P47 review

[Legioneod]

Just now, Ehret said:

 

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.

True, though I don't think economics were the primary factor in regards to replacing the P-47 as escort in Europe, I could be wrong though.

Considering they produced more P-47s during the war than any other US fighter I think economics were secondary.

 

P-51 is gonna be great to fly and I can't wait. It still won't replace the P-47 in my mind though, I am disappointed with the way it's modeled currently.

[Bremspropeller]

22 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Yes but you learn the muscle memory to deal with that very quickly...even flying an F-16 etc.

 

In jets, the controls are designed differently. Early jets used springs, bobweights and artificial feel systems to induce higher stick-forces/ force-gradient per g.

The F-16 uses pressure-trancducers within the sidestick and flight-control laws turn a measured amount of pressure into a roll-rate, or g/ pitch-rate command.

[Rattlesnake]

1 hour 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.

People can't quite decide whether a G-meter would stand out like a sore-thumb and "ruin immersion", or would be completely ignored and unused.

Most of us are playing these games in a comfortable, climate-controlled room in perfect safety, in a computer chair in which you never feel the Gs or other effects of maneuvers, often enough with an adult beverage within easy reach, often enough while chatting about distinctly un-warlike things on TS or Discord. All these circumstances being what they are, claiming that one a-historical gauge in a virtual cockpit in a sea of other gauges would "ruin immersion" is quite laughable.

I mean seriously immersionautists,  If you hit auto-level and walk to the restroom of your house during a flight, rather than holding it until you land or using a relief tube, this is vastly more unrealistic than having a G-meter.
(Dear Lord, please let no one reply to this by informing me that they have in fact actually rigged up a relief tube for their virtual cockpit. I can no longer discount the possibility.)

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

In jets, the controls are designed differently. Early jets used springs, bobweights and artificial feel systems to induce higher stick-forces/ force-gradient per g.

The F-16 uses pressure-trancducers within the sidestick and flight-control laws turn a measured amount of pressure into a roll-rate, or g/ pitch-rate command.

 

Yep - but even the F16’s stick moves, since early test pilots were having trouble coming to grips with a stick that was pressure sensitive only with no corrosponding movement.

 

In any case it’s same same with PC simulated jets.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Gambit21

[Rjel]

43 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

(Dear Lord, please let no one reply to this by informing me that they have in fact actually rigged up a relief tube for their virtual cockpit. I can no longer discount the possibility.)

Considering this, I have to believe someone has.

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Rjel
Too many pictures

[Pict]

1 hour 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. 

 

It's attached to the "G string" and indicates how wide your crack gets when things get tense  

[69th_Sawham]

True empty weight was 9,950 compared to in game 10,438. To me the P47d still feels heavy even with low fuel , no armament  with 4 50cals. After dropping a max load it still feels a bit heavy. It's smooth but could be smoother, feels loose in turns like it is about to wing tip stall.   Elevator authority is lacking.  Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine feels under powered.  The roll rate seems good enough, look I don't expect this to fly like a spitfire, it's a fighter bomber just give us CLOSE TO THE ORIGINALS AS POSSIBLE PLEASE.?  USAAF of the day would have rejected any aircraft if it performed  poorly and no contract for Alexander Kartveli. Where is that rugged p47 I have read about?

 

Here is what they claim: Flight-model fidelity that is second to none and allows a fresh view of recreated aircraft and their behavior, making piloting it a real pleasure. Flight and combat characteristics of the modeled aircraft are as close to originals as possible, reflecting their pros and cons.

Edited April 11, 2019 by 69th_Sawham

[DD_Arthur]

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

The Thunderbolt was in no way a sub par airplane. But, really, the Mustang was the better fighter.

 

 

...but a better mud mover didn't come along until the A-10...that's where the rubber meets the road with the Jug.

Needs guns that don't all converge to a single point though...I need that "holly F%*&!" devastation out in front of me with those 8 .50's.

4 hours ago, 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. 

 

That's how it often happened in real life...depending on the day and activity reported in the sector by the 9th Air Force controllers.

If there were contacts in the area, a flight would be assigned high cover.

[morron76]

7 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

(Dear Lord, please let no one reply to this by informing me that they have in fact actually rigged up a relief tube for their virtual cockpit. I can no longer discount the possibility.)

 

Well... sorry, but I can't resist! 

Single-player type of guy here; not a forum poster, but I do always check what's going on here, as it's fun to read & often informative...

I don't have a "virtual cockpit", just a chair & a computer and such. But have spent dozens, if not hundreds, of hours with a gatorade bottle at my side after surgeries while playing the legacy IL-2, and will probably be doing the same this summer now that I have BOS (take care of yourselves guys, stents suck!)

 

Anyways; my 2 cents, and to the point of the thread:

 

1) Have personally never had use for an accelerometer in a sim (bobbing of reflector sight & rate of climb meter has been enough for my sloppy self); but perhaps some folks would?

 

2) Seems like it wouldn't hurt to have one on the "tech chat"?

 

Why the acrimony? It looks like there's a recent influx of new people buying the game, and possibly new to flight sims (not everyone grew up in the golden age of accessible, affordable, nerdy computer games!)….

 

For something as involved and expensive as this sim, they'll surely be reading up on the forum before a purchase. Flight simmers are a rare breed nowadays; and the niceness & helpfulness on this forum is rarer still. The one thing I look forward to when faced with two weeks of vicodin & being stuck at the house is time to play sims, and there are fewer & fewer around every year!

 

Sorry for the rant -- simply felt like writing something for once --

 

Cheers to all; and to all a good night!

 

[CountZero]

Only airplane in game now i would like to know what Gs im pulling is Spitfires, that wings brake so sudenly as you can fast pull so mutch G, They can just add it in tech chat or hud and no problems.

 

Also comparing what P-47s did in real ww2 to what they can do online is no point, online your outnumbered all time and at best eaqal, and your fighting ws more K4s and D9s then they did in real life and had big number advantage. Even in game if your fighting outnumbered its big disadvantage, you have to shoot enemy fast, have good sa, and mostly next airplane you see will be enemy, and bined that with short combat and boost time your tosted. 

 

Have SP or coop mission with corect ratio of airplanes and historic mods and set and youll have better representation, online DF server no way, comparing that to real is waist of time, its just fantasy scenarious no mather how historical ground setup is or front looks, when numbers of airplanes and players per side are unlimited.

[Ehret]

31 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

 its just fantasy scenarious no mather how historical ground setup is or front looks, when numbers of airplanes and players per side are unlimited.

 

Thus the accurate physical/technical representation of plane is so important because it's the only thing in the game which can approach reality.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

Thus the accurate physical/technical representation of plane is so important because it's the only thing in the game which can approach reality.

This.

I don't care if I'm outnumbered, I just want the aircraft to perform properly.

[CountZero]

Then you guys will never be satisfied as no airplane in game will be like real one. Im jut saying its not because it was so great airplane that it had so good score in real life, it because of state of air war, if you look at its numbers and performance its nothing special compared to airplanes it fight, allied air supremecy made big differance and you aint gona siulate that in game online.

[Sublime]

16 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

People can't quite decide whether a G-meter would stand out like a sore-thumb and "ruin immersion", or would be completely ignored and unused.

Most of us are playing these games in a comfortable, climate-controlled room in perfect safety, in a computer chair in which you never feel the Gs or other effects of maneuvers, often enough with an adult beverage within easy reach, often enough while chatting about distinctly un-warlike things on TS or Discord. All these circumstances being what they are, claiming that one a-historical gauge in a virtual cockpit in a sea of other gauges would "ruin immersion" is quite laughable.

I mean seriously immersionautists,  If you hit auto-level and walk to the restroom of your house during a flight, rather than holding it until you land or using a relief tube, this is vastly more unrealistic than having a G-meter.
(Dear Lord, please let no one reply to this by informing me that they have in fact actually rigged up a relief tube for their virtual cockpit. I can no longer discount the possibility.)

Im too poor so i use water bottles

[Ehret]

Nothing is perfect and we aren't expecting to get 100% historically engagements in MP. However, the plane can be made like real one; at least it's possible to approach reality reasonably close. Being outmatched has nothing to do with that. Erroneous use of flaps and rudimentary turbo modelling - these are actually advantageous in the game. Yet, using them is and feels very wrong because such use was not possible IRL; not in the real Thunderbolts.

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

Then you guys will never be satisfied as no airplane in game will be like real one. Im jut saying its not because it was so great airplane that it had so good score in real life, it because of state of air war, if you look at its numbers and performance its nothing special compared to airplanes it fight, allied air supremecy made big differance and you aint gona siulate that in game online.

 

You should read “The Long Reach” which is collected reports from pilots escorting B-17’s into Germany earlier in the war.

 

Many of them flying Razorback Jugs and doing very well against German fighters well before the Luftwaffe’s back was broke.

 

You’re correct about Allied air supremacy later on, but the Jug held it's own and gave as good as it got throughout it’s service life.

[Bremspropeller]

16 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

..but a better mud mover didn't come along until the A-10...that's where the rubber meets the road with the Jug.

 

Err, I think the AD/ Skyraider would take that claim.

[Sublime]

4 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Err, I think the AD/ Skyraider would take that claim.

And how

[Diggun]

5 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

AD/ Skyraider would take that claim.

I saw a Skyraider take out a p-51 once. Didn't even need guns. True story.

[Gambit21]

8 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Err, I think the AD/ Skyraider would take that claim.

 

We’ll agree to disagree then - Skyraider did not have those guns.

[Bremspropeller]

9 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

We’ll agree to disagree then - Skyraider did not have those guns.

 

It had 4x20mm, which is enough for some plinking.

[Sublime]

No it had 4 20mm cannons instead. Id take the Spad if given the option but thats just me ?

i love the jug though still (not in game dont have BoBP  )

ninjad above.  Id give ya an upvote but I ran out of mine for the day lol

Edited April 11, 2019 by Sublime

[Gambit21]

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

 

It had 4x20mm, which is enough for some plinking.

 

A agree it's an awesome platform.

 

Your in a truck convoy and you’re column is going to be strafed by an aircraft with 8 x .50’s or 4 x 20mm...

 

I know which one I’d rather take my chances with.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

18 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

[Sublime]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

A agree it's an awesome platform.

 

Your in a truck convoy and you’re column is going to be strafed by an aircraft with 8 x .50’s or 4 x 20mm...

 

I know which one I’d rather take my chances with.

The .50s? Id risk the .50s which are really nasty. Those 20mms on the Skyraider were modern 20mms and had a high RoF.. And those shells go bang..

I think you were agreeing with this though. Either way not a pleasant choice.  Veteran Wehrmacht tank crews woukd complain rookie crews would do the worst thing possible under a Jabo attack - which was bail out of the tank and run for a ditch.  Apparently sitting inside youd almost certainly survive, especially with the prevalence of .50 cal, where taking off running.. Well..

 

1 hour ago, 307_Tomcat said:

 

Thanks

[chris455]

8 hours ago, Sublime said:

The .50s? Id risk the .50s which are really nasty. Those 20mms on the Skyraider were modern 20mms and had a high RoF.. And those shells go bang..

I think you were agreeing with this though. Either way not a pleasant choice.  Veteran Wehrmacht tank crews woukd complain rookie crews would do the worst thing possible under a Jabo attack - which was bail out of the tank and run for a ditch.  Apparently sitting inside youd almost certainly survive, especially with the prevalence of .50 cal, where taking off running.. Well..

 

Thanks

I remember reading once that Wehrmacht panzer crews were trained never to leave the vehicle unless it caught fire. Can anyone second this?

[Sublime]

Oh Im sure they were.  Itd make sense and hell the experienced crews DID complain.  Training and orders dont mean jack if the crews rookies and having a P47 screaming at them shooting its machine guns. I guess its a bit of a leap of faith to trust you'll be fine.

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, Uffz-Prien said:

The first P47 units were more than decimated (tactical inexperience).

No they weren't. The 56th Fighter Group was one of the first P-47 units in combat in April 1943, they only suffered around 128 P-47s destroyed in combat during the entire war while they shot down over 600 enemy aircraft and destroyed around 300 more on the ground. I wouldn't call that being decimated.

 

Some units suffered more than others but it' not like they were being shot down in droves.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Legioneod

[MeoW.Scharfi]

 

[Panzerlang]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

No they weren't. The 56th Fighter Group was one of the first P-47 units in combat in April 1943, they only suffered around 128 P-47s destroyed in combat during the entire war while they shot down over 600 enemy aircraft and destroyed around 300 more on the ground. I wouldn't call that being decimated.

 

Some units suffered more than others but it' not like they were being shot down in droves.

1943 to 1945, P47s scored 3,082 kills in the air for 3,077 losses. Most of their losses were '43 and early '44. For a while, after they began staying high due to those high early losses and not coming down even when the bombers were being shot up, the Jagdwaffe pilots contemptuously referred to them as the "Non Interveners". That changed as experience grew and the Jagdwaffe lost its own experienced core. 

[Garven]

2 hours ago, Uffz-Prien said:

1943 to 1945, P47s scored 3,082 kills in the air for 3,077 losses.

Pretty darn sure those loss numbers include all aircraft lost to flak during ground attack and are not only losses to air combat given that ~3500 total were lost in all theatres combined due to all combat causes (not just Europe like your numbers probably are).  If your going to include losses to flak you should also mention how much the German lost in ground assets.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Garven

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Uffz-Prien said:

1943 to 1945, P47s scored 3,082 kills in the air for 3,077 losses. Most of their losses were '43 and early '44. For a while, after they began staying high due to those high early losses and not coming down even when the bombers were being shot up, the Jagdwaffe pilots contemptuously referred to them as the "Non Interveners". That changed as experience grew and the Jagdwaffe lost its own experienced core. 

 

You might want to let the 352nd know this.

It appears as though J.C. Meyer and company were lying!

 

It also appears as though you’re a bit thin in the book reading department. 

 

[Legioneod]

3 hours ago, Uffz-Prien said:

1943 to 1945, P47s scored 3,082 kills in the air for 3,077 losses. Most of their losses were '43 and early '44. For a while, after they began staying high due to those high early losses and not coming down even when the bombers were being shot up, the Jagdwaffe pilots contemptuously referred to them as the "Non Interveners". That changed as experience grew and the Jagdwaffe lost its own experienced core. 

What you say is false.

Also those losses are for everything (ground and air) far fewer P-47s were shot down by fighters, most were shot down by groundfire.

You should read more P-47 combat reports, it'll teach you alot.

 

P-51 loss rate was higher than that of the P-47, and they only flew around half the sorties that the P-47 did. Point is losses don't tell the whole story.

[RedKestrel]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

What you say is false.

Also those losses are for everything (ground and air) far fewer P-47s were shot down by fighters, most were shot down by groundfire.

You should read more P-47 combat reports, it'll teach you alot.

 

P-51 loss rate was higher than that of the P-47, and they only flew around half the sorties that the P-47 did. Point is losses don't tell the whole story.

The whole "p-47 pilots not engaging" makes much more sense when you realize that the luftwaffe were often coming in, doing a slashing attack on the bombers, then diving hell for leather, and US rules of engagement meant they couldn't pursue and had to stay with the bombers.

Its interesting that the P-51 loss rates were higher than the P-47. I remember from reading Ace of the Eighth that the author considered the P-51 poorly suited to ground attack as the engine and radiators were very vulnerable compared to the P-47's radial engine. That would explain some of the higher loss rates - another aspect would be that P-51 escort missions would often be longer and deeper into axis territory.

You're right though, loss rates don't tell the whole story. Not even half, really.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, RedKestrel said:

The whole "p-47 pilots not engaging" makes much more sense when you realize that the luftwaffe were often coming in, doing a slashing attack on the bombers, then diving hell for leather, and US rules of engagement meant they couldn't pursue and had to stay with the bombers.

Its interesting that the P-51 loss rates were higher than the P-47. I remember from reading Ace of the Eighth that the author considered the P-51 poorly suited to ground attack as the engine and radiators were very vulnerable compared to the P-47's radial engine. That would explain some of the higher loss rates - another aspect would be that P-51 escort missions would often be longer and deeper into axis territory.

You're right though, loss rates don't tell the whole story. Not even half, really.

 

Yep, P-47s were much better suited for ground attack and survived things most aircraft couldn't. P-47 flew over 400K sorties and only lost 3000 or so aircraft, that says something imo and is a testament to the P-47s survivability.

 

P-51s were certainly capable in the ground role but they didn't have nearly the protection that the P-47 did and their losses hint at this.

 

I remember hearing a P-47 pilot say that it was common (daily practice) for P-47s to return to base shot up and seriously damaged, it was just the nature of ground attack.

 

[Gambit21]

All of the 352nd pilots that I interviewed (Powell, Bryan, McKibben, Starck and a few others) to a last said that when the  pre-invasion ground attack missions started in France, they wished they had their Jugs back.

[RedKestrel]

7 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

All of the 352nd pilots that I interviewed (Powell, Bryan, McKibben, Starck and a few others) to a last said that when the  pre-invasion ground attack missions started in France, they wished they had their Jugs back.

That's really cool that you had the opportunity to interview those guys!

[Gambit21]

For a book project years back that was set aside due to “life” etc.

 

I plan on posting the interviews at some point.

 

[Sublime]

4 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

The whole "p-47 pilots not engaging" makes much more sense when you realize that the luftwaffe were often coming in, doing a slashing attack on the bombers, then diving hell for leather, and US rules of engagement meant they couldn't pursue and had to stay with the bombers.

Its interesting that the P-51 loss rates were higher than the P-47. I remember from reading Ace of the Eighth that the author considered the P-51 poorly suited to ground attack as the engine and radiators were very vulnerable compared to the P-47's radial engine. That would explain some of the higher loss rates - another aspect would be that P-51 escort missions would often be longer and deeper into axis territory.

You're right though, loss rates don't tell the whole story. Not even half, really.

On your first point youre right.  The escorts had to do "close escort".  This was popular with the bomber crews but ineffective.  When the fighters were "freed" its said the bomber crews almost mutinied against Doolittle (IIRC) until the Luftwaffe losses began to be telling.  The new policy allowed fighters to chase and harass German fighters whereever encountered and prioritised destroying the enemy over loss prevention. (So naturally the bomber pilots weremt pleased - though a winning strategy it also took some time)  its also quite possible the Germans did joke at the US escorts expense about this not realizing said escorts were bound by orders to not chase after the Luftwaffe attackers.

I was literally going to post that. I think a lot of the P51 losses came from it having to do fighter bomber missions and it was apparently particularly vulnerable to ground fire especially the radiator.

Its telling most of the great US aces over Western Europe were killed or shot down and captured by flak - not fighters.

This apparently was one of the great things about the F4 Corsair as well - a honking big radial engine that was able to survive more damage than other types (plus a strong airframe especially to land on carriers too)

Edited April 12, 2019 by Sublime