which are the geometric optimum any airplane could achieve. Real airplanes will roll less and actual performance might differ slightly. The ballpark/ qualitative reasoning should be correct and to scale, though.

By that reasoning, there's very little between those airplanes up to 230, whith the Mustang having a remarcable but not necessarily decisive edge above that.

The edge peaks out at 15°/s at 320mph.

 

I know, I've seen the report, just saying. The P-47 in-game doesn't even feel like it rolls even to what the chart specifies and it seems a bit low in the roll where irl it was said to be very quick in initiating roll. (I might be talking out of my head with the in-game P-47, haven't had a chance to fly it in a while so I'm just going off of what I remember.)

 

Also keep in mind that the chart is with a P-47C not D, I don't think anything changed with the ailerons or wing but who knows if roll remained constant throughout the series.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Legioneod

[Bremspropeller]

I think the P-47 should have a few degrees/s more (the ballpark isn't all wrong, though), but keep in mind that those airplanes do roll quickly and there's nearly no roll-inertia involved.

I've flown in a P-51 and when we did some wingovers, rolls and all the other fun stuff, I had to get used to the instantaneous onset of roll (and the P-51 isn't anywhere near an aerobatic airplane in terms of roll-rate). It's very disorienting at first and it feels immensely quick. Once you're getting used to it (one or two rolls), it's a lot of fun.

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I think the P-47 should have a few degrees/s more (the ballpark isn't all wrong, though), but keep in mind that those airplanes do roll quickly and there's nearly no roll-inertia involved.

I've flown in a P-51 and when we did some wingovers, rolls and all the other fun stuff, I had to get used to the instantaneous onset of roll (and the P-51 isn't anywhere near an aerobatic airplane in terms of roll-rate). It's very disorienting at first and it feels immensely quick. Once you're getting used to it (one or two rolls), it's a lot of fun.

 

After doing some rough estimation while flying the Jug it's roll in-game does closely resemble the NACA chart.  I wonder if some of the accounts were from encountering/flying it at higher altitudes. Would the roll have been better due to lower density air?

 

[Bremspropeller]

Similar IAS should normally result in similar roll-response, unless Mach effects come into play, which usually do at cruise to top speed at high altitudes.

Mach effects would reduce roll-rates, as you would create a shock along the hinge-line, creating heavier controls.

[ShamrockOneFive]

12 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

After doing some rough estimation while flying the Jug it's roll in-game does closely resemble the NACA chart.  I wonder if some of the accounts were from encountering/flying it at higher altitudes. Would the roll have been better due to lower density air?

 

 

I’m glad you tested and found that it did largely conform to the NACA chart. I did a little testing myself and found the same thing. Feelings versus actual testing is always a good thing - if sometimes a pain in the neck.

 

Anecdotes should always be taken seriously but they need to be considered in context.

 

The P-47 was flown by some excellent pilots sometimes against poorly trained ones (late) so that always makes a difference. That huge cockpit and light controls also probably make it feel like it rolls quickly.

 

They probably felt like they owned the sky up there with a 2000hp engine purring along in one of the biggest and meanest fighters of the war.

 

 I’m always a bit leery when a sim does a legendary fighter like the Thunderbolt, Mustang, or even Spitfire. So many nice things have been said about them... it’s hard to see that they have their faults or that a little healthy exaggeration may have factored in.

[Legioneod]

52 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I’m glad you tested and found that it did largely conform to the NACA chart. I did a little testing myself and found the same thing. Feelings versus actual testing is always a good thing - if sometimes a pain in the neck.

 

Anecdotes should always be taken seriously but they need to be considered in context.

 

The P-47 was flown by some excellent pilots sometimes against poorly trained ones (late) so that always makes a difference. That huge cockpit and light controls also probably make it feel like it rolls quickly.

 

They probably felt like they owned the sky up there with a 2000hp engine purring along in one of the biggest and meanest fighters of the war.

 

 I’m always a bit leery when a sim does a legendary fighter like the Thunderbolt, Mustang, or even Spitfire. So many nice things have been said about them... it’s hard to see that they have their faults or that a little healthy exaggeration may have factored in.

 

Agreed. I usually test thins like this but roll rate was something I had neglected.

 

Overall the P-47 does feel ok, but there are a few glaring issues that need to be looked at (engine, dive, and elevator).

Other than these three issues the P-47 feels close to what I've read, though there is always room for improvement.

 

I'm still testing the various speeds/weights to see how well they line up but overall the speed seems about right.