P47 review

[Guest deleted@83466]

6 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

None of this is an answer to my questions.

 

Me, and several others already tried to answer your questions, and you rejected our answers.  Those just weren't the answers you wanted to hear.

Edited April 9, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Rattlesnake said:

And a G-meter can be fitted into WWII fashion cockpits without being aesthetically intrusive.

 

In your opinion. If it wasn't there in reality, then I don't want it here, either. About the only place they were consistently fitted (that I've seen) was in American level bombers. If there were models of the Thunderbolt that had it fitted, I've never seen it. On the Axis side, nowhere, in any plane, have I seen such a device. 

 

And, besides all that, I guarantee you the devs are never going to deliberately put something in one of their cockpits that wasn't there in reality. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by LukeFF

[Ehret]

9 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

In your opinion. If it wasn't there in reality, then I don't want it here, either. About the only place they were consistently fitted (that I've seen) was in American level bombers. If there were models of the Mustang and Thunderbolt that had it fitted, I've never seen them. On the Axis side, nowhere, in any plane, have I seen such a device.

 

Then meet your oculist as fast as possible... 2nd pics from Google "P-51D cockpit" search has it from IRL photo. DCS's P-51D-25 and WIP pictures of the P-47D have them. Besides why such hostility against a feature? Maybe because it'd allow to make some useful observations and verify few things?

[Rattlesnake]

40 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Me, and several others, already tried to answer your questions, and you rejected our answers. 

You said there were audiovisual cues to tell how many G you were pulling, presumably accurate. When I pressed no one except Requiem can come up with anything at all but redout and blackout, which no one seems to have any figures for anyway. Sounds like there was some exaggeration going on.

 

You seem to be saying that you always just pull directly to the pilot’s g limit or aircraft’s lift limit, whichever comes first. Fair enough,  but that’s not that only way to fight with an airplane, particularly with the ones at a turn rate disadvantage. I contend that when energy fighting having an idea how many Gs you are pulling is useful, particularly as much instruction is framed in terms of  G during maneuvers. I agree that you can’t really stare at a G-meter during actual fights but you can do enough maneuver practice to get a fair idea of what G your stick movements are producing without looking. For instance earlier I guesstimated that the BoX P-47D is pulling no more than 4G maximum at 400-500mph IAS. Turns our that in Legionedds P-47 testing the maximum he’s been able to pull is 4.2G. That’s fairly close, but I wouldn’t have had any reference at all except for having flown sims that *do* have G-meters.

25 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

In your opinion. If it wasn't there in reality, then I don't want it here, either. About the only place they were consistently fitted (that I've seen) was in American level bombers. If there were models of the Mustang and Thunderbolt that had it fitted, I've never seen them. On the Axis side, nowhere, in any plane, have I seen such a device. 

 

And, besides all that, I guarantee you the devs are never going to deliberately put something in one of their cockpits that wasn't there in reality. 

If your rationale is the pure aesthetics and you think a small gauge would ruin them, well that’s  fair enough. But the cost of having a perfectly accurate cockpit in this instance is almost complete loss of information from a sense that every pilot of every real aircraft in reality has, the feel of their weight decreasing or increasing in the seat as they maneuver. That lack *also* represents compromised realism. Perfect realism in a sim is not obtainable, it’s a question of which compromises with realism  make the most sense.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[LukeFF]

14 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Then meet your oculist as fast as possible

 

My vision is fine, but yeah, thanks for the insult.

 

14 minutes ago, Ehret said:

DCS's P-51D-25 and WIP pictures of the P-47D have them.

 

Yes, both models far later than what is here in BoS.

 

14 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Besides why such hostility against a feature? Maybe because it'd allow to make some useful observations and verify few things?

 

Because, for the hundredth time, if it wasn't in the particular production block being modeled, I don't want it here. Why is that so hard to understand? 

 

7 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

But the cost of having a perfectly accurate cockpit in this instance is almost complete loss of information from a sense that every pilot of every real aircraft in reality has, the feel of their weight decreasing or increasing in the seat as they maneuver. That lack *also* represents compromised realism. Perfect realism in a sim is not obtainable, it’s a question of which compromises with realism  make the most sense.

 

And yet, for all these years, it's never been one of those feature requests that people have brought up. Ever - and I've been around a lot of flight sim forums. There have been a ton of hot-button issues I've seen come and go over that time, but g-meters? Not even a whisper. Now, why do you think that is? (Hint: the answer has been given here repeatedly).

Edited April 9, 2019 by LukeFF

[Guest deleted@83466]

Quote

 

You said there were audiovisual cues to tell how many G you were pulling, presumably accurate. When I pressed no one except Requiem can come up with anything at all but redout and blackout, which no one seems to have any figures for anyway. Sounds like there was some exaggeration going on.

  

You seem to be saying that you always just pull directly to the pilot’s g limit or aircraft’s lift limit, whichever comes first....

<Snip>

 

 

I told you exactly what I would be looking for in a visual cue if I was trying to get close to 0 Gs.  You had your answer.  I've told you that if you want to analyze in more depth the kinds of things you want to analyze you can look into Tacview.  That's another answer.  And no, I never said that I pull directly to the G limits or go straight to the buffet.  I said I turn as I need to turn, and don't care what a G meter would read.   I don't need an accelerometer to work the energy and the angles.  If I feel like I'm bleeding too much, I can ease off the stick and 'unload' it, and it doesn't have to be 0 G. 

 

P.S.  If Requiem's method of watching the float of the gunsight reticle gives you the information you're looking for then it looks like you're all set, so we're done here, right?

Edited April 9, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[Ehret]

8 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

My vision is fine, but yeah, thanks for the insult.

 

Then I'm sorry but why you couldn't see that the G-meters were put in models of the P-51D and P-47D?

 

11 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Because, for the hundredth time, if it wasn't in the particular production block being modeled, I don't want it here. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

The G-meter is an useful thing not only for me; could be in the hud bottom bar just like other parameters are.

 

Still, why such hostility against a feature? Why do you bother we could have a way to read G-loads in the game? G-force is a fundamental parameter of maneuvering especially at high speeds. The game engine has it computed already; there is no downside to that. The game already has non-realistic hud and techno-chat as well; I don't recall those to be in any WW2 cockpits...

31 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

You said there were audiovisual cues to tell how many G you were pulling, presumably accurate. When I pressed no one except Requiem can come up with anything at all but redout and blackout, which no one seems to have any figures for anyway. Sounds like there was some exaggeration going on.

 

Is that true? No one could give actual figures? If so then good luck using "visual cues" for obtaining any reliable info.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Ehret, I don't think anyone would have an objection per se, to a G readout being added in the simple guages bar, I think the deal here is that it isn't all that necessary.  Rattlesnake can do things however he wants with something like that, but I know that I'm going to be looking at the bandit, judging my closure, seeing which way my airspeed is trending, judging whether to displace, unconsciously knowing where my stick is at, etc...An accelerometer isn't something that I could see having much enhancement to the feel I already have.

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[Gambit21]

A G-meter has about as much place in a WWII aircraft that didn't have it as it does in a Spad (which obviously didn't have it)

It's also equally as useful for combat in both...which is to say useless from where I sit.

 

Personally I wouldn't be too offended by it on the HUD, (since I don't use the HUD) but even there still seems out of place for a WWII sim...just my opinion.

 

I respectfully disagree that it's a fundamental parameter for maneuvering....at least as far as being aware of the number.

 

If I'm buffeting or bleeding E, then I can tell without a G-meter.

Am I starting to black out? Again I have feedback for this and don't need a G meter.

 

Never in my history of flight simming, even in jet sims like Janes F-15, Falcon 4.0, on to IL2 flying the Mustang, Me-262 etc, online and offline have I ever once thought that I could

make use of a G meter. I'm pulling 5 G's...so what?  I have absolutely zero use for that knowledge, I already have feedback from the aircraft/sim/buffeting or lack thereof, impending loss of E beyond my preference in the situation etc, beginning of blackout  or lack etc etc etc.

 

I don't need this anymore than I need a wingtip vortex meter.

[Ehret]

20 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Personally I wouldn't be too offended by it on the HUD, (since I don't use the HUD) but even there still seems out of place for a WWII sim...just my opinion.

 

So is the hud altimeter which shows distance from the ground level beneath. A like radar altimeter in the WW2 sim...

[Gambit21]

6 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

So is the hud altimeter which shows distance from the ground level beneath. A like radar altimeter in the WW2 sim...

 

Yep

[Poochnboo]

58 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

It's also equally as useful for combat in both...which is to say useless from where I sit.

What are you going to do with it. Are you watching it as you turn? If so...why? If you have a bandit on your tail and you look at your g meter and it's telling you that you're pulling too many, are you going to let up on the stick and let him get inside your turn?!? If you're behind a bandit and the g meter is in the red, are you going to straighten out? "Oh no...I have to let him go. The g meter says I'm over stressing the airplane." 

Yes, it is useless.

[Legioneod]

20 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

What are you going to do with it. Are you watching it as you turn? If so...why? If you have a bandit on your tail and you look at your g meter and it's telling you that you're pulling too many, are you going to let up on the stick and let him get inside your turn?!? If you're behind a bandit and the g meter is in the red, are you going to straighten out? "Oh no...I have to let him go. The g meter says I'm over stressing the airplane." 

Yes, it is useless.

Not that you could even pull enough G to do any damage to the airframe. Maximum G I can pull in the P-47 with no flaps/trim is around 4.6G between 400-500 mph.

 

Got into a fight with a G14 today and was in a steep dive we were both going 440+ mph yet he pulls 7G out of the dive like it was nothing, yet I could barely pull 4G, I almost didn't make it out of the dive. I'm sure he was using Stab but it's still pretty ridiculous if you ask me. I wish they would model G/Speed effects on Stab and Trim.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Legioneod

[Ehret]

9 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Got into a fight with a G14 today and was in a steep dive we were both going 440+ mph yet he pulls 7G out of the dive like it was nothing, yet I could barely pull 4G, I almost didn't make it out of the dive. I'm sure he was using Stab but it's still pretty ridiculous if you ask me. I wish they would model G/Speed effects on Stab and Trim.

 

I wish all planes with trims on wheels got them assignable to an axis, too. No... I wouldn't map elevator trim to a stick but I could use a better way to control rudder trim. After all, planes which I like to fly do have them on wheels. But no.

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

I wish all planes with trims on wheels got them assignable to an axis, too. No... I wouldn't map elevator trim to a stick but I could use a better way to control rudder trim. After all, planes which I like to fly do have them on wheels. But no.

I agree but they really need to make sure and model it correctly so we don't have abuse like we do with 109s stabilizer.

[Pict]

On 4/6/2019 at 4:44 PM, 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

 

First off you seem to have forgotten the P-39 & P-40 and for fun I'm tempted to say the A-20B Boston as quite a few people have scored air to air kills in it online, with it's front guns  

 

Anecdotes are often confused with hard facts and this is the thing that I think hurts the P-47 fairly badly. As the P-47 has been pumped up on anecdotes to the point where encountering the hard facts about it are almost sure to make for a disappointment. Anecdotal "evidence" affects most WW2 fighters for better or for worse. The LaGG-3, for example is affected in the opposite way, where it's nickname "varnished guaranteed coffin", alludes to it being a death trap when read out of context in English. Whereas it's original Russian, "Lakirovanniy Garantirovanniy Grob", it becomes apparent that it's a funny sobriquet for LaGG. Sure lots were shot down early on, but that same  "varnished guaranteed coffin" could take a lot of damage and went on with development to become the La-7, arguably up there with the very best piston engines fighters of WW2, and I say fighters not fighter-bombers.

 

While the P-47 was introduced as an escort fighter in the ETO, this was largely due to it's range and availability. The current version we have in (BOX) GB series, was, for various reasons*, used mostly in the fighter-bomber role as can be seen in this official USAAF colour film of 1944 from the MTO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da_gbVd6nzM this also applied to the Spitfire Mk.IX (unlike earlier versions), which was fitted with and used operationally, rocket and bomb load-outs and is faithfully represented in GB. The Hawker Tempest on the other hand never used bombs or rockets operationally, even although it was tested and approved to do so and rightly never could be called a fighter-bomber. It was occasionally tasked with ground strafing, but it's main task was air superiority. I sincerely hope that GB reflects this and avoids giving the Tempest bomb or rocket load-out option for that reason.

 

*Lack of air targets being one, and the plentiful availability of aircraft better suited to the task being the other.

 

All of this is sure to have caused some frustration among "fighter" pilots allocated to fighter-bombers and would square with why the 8th Aiforce uniquely allowed ground strafing of aircraft to  qualify as air kills https://ospreypublishing.com/down-to-earth-039-strafing-aces-of-the-eighth-air-force. Which takes me back to your well remembered anecdote from 44 about the 109 being pushed by 8x50 cals, which I would say is true. Further to that, I would say it's more likely to have been a "ground kill" as when something as light as a 109 is shunted by such weight of fire, it's sure to move and that movement will be far easier to detect against a solid non-moving background like an aerodrome.

 

So, all of that said, I am enjoying the P-47 we have, even although it's still effectively a beta version with wonder-woman flaps, that we can assume will get fixed. This is because I have no expectations of it being anything other than a very flash fighter-bomber in that time-frame and it certainly packs a punch on the deck and has so far been plenty fun.

 

If I wanted to see how it behaved as a pure fighter, I would "wind the clock back" to 1942 or 43 and run clean it against the early Fw-190A sporting extra cannon etc., required for bomber intercept and bounce it from well above.

 

If I was looking for a contemporary Luftwaffe aircraft in GB-BoP it would be the Fw-190A-8 with the F or G ground pounding packages.

 

So not so much of a dead horse, but certainly a dead horse maker  

Edited April 10, 2019 by Pict

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Pict said:

...

Performance wise the P-47 hasn't changed all that much and is just as capable of a fighter in 44-45 as it was in 43. The only benefit that the razorbacks had over the bubbletops is a bit more protection for the pilot and a better turn rate (from all first hand accounts).

 

The problem with the Il2 P-47 is that it can't do what it could irl, at least not to the same degree and the lack of bombers to escort limits it's time at altitude where it was superior to most aircraft. (was rated the best all round allied aircraft above 25k)

 

While I've heard of allowing ground strafing to be credited as air-kills I've never actually seen it called an air kill, in all cases they counted them separately but still gave credit for ground kills. The 56th FG scored over 600 aerial victories against enemy aircraft in the air and over 300 on the ground. (56th is the highest scoring 8th AF FG and has the second most aces in ETO) Overall P-47s destroyed over 3000 enemy aircraft in the air, ground kills were counted separately but still credited to the pilot.

 

The P-47 in Il2 is a great ground attack aircraft but it's most legendary trait is missing (not completely) and ends up hurting in in the ground attack role.

It' survivability while good doesn't really feel as well as it should be, especially when your engine dies from a few MG-34 hits when in reality, hits like that were unlikely to kill the engine. Structurally the P-47 feels pretty strong but the engine dies way too easily, even when encountering light damage.

P-47 flew over 400K sorties (twice as many as the P-51) yet had the lowest loss rate of the big 3 and surprisingly even fewer losses then the P-51.

 

The P-47 most certainly had it's drawbacks (unfortunately some of these drawbacks aren't even in-game) yet it was till a very capable fighter and had the 2nd most aerial victories in the ETO. It's likely that the P-47 would have outscored the P-51 if it had not been taken off of escort duties. P-51s just encountered more targets due to ecorting the bombers while the P-47 had little chance once it was taken off of escort.

 

[Pict]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Performance wise the P-47 hasn't changed all that much and is just as capable of a fighter in 44-45 as it was in 43

 

Agreed...however the rest of the world moved on somewhat and that's a large part of it. 

 

The Fw-190's & Me-109's a P-47 pilot faced in '43 were not the same as those he might meet in '44 - '45 and just as importantly it's allied contemporaries, like the P-51, the Tempest & the Spitfire Mk.14 were deemed more capable of dealing with them than the P-47, according to the air-forces that used them at least.

 

Same can be said of the Spitfire Mk.IX, as I outlined earlier, which cobbled together from the Mk.5 by slapping a bomber engine on it as a stop gap measure to fight the Fw190A on more equal terms. When the Germans effectively did the same thing and produced the Dora, the Mk.9 Spit was out of it's depth.

 

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Overall P-47s destroyed over 3000 enemy aircraft in the air, ground kills were counted separately but still credited to the pilot.

 

Overall P-47 claims are not relevant to what I was saying, quite simply as it covers a large time period and the whole point I am making is the demarcation between the periods that the P-47 was employed firstly as an escort fighter and subsequently as a fighter-bomber.

 

The point I made about the 8th AF uniquely awarding ground kills was simply to show that the frustration of being a fighter pilot in your head and a fighter-bomber jockey in reality was significant enough to be recognized by offering this moral placebo.

 

In my eyes it makes zero odds what you call it, an aircraft claimed to be destroyed on the ground can never be certainly verified as an aircraft, as it may be simply a decoy or an already written off air-frame from previous aerial combat, possibly even with a Tempest  

 

Anyhow like I said earlier, it's still effectively a beta, so we will have to wait and see how the final product turns out. So far I'm not disappointed with it.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Pict

[Sublime]

4 hours ago, Pict said:

 

First off you seem to have forgotten the P-39 & P-40 and for fun I'm tempted to say the A-20B Boston as quite a few people have scored air to air kills in it online, with it's front guns  

 

Anecdotes are often confused with hard facts and this is the thing that I think hurts the P-47 fairly badly. As the P-47 has been pumped up on anecdotes to the point where encountering the hard facts about it are almost sure to make for a disappointment. Anecdotal "evidence" affects most WW2 fighters for better or for worse. The LaGG-3, for example is affected in the opposite way, where it's nickname "varnished guaranteed coffin", alludes to it being a death trap when read out of context in English. Whereas it's original Russian, "Lakirovanniy Garantirovanniy Grob", it becomes apparent that it's a funny sobriquet for LaGG. Sure lots were shot down early on, but that same  "varnished guaranteed coffin" could take a lot of damage and went on with development to become the La-7, arguably up there with the very best piston engines fighters of WW2, and I say fighters not fighter-bombers.

 

While the P-47 was introduced as an escort fighter in the ETO, this was largely due to it's range and availability. The current version we have in (BOX) GB series, was, for various reasons*, used mostly in the fighter-bomber role as can be seen in this official USAAF colour film of 1944 from the MTO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da_gbVd6nzM this also applied to the Spitfire Mk.IX (unlike earlier versions), which was fitted with and used operationally, rocket and bomb load-outs and is faithfully represented in GB. The Hawker Tempest on the other hand never used bombs or rockets operationally, even although it was tested and approved to do so and rightly never could be called a fighter-bomber. It was occasionally tasked with ground strafing, but it's main task was air superiority. I sincerely hope that GB reflects this and avoids giving the Tempest bomb or rocket load-out option for that reason.

 

*Lack of air targets being one, and the plentiful availability of aircraft better suited to the task being the other.

 

All of this is sure to have caused some frustration among "fighter" pilots allocated to fighter-bombers and would square with why the 8th Aiforce uniquely allowed ground strafing of aircraft to  qualify as air kills https://ospreypublishing.com/down-to-earth-039-strafing-aces-of-the-eighth-air-force. Which takes me back to your well remembered anecdote from 44 about the 109 being pushed by 8x50 cals, which I would say is true. Further to that, I would say it's more likely to have been a "ground kill" as when something as light as a 109 is shunted by such weight of fire, it's sure to move and that movement will be far easier to detect against a solid non-moving background like an aerodrome.

 

So, all of that said, I am enjoying the P-47 we have, even although it's still effectively a beta version with wonder-woman flaps, that we can assume will get fixed. This is because I have no expectations of it being anything other than a very flash fighter-bomber in that time-frame and it certainly packs a punch on the deck and has so far been plenty fun.

 

If I wanted to see how it behaved as a pure fighter, I would "wind the clock back" to 1942 or 43 and run clean it against the early Fw-190A sporting extra cannon etc., required for bomber intercept and bounce it from well above.

 

If I was looking for a contemporary Luftwaffe aircraft in GB-BoP it would be the Fw-190A-8 with the F or G ground pounding packages.

 

So not so much of a dead horse, but certainly a dead horse maker  

Ahh ok im gonna respond in parts. I certainly didnt forget both those planes.  But they were largely NOT used by the USAAF and were considered obsolete by the US by 1942/43.  I love the A20 though.  However I meam we have high performance planes for every other country and its disconcerting to hear the US planes seem hobbled just as muvh as the planes you mentioned.

You can fly and fight in them but the more research I do on the P40 the more Im convinced the game handicaps it a little too much..

ok and last.. I dont have BoBP.  Money issues and forum members have been AWESOME helping me. Literally 2 of my 3 titles were gifts from awesome guys helping a *stranger* whose loved flight sims since Aces Over Europe...

Im not going by aneceotal evidence totally but it helps and Im not judging it myself - I cant yet - but its worrying seeing whats written.  Why? It reads very familiar to the P40 in complaints about the engine.  The flaps down turn on the dime thing Im not even going to comment on lol.

In the end Im still going to play anyways - criticism is a good thing not a bad thing.  Look at Combat Mission.  Thats a game that was half molded by its community pointing out flaws, features or imaccuracies. And BFC listens.  Hallmark of a good company and community. Similar to 1c.

The Lagg also doesnt have a bad name just from pilots. Stalin was actually mad at Lavochkin over it for awhile from what I read and it was really underpowered and heavy.  Good in a dive though. I avoid it like the plague in game. Mig3s, Yak1s or 7Bs, La5s and Spits.. Forget it otherwise

I do really love the 7b. I aleays felt the La5 and 5FN were my favorite WW2 VVS (lol i typoed CVS) fighters but the Yak 7 is really winning my heart.  I find myself spending lots of time in external views....

[Ehret]

52 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

Agreed...however the rest of the world moved on somewhat and that's a large part of it. 

 

The Fw-190's & Me-109's a P-47 pilot faced in '43 were not the same as those he might meet in '44 - '45 and just as importantly it's allied contemporaries, like the P-51, the Tempest & the Spitfire Mk.14 were deemed more capable of dealing with them than the P-47, according to the air-forces that used them at least.

 

What you are facing flying the P-47D in  the BOBP (at least MP) isn't exactly what it was IRL. The K4 and Doras were relatively rare and many Thunderbolts were extended to 2800hp. The "1.98" ATA K4 is almost a fantasy yet in the P-47D you can not use full of the 15m ADI for the 2600hp, even. That's and other woes (elevator authority, the 9.5km visibility sphere) cripple diving/zooming tactics of the Thunderbolts.

 

It's probable that similar issues will affect rest of the US planes. I don't get why such plane-set and limits had been chosen because the Allied side will have only one directly competitive plane (the Tempest). It shows in the numbers already - the blue/red disparity increased after BOBP releases.

4 hours ago, Pict said:

The LaGG-3, for example is affected in the opposite way, where it's nickname "varnished guaranteed coffin", alludes to it being a death trap when read out of context in English. Whereas it's original Russian, "Lakirovanniy Garantirovanniy Grob", it becomes apparent that it's a funny sobriquet for LaGG. Sure lots were shot down early on, but that same  "varnished guaranteed coffin" could take a lot of damage and went on with development to become the La-7, arguably up there with the very best piston engines fighters of WW2, and I say fighters not fighter-bombers.

 

No one sane in the historic VVS would prefer (early or late) the LaGG over the Cobra. Yet, it's what happens in the game. Pokryshkin refused to switch from P-39s to anything La.

[Pict]

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

It's likely that the P-47 would have outscored the P-51 if it had not been taken off of escort duties. P-51s just encountered more targets due to ecorting the bombers while the P-47 had little chance once it was taken off of escort.

 

Apart from being pure conjecture, this comment misses the whole point I made.

 

Anyhow when you are responsible for escorting bombers, the important number is not how many enemy aircraft you shoot down, but how many of your own bombers you lose. If I recall right, the Red Tail's were the only units in the US not to lose one single bomber.

 

To take that a stage further, lets look at some US aircraft and attempt to judge them solely on their ability to shoot down the enemy.

 

Brewster Buffalo - thrown in the waste basket by the US, wiped out in Singapore under the Brits, yet set shoot down records yet to be broken by the Finns with an attrition rate of 32 enemy aircraft shot down to each single Finnish Buffalo lost.

 

P-39 - again an aircraft deemed useless by the US & the Brits, yet in Russian hands it was a resounding success against the well equipped and vastly experienced Luftwaffe, with many Kobra jockeys making over 50 kills in it, quite something when you consider the leading Ace of WW2 for the US only made 40.

 

P-38 - rejected by the Brits, but used to great effect by the USAAF and the aircraft flown by the US's top aces of WW2

 

What does all this tell us?* Very little really, other than numbers taken without any context are just numbers and add up to squat in the big picture.

 

* or that the Brits must have had something better up their sleeve  

[Legioneod]

3 hours ago, Pict said:

 

Agreed...however the rest of the world moved on somewhat and that's a large part of it. 

 

The Fw-190's & Me-109's a P-47 pilot faced in '43 were not the same as those he might meet in '44 - '45 and just as importantly it's allied contemporaries, like the P-51, the Tempest & the Spitfire Mk.14 were deemed more capable of dealing with them than the P-47, according to the air-forces that used them at least.

 

Same can be said of the Spitfire Mk.IX, as I outlined earlier, which cobbled together from the Mk.5 by slapping a bomber engine on it as a stop gap measure to fight the Fw190A on more equal terms. When the Germans effectively did the same thing and produced the Dora, the Mk.9 Spit was out of it's depth.

 

This is actually not true at all. I misspoke when I said performance hadn't changed. I should have said it hadn't changed much relative to the aircraft it faced.

 P-47 was still one of the fastest single engined fighters in the world, the P-47 we have in-game doesn't reflect that because it's using 130 octane fuel.

Late war P-47D top speed was 443+ mph at 24K or 30-32K depending on the block.  Also, the fastest single engined fighter of the war was a P-47. 

All I'm saying i the P-47 was never deemed obsolete or incapable of dealing with anything the Germans threw into the air.

 

Top speeds of P-47 with 150 Octane.

P-47D: 443 mph

P-47N: 460 mph (not exact and never saw action in Europe)

P-47M: 473 mph.

7 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

Apart from being pure conjecture, this comment misses the whole point I made.

 

Encounter reports of P-47 groups dropped significantly when put of ground duty, while P-51 groups still encountered plenty of opposition.

[357th_Dog]

2 hours ago, Pict said:

 

 

 

P-38 - rejected by the Brits, but used to great effect by the USAAF and the aircraft flown by the US's top aces of WW2

 

 

Because the P-38 they got was hampered by two things, one they brought on themselves, one they did not. 

1: The P-38 they had did not have the superchargers, so it was dramatically less powerful than what they tested/observed in the US and ..

2: They ordered the P-38 with props that rotated in the same direction, thus reducing stability in almost all flight regimes. 

 

[Garven]

2 hours ago, Pict said:

leading Ace of WW2 for the US only made 40.

American pilots were not required to fly in combat until they died.  They flew a set amount of time and then were transferred home to help train new pilots and share combat experience.  

2 hours ago, Pict said:

Brewster Buffalo - thrown in the waste basket by the US, wiped out in Singapore under the Brits, yet set shoot down records yet to be broken by the Finns with an attrition rate of 32 enemy aircraft shot down to each single Finnish Buffalo lost.

I doubt the Finns would have had similar success against Zeke's and Oscars piloted by the Japanese.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Garven

[Rattlesnake]

18 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

A G-meter has about as much place in a WWII aircraft that didn't have it as it does in a Spad (which obviously didn't have it)

It's also equally as useful for combat in both...which is to say useless from where I sit.

 

Personally I wouldn't be too offended by it on the HUD, (since I don't use the HUD) but even there still seems out of place for a WWII sim...just my opinion.

 

I respectfully disagree that it's a fundamental parameter for maneuvering....at least as far as being aware of the number.

 

If I'm buffeting or bleeding E, then I can tell without a G-meter.

Am I starting to black out? Again I have feedback for this and don't need a G meter.

 

Never in my history of flight simming, even in jet sims like Janes F-15, Falcon 4.0, on to IL2 flying the Mustang, Me-262 etc, online and offline have I ever once thought that I could

make use of a G meter. I'm pulling 5 G's...so what?  I have absolutely zero use for that knowledge, I already have feedback from the aircraft/sim/buffeting or lack thereof, impending loss of E beyond my preference in the situation etc, beginning of blackout  or lack etc etc etc.

 

I don't need this anymore than I need a wingtip vortex meter.

Since a real Spad pilot, like all pilots, had a sensitive instrument known as "the butt in the seat" he also had a great deal of important sensory information that virpils are denied, unless they have G indication. As some WWI airplanes lacked airspeed indicators, but all of them had pilots with butts in seats, logically having some kind of G indication while flying them would be in some circumstances more realistic than having airspeed indication.

The fact that you can easily feel the G forces being applied in real aircraft is one of the very reasons that G-meters are less vital than ASI. 

Admittedly a G-meter in a representation of a Spad cockpit would be a lot more aesthetically intrusive, and aesthetics *are* important. Afer all, no-icons is still close to effectively being a simulation of legally blind or at least terribly myopic pilots, yet most of us prefer it over icon-clutter for aesthetic reasons. G-indication in the "HUD" seems like a no-brainer, however.

There's a non-trivial difference in energy burn in executing a maneuver at say 3 G versus 5 G, that's just physics. Both of those numbers are inside the blackout threshold of most sims. There's a lot of physical information about what the plane is doing missing if all one has to go by are redout, blackout, and the stall buffet.

Now since every pilot in the game is equally "blind" in terms of this sense all's fair, and no one "needs" it. But if there were no FFB stall buffet in the game then it would still be all's fair and no one would "need" that either. 

Calling the situation implicitly more realistic than having a G indication just isn't logical. Again, it's literally just choosing to have a historically impeccable instrument panel over having sensory information that every real pilot in every real aircraft cannot avoid having.

This discussion reminds me of the whole engine timer thing and the no limits people versus the exact manual limits people. The two sides can't seem to admit that either way of doing things inevitably introduces unrealistic elements.

[Pict]

1 hour ago, Doggo said:

Because the P-38 they got was hampered by two things, one they brought on themselves, one they did not. 

1: The P-38 they had did not have the superchargers, so it was dramatically less powerful than what they tested/observed in the US and ..

2: They ordered the P-38 with props that rotated in the same direction, thus reducing stability in almost all flight regimes. 

 

 

Yes absolutely

1 hour ago, Garven said:

American pilots were not required to fly in combat until they died.  They flew a set amount of time and then were transferred home to help train new pilots and share combat experience.  

I doubt the Finns would have had similar success against Zeke's and Oscars piloted by the Japanese.

 

Yes & Yes on both counts  

 

All this I am well aware of, my point was that these things need to be viewed in context, but you both appear to have missed that and went straight for the context...

 

Additional context; RAF, RAAF & RNZAF pilots were given Buffalo's with clapped out second hand US airliner motors on them and were lucky to complete a flight, let alone a fight

Edited April 10, 2019 by Pict

[SCG_motoadve]

Please no G meter unless its historically accurate, even the arcade sims dont have them.

Been simming for 20+ years without them, it will ruin immersion, and actually its useless, we already have blackout and redout.

[Pict]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

All I'm saying i the P-47 was never deemed obsolete or incapable of dealing with anything the Germans threw into the air.

 

Not by you at any rate  

 

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Top speeds of P-47 with 150 Octane.

P-47D: 443 mph

P-47N: 460 mph (not exact and never saw action in Europe)

P-47M: 473 mph.

 

Whatever spins your wheel...but it's not relevant to the kind of fuel or the type of P-47 that is currently is modeled, in beta form?

[Poochnboo]

Will someone, please, explain to me how the g-meter would be used in combat. Let's go through a hypothetial situation in which a g meter would be required. 

[Legioneod]

9 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

Not by you at any rate  

 

 

Whatever spins your wheel...but it's not relevant to the kind of fuel or the type of P-47 that is currently is modeled, in beta form?

Ask the pilots that flew them and the USAAF. The P-47 was replaced as an escort solely due to its short range and this was only in Europe. P-47s escorted bombers in the Pacific up to the end of the war. It was not replaced because they considered it sub-par or ineffective as a fighter, this is a myth that I see repeated quite often.

 

The P-47 we have is still fast, it's top speed irl was around 436-437 mph with 130 octane fuel, in game it's a bit less.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Legioneod

[Poochnboo]

The Thunderbolt was in no way a sub par airplane. But, really, the Mustang was the better fighter. And this is coming from someone who has been a P-47 nut since he first read Robert Johnson's "Thunderbolt" when he was a kid. And that's more years ago than I'm going to admit. 

 

[Legioneod]

11 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

The Thunderbolt was in no way a sub par airplane. But, really, the Mustang was the better fighter. And this is coming from someone who has been a P-47 nut since he first read Robert Johnson's "Thunderbolt" when he was a kid. And that's more years ago than I'm going to admit. 

 

I agree the P-51 was a great fighter and it was rated as such in a study conducted by the airforce iirc. P-51 was rated best all round fighter below 25K and P-47 was rated best all round above 25K.

 

Zemke swore the P-51 was better yet Johnson swore by the P-47. It's all subjective when it comes to which fighter was better but performance wise they aren't that far apart, P-51 being the better at lower altitudes.

This discussion wasn't about P-51 vs P-47 (they both have pros and cons), this was about his claim that the 47 was taken off of escort because it wasn't up to snuff against German fighters of 44-45 which is a complete myth.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Legioneod

[Poochnboo]

I've always loved that big monster, But I've never been good at it any sim that I've flown. I continue to try, however.

[Legioneod]

11 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

I've always loved that big monster, But I've never been good at it any sim that I've flown. I continue to try, however.

I'm getting better and better as I fly it. It's pretty capable down low if you fly smart, but it really shines above 12-15K  and the higher you get the better.

Once they (hopefully) get rid of the few errors in the FM it will be a very capable aircraft imo.

 

If they had objectives for high altitude I think the P-47 would do alot better than it currently is in multiplayer.

 

One tactic I've been using if I'm caught below an enemy fighter is I dive down and then do a full power zoom climb up to him, this is usually enough for me to get a quick shot off or throw him off guard. It I miss I can always just dive away and disengage or try again.

 

I still wonder if the AO Smith prop has the same performance as the Curtis Paddle Blade, I still wonder why they chose AO Smith.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Legioneod

[Ehret]

54 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Please no G meter unless its historically accurate, even the arcade sims dont have them.

Been simming for 20+ years without them, it will ruin immersion, and actually its useless, we already have blackout and redout.

 

Wrong. The WT has built-in server for html page (available by localhost:8111) which shows many parameters including the load factor at least in the Y direction.

The WT renders curvature of Earth, too... surprising.

[Poochnboo]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

One tactic I've been using if I'm caught below an enemy fighter is I dive down

One problem is that we're often down low dropping bombs with it. Diving down isn't an option. If you're with freinds, its a good idea to leave someone high as you bomb, then you go up and cover him as he drops his stuff. 

[Rattlesnake]

55 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Will someone, please, explain to me how the g-meter would be used in combat. Let's go through a hypothetial situation in which a g meter would be required. 

In sim combat you mean I trust? Keep in mind in a real aircraft you could just use your sense of feel to get close to the same result without any indicator.

You make a diving pass on a bandit who evades and you pull vertical to reset. Because you've had access to a G indicator, either in the cockpit  or maybe just in the HUD in training flights you can reliably make your pull up closer to ~3G than 5-6G and know the difference. You don't need more than that in this situation and pulling more would waste energy, which can be important in situations where your plane doesn't have a significant power/weight ratio advantage or is even at a disadvantage.

You want to maximize your acceleration while minimizing your altitude loss. Because you've had access to G indication you actually know what stick input in your plane in your sim yields a pushover to 0 G. You want absolute maximum roll rate, ditto.

You're flying a plane that can actually fail under G load before the pilot does. Because you've had access to G information in training you have the actual number and can relate that to stick input in a very specific rational way, without either constantly utilizing much less than possible or going too far.

You are  doing a zoom for a "rope a dope" and it's important in this situation to wring everything you can out of it. Minimum drag and maintaining control effectiveness for as long as possible is critical. As long as the meter is sitting on 0G, either because you glance at it or you've trained with G indication, you know you are neither slightly pushing over nor slightly looping, you know your roll control surfaces will retain some effectiveness down to almost no airspeed.

That virpils lacking G indication never learn these things in any concrete way is self-evident, as no one on these forums appears to even know at what G redout and blackout occur in BoX. Again, I'm not saying this is "unfair" because everyone in the game is equally "blind" in this way. But it does mean there is virtually no information input from a sense all real pilots in real aircraft have and which is arguably second only to vision in importance.
 
I was able to get a decent ballpark guess of the maximum G the P-47D is pulling out of 400-500mph dives ingame just by relating what I saw on screen to other sims I've played which do have G meters, such as the DCS P-51 module.

The possibilities for testing and verifying flight models should be self-evident to anyone who has studied how airplane performance works.

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Legioneod]

Just now, Poochnboo said:

One problem is that we're often down low dropping bombs with it. Diving down isn't an option. If you're with freinds, its a good idea to leave someone high as you bomb, then you go up and cover him as he drops his stuff. 

True, I haven't been using it for ground attack much but I always try to fly high enough where I can dive and get some speed.

[Ehret]

20 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I agree the P-51 was a great fighter and it was rated as such in a study conducted by the airforce iirc. P-51 was rated best all round fighter below 25K and P-47 was rated best all round above 25K.

 

The great and overlooked thing about the P-51 was the price. For one P-47 (or P-38) you could get two Mustangs. They were easier to maintain and used less fuel.

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

On 4/6/2019 at 10:58 AM, 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.

Holy shit.!  

My face hurt from smiling after I watched this.. lol