P-51...

[Lusekofte]

Kind of ironic. Cant buy myself a G6 because I gifted some earlier. Now I can only buy them as gift

[Pict]

16 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

No seriously? on the picture those are not Sabre's?... Thank you so much, i didn't know...

 

Your welcome, try landing a Sabre on a carrier, or even better just try taking off from a carrier in one, then come back and tell me about their differences or lack thereof 

 

I'm not entirely sure what your end point is, but information about the development of the swept wing design is readily available without the need to offer innuendos about national engineering ability, which is almost sure to start a bun fight with someone.

[Bremspropeller]

14 hours ago, Ehret said:

An advantage without context may be not be helpful. In a sense the long range Mustangs made the 262 obsolete from the start because one could plane mission routes to avoid jets altogether. Even better just bait 262s at the edge of jets' range and what they could do?

 

The in-service P-47M had almost an altitude sanctuary against the 262 because performance difference wasn't that big at +30K ft anymore. It's possible that once developed (perhaps not the P-75 but there were others) a prop fighter would made early jets' sole advantage (speed) marginal in practice.

 

I'm not debating that prop-fighters could project air-supremacy against 262s. You'll have to agree, however, that this was mostly due to the stategic boundary conditions.

A tactical comparison is relatively easily achieved on a plain-vanilla DF server: The prop-jobs will get owned by their jet-brethren.

Always.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, LuseKofte said:

Kind of ironic. Cant buy myself a G6 because I gifted some earlier. Now I can only buy them as gift

 

You should be able to buy it if you dont have it, store recognises what you have on your acount and offer you automaticly both options if you dont have it, and even if you gifted G6 before you buy it for your self, youll be able to buy it for your self.

I did this with SpitV, got it for frend as gift 3 months ago, and didnt have it on my acount then, and then few days ago i got it for my self and had no problems, so it should work for you also. 

[Rjel]

These nationalistic arguments are laughable. Since the first cave man made a rock roll downhill, every human endeavor have been built on what came before. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Rjel
Every.... not very

[AndytotheD]

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Certainly not, especially in an American plane, since much of the population has European heritage in one way or another. On the other hand, I am also pretty sure that if a Sicilian moves to New York and cooks pasta there, its still has traces of Italian cuisine. 

 

However, the claim was that the P-51 was not tied in any way to German technology was demonstrably false. Schmued was, after all, German (Bavarian) by origin, he studied as an engineer and practiced his trade in Germany in his early years and so its more than fair to say he might have been somewhat influenced by German engineering practice and applied technology, just as much what he learned when he moved to the US and kept learning his trade there.  Schmued  had a key role in the P-51's design (again he did not design it all by himself, he had dozens of pure US-born-and-raised engineers to assist). That he spoke engineering German also made him very easy to say to least to access and understand newest developments and news from the German aviation industry - a knowledge that was 

 

In any case, regardless of his origin, he would have been a fool to ignore the newest developments and solutions in the field he was working in. Of course he had read Luftwissenschaft avidly, of course he had looked very closely at the Bf 109, and every other successful design then around. He would have been a fool to ignore all that, especially if it had proved successful, and not choose to learn from the success and failures of others.

 

While I won't disagree entirely, I think that's an oversimplification. I could go into detail about the list of differences between the P-51 and the 109E but it's safe to say that the only feature that it shared with the 109 and no other fighter was the squared wingtip, which the 109 had retired by the time the Mustang entered production in 1942, using a rounded wingtip for the rest of its service life instead. Everything else was most likely inspired by existing US designs (such as the birdcage canopy and use of a liquid cooled V-12, as used by the P-40) or completely new to the Mustang (it's surprisingly advanced cooling system). That's without detailing the wildly differing handling as well as performance between the two.

 

41 minutes ago, Rekt said:

 

Alas, once we see how the P-51 performs in game, folks on either side of the Pond may prove less enthusiastic about trying to "take credit for it"

 

???

 

And why is that? It's equal to or faster than every German type in game except for the 190D (debatable) and the 109K. It is certainly about as fast, if not faster at most altitudes (above 20,000 it's wildly faster) than the 109Gs and 190As it will be primarily facing. The only area that German fighters consistently outperform it is in the climb. While it's certainly not the all conquering death machine of a history channel documentary, it absolutely would be a bad idea to regard it as an insignificant threat

Edited July 16, 2019 by AndytotheD

[AndytotheD]

12 minutes ago, Rekt said:

 

In real life, absolutely. In real life also a P-47D doesn't get chased around by a Yak-1B at 10km altitude, a P-40E is competitive with the BF-109 Emil for more than 5 minutes, and an Airacobra is your preferred choice of fighter plane if you are a Soviet pilot over the Kuban.

 

Your mileage may vary, but my experience with US planes thus far has been disappointing. Going to wait to see what we actually have in sim world before I get excited at all about the P-51 (or P-38 for that matter).

 

That's fair enough, mine hasn't been that bad, but I did find the P-47 disappointing. Always figured it was flying technique.

[IVJG4-Knight]

Just to resume the last pages of this thread:

 

My girlfriend is pretty and your girlfriend is ugly , my daddy is bigger than your daddy etc etc. 

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

These nationalistic arguments are laughable. Since the first cave man made a rock roll downhill, very human endeavor have been built on what came before. 

 

That comment certainly warrants your 1000th upvote :)

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 hour ago, Rekt said:

 

In real life, absolutely. In real life also a P-47D doesn't get chased around by a Yak-1B at 10km altitude

 

 

The P-47 is 115 km/h faster than the Yak-1B at 9000 meters in game... don't know what is people doing to get caught by that plane.

[Rjel]

55 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That comment certainly warrants your 1000th upvote

Thanks Bremspropeller. Had to edit it just now. Very was meant to be every. So much for being profound.

[Gambit21]

I try to stay out of these discussions, but yes a Jug should turn into a different aircraft at that alt, (and a bit lower) and be all but impossible to beat especially when flown correctly.

A Yak I'd imagine should be more or less useless, especially when facing the Jug.

 

In real life anyway.

I haven't done any testing at that alt yet.

 

 

[JonRedcorn]

4 hours ago, Rekt said:

 

Set up a QMB mission, 1 vs. 1 against a Yak-1B, 10km, 50% fuel, head to head start (and don't fire on the first pass of course LOL). 

 

Maybe I am a meathead, but I have not been able to get on the Yak's tail in this scenario. Obviously it is not the "ideal" or maybe even reasonable/realistic combat case but in terms of comparing raw performance it is telling. The P-47 is gasping along at 200mph IAS and falling out of the sky with any back pressure on the stick while the Yak (after a crazy AI dive down and zoom to pick up some airspeed) latches onto its tail and stays there. In an extended turn the Yak just hangs with the P-47 despite having no turbocharger etc.

 

Maybe my expectations were unrealistic, but from what I have read about the P-47 I thought it would be able to sustain decent turns at 10k while something like the Yak would be falling from the sky due to insufficient engine power. I thought that was the entire point of building a plane the size of a garage to house that turbo.

 

If you are able to conduct competent ACM against the Yak with the P-47 at that altitude by all means please post a track or video because I am at a loss.

I am going to give this a try, that'd certainly be weird. The yak should be struggling to breath at that altitude.

[JonRedcorn]

17 minutes ago, Rekt said:

 

Very interested to see what you find out.

 

Could also simply be that I suck. If so, that would be good to know as well ?

I tried at 9k, could outrun the yak no problem surprised to find how fast that yak actually is at 9km. Climbs better than the p-47 somehow at 9km. Somethings off. I got in the yak at 9k it could turn a little before stalling, it was also pushing about 55 on the manifold pressure.

Edited July 17, 2019 by JgonRedcorn

[Gambit21]

The Jug was a dancing ballerina at those alts compared to down low.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

11 hours ago, Rekt said:

 

Set up a QMB mission, 1 vs. 1 against a Yak-1B, 10km, 50% fuel, head to head start (and don't fire on the first pass of course LOL). 

 

Maybe I am a meathead, but I have not been able to get on the Yak's tail in this scenario. Obviously it is not the "ideal" or maybe even reasonable/realistic combat case but in terms of comparing raw performance it is telling. The P-47 is gasping along at 200mph IAS and falling out of the sky with any back pressure on the stick while the Yak (after a crazy AI dive down and zoom to pick up some airspeed) latches onto its tail and stays there. In an extended turn the Yak just hangs with the P-47 despite having no turbocharger etc.

 

Maybe my expectations were unrealistic, but from what I have read about the P-47 I thought it would be able to sustain decent turns at 10k while something like the Yak would be falling from the sky due to insufficient engine power. I thought that was the entire point of building a plane the size of a garage to house that turbo.

 

If you are able to conduct competent ACM against the Yak with the P-47 at that altitude by all means please post a track or video because I am at a loss.

 

I got a couple tracks.

High altitude fighting is slower paced than at low altitude, you have to make slow, gentle maneuvers, the planes stall easily and mantaining the energy is very important.
What I did was making use of the speed and climbrate advantage of the P-47 (Sheriff's testing gets around double the climbrate for the P-47 at 9km vs the Yak-1B; around 10 m/s vs 5 m/s) , building some separation and performing wide climbing turns. With these turns I gain or mantain altitude while the Yak tends to lose it during it's turning. I was also completing them sooner  (so better turner you could say), when I pointed my nose at it it still wasn't finished with its turn, so I had more time to build up speed in a straight line or slight dive for the subsequent merges. Repeating this eventually you end up on top of it with speed and altitude advantage, so you get on it's six and then catch up without much trouble. The Yak had Ace skill level

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jSgy0e1deRZvuC-DCLBPQlY1OudtFaJX
 

In this second combat the Yak dives suddenly, and the fight gets dragged down to 6km, also it makes a turn and dives when I was climbing so it got a good bit of separation but after some time of pursuit I got it as well.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aYhLFfoew3g5EflAU2RMiXPZ0wpZ6zj9

Edited July 17, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[JtD]

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

The Jug was a dancing ballerina at those alts compared to down low.

 

The P-47 was a heavy plane and 2000hp of the early versions left it desperately underpowered. If you go up to 9 or 10km with the version we have in game, you'll be down to this little power or even less and abysmal climb rates - also meaning abysmal sustained maneuvering. Just like any other aircraft, the P-47 performed best in climbing and turning down low, the only difference would be that it did not lose as much when going up. In game we have a version that starts losing performance at 7km - so you don't need to go higher than that for a maximum relative performance advantage and you do not need to expect to fly circles around anything at 10km. The P-47 too friggin heavy.

 

Why do people always forget how heavy it was? It had a service ceiling lower than that of a P-51, any Spitfire IX or even a P-38. Comparable to a Spitfire V or Hurricane II, which certainly didn't feature high altitude engines, but weighed half as much.

 

SuperEntendard describes perfectly how to fight at high altitude in a P-47 and apparently, he gets the historical results.

Edited July 17, 2019 by JtD

[Gambit21]

Yeah it was a heavy bird.

”Not losing as much when up high” is likely a more accurate way to characterize it as you pointed out. 

 

End result the same - advantage Jug.

[von_Tom]

19 hours ago, Rjel said:

These nationalistic arguments are laughable. Since the first cave man made a rock roll downhill, every human endeavor have been built on what came before. 

 

Stop being so sensible.  This explains national stuff:

 

 

von Tom

[Kurfurst]

In defense of the P47, it was designed as an interceptor for special US needs. Hence the need for cumbersome turbos to be able to intercept high flying bombers. Hence why limited range was not seen as an issue. The USAAF also had limited resources, interceptors like the 38 and the 47 would be procured in limited numbers, and they were thus willing to pay extra for fewer, but more advanced planes.

 

That it was deployed in entirely different role is not the fault of the design, although I tend to agree the design itself was rather extravagant, and the same specs for the original could be probably achieved in a much smaller and more efficient package. 

[Sgt_Joch]

not a Yak-1B, but tips from Robert Johnson on how to defeat a Spitfire:

 

Quote

The following episode, found in Thunderbolt! by the World War II
USAAF ace Robert S. Johnson, is one of the best examples available of the
use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch-back) to defeat a doublesuperior
opponent. The encounter described is a mock combat engagement
over England between Johnson (P-47C) and an unidentified RAF pilot
in a new Spitfire IX. The Spitfire had about a 25 percent better power
loading and nearly a 25 percent lower wing loading. The Thunderbolt's
only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in
a dive (because of the P-47's heavier weight and higher density), and better
roll performance. (See the Appendix for a discussion of roll and acceleration
performance.) Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural
fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow
himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension.                                                                                                                                                                                                          
"We flew together in formation, and then I decided to see just what this
airplane had to its credit.
I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment
later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He
couldn't make it; the big Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned
happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show off
the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire;
suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt
zoomed upward, soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back;
the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.
But my advantage was only the zoom—once in steady climb, he had me. I
gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if
I were standing still. Could that plane climb! He tore upward in a climb I
couldn't match in the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings
rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up.
This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbolt;
if I attempted to hold a tight turn the Spitfire would slip right inside me.
I knew, also, that he could easily outclimb my fighter. I stayed out of those
sucker traps. First rule in this kind of a fight: don't fight the way your
opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb; keep him at your own
level.
We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on
my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded
with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too. The
P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug
could outroll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only
advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could
whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once,
twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the
right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went,
left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the
Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me.
I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away
to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes.
Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air,
trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt
howled and ran for earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow—and I was a
long way ahead of him by now—when I j erked back on the stick and threw the
Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or turning climb, the British ship had the
advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter
that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the
Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, the Thunderbolt
hammering around. And that was it—for in the next few moments the
Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less maneuverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt
rushing straight at him, eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit.4"

 

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Sgt_Joch

[Herne]

hope we get to hear some of this whistling when observing people giving airshows over the airfield while we are waiting for our engines to start with our canopies open on the ground :-
 

 

[DSR_A-24]

[MiloMorai]

Speaking of extravagance, the Bf/Bv 155.

 

[Sgt_Joch]

I have been re-reading Shaw's "Fighter Combat tactics and maneuvering". These are some examples of tactics used by USAAF P-51 pilots which I thought may be of interest:

 

Quote

Throughout World War II, fighting wing was the tactical doctrine of the
U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) in the European theater. A few highly
experienced teams, however, recognized the limitations of these tactics
and developed their own variations, generally along the lines of double
attack. Probably the most famous of these teams was made up of Captains
John Godfrey (16.33 victories) and Don Gentile (19.83 victories). These
pilots' success was so astounding, and their methods so revolutionary, that
Luftwaffe Reichsmarschall Herrmann Goering supposedly stated he
would trade two of his best squadrons for their capture. The following
encounter sounds suspiciously like a double attack bracket. Godfrey and
Gentile are flying P-51B Mustangs against the lone Me 109.

"Break! Break! One coming in at 4 o'clock to you!"
"Okay, break starboard," said Gentile.
They broke together and the 109 made a head-on pass.
"All right, Johnny," said Gentile, "when he comes back around on the
next turn you break right and I'll break left."
They circled and the 109 came boring in for another head-on attack. He
looked mean and vicious. He was bold enough to joust with two Mustangs.
As the planes bored straight at each other's spinner, Gentile ordered the
foxing maneuver:
"Now!"
Gentile broke sharply to the left; Godfrey to the right. They honked their
sticks back, climbed and came barreling down on the 109's tail.1

p.205

Quote

Again the team of Godfrey and Gentile provides a combat example of
the defensive split. The maneuvering following the split is also very
representative of offensive double attack doctrine.

Don was the first to see the ME-109.
"Johnny, at six o'clock high there's a single bandit."
I looked back, and there he was high above us. I gazed in disbelief as his
nose dropped and he plummeted down on us.
"Don, the crazy son of a bitch is bouncing us."
"I know. When I yell, 'Break,' you break right and I'll break left."
I watched as the 109 dropped closer and closer. "Break, Johnny."
I pulled sharply to the right, and thought at first I had broken too late as the
109 pulled on my tail. I tightened my turn and met Don halfway around as he
tried to fire on the 109 in a head-on attack. I went around twice more, with
the Jerry on my tail, before Don could reverse his turn and swing down for a
rear attack. But this German pilot was a smart, capable flyer. As Don brought
his guns to bear, he split S and dove to the ground. Don and I followed him,
our motors roaring in pursuit. He pulled out of his dive and banked left,
which brought him close to me. I followed him and fired. He wasn't one to sit
still, however, and changed his turn to swing into Don. I followed, firing
intermittently. Don, meanwhile, had climbed for altitude, and I kept the
Jerry busy in a tight turn. As I fired, I saw flashes on his wing, fuselage and
even his motor, but the pilot wouldn't bail out. Turning all the time and
losing height, we were now just above the tree tops, and the 109's engine was
spewing smoke. I had no forewarning that my ammunition was running out,
but as I prepared for the final burst only silence came as I pressed the tit.
"Finish him, Don. I'm all out of ammunition."
Don, who had been maneuvering above us waiting for the Jerry to break
out of the turn, zoomed down in front of me and made one pass at the
courageous German flyer. His shots hit home, and the 109 crashed into the
ground.1

p.208

[Asgar]

3 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Speaking of extravagance, the Bf/Bv 155.

 

just one detail Me/BV 155  

[Legioneod]

18 hours ago, JtD said:

 

The P-47 was a heavy plane and 2000hp of the early versions left it desperately underpowered. If you go up to 9 or 10km with the version we have in game, you'll be down to this little power or even less and abysmal climb rates - also meaning abysmal sustained maneuvering. Just like any other aircraft, the P-47 performed best in climbing and turning down low, the only difference would be that it did not lose as much when going up. In game we have a version that starts losing performance at 7km - so you don't need to go higher than that for a maximum relative performance advantage and you do not need to expect to fly circles around anything at 10km. The P-47 too friggin heavy.

 

Why do people always forget how heavy it was? It had a service ceiling lower than that of a P-51, any Spitfire IX or even a P-38. Comparable to a Spitfire V or Hurricane II, which certainly didn't feature high altitude engines, but weighed half as much.

 

SuperEntendard describes perfectly how to fight at high altitude in a P-47 and apparently, he gets the historical results.

Whats the service ceiling of the P-51? I've always thought the P-51 and P-47 had similar ceilings, both were over 40K ft.

While the P-47 was heavy I don't really think it was much of a disadvantage for it, especially at altitude. And while it won't fly circles around aircraft no aircraft should fly circles around it either.

The P-47 doesn't magically become a turnfighter just because it's up higher, the same BnZ and energy tactics still apply at all altitudes, the main difference is that the P-47 becomes a different monster when employing energy/BnZ tactics at altitude.

 

Also, people seem to forget that the P-51 and P-38 were heavy aircraft as well yet that didnt stop them from performing well in their roles.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Legioneod

[JtD]

The operational ceiling for the P-47 is given with figures between 35k and 38k feet. Such as here.

 

The P-51 is usually given with more than 40k feet. Such as here.

 

Same way the P-47 can have higher ones, the P-51 can, if you take different turbo, engine or aircraft versions.

 

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

While the P-47 was heavy I don't really think it was much of a disadvantage for it, especially at altitude.

 

The weight of the P-47 is relevant because it produces a lot of induced drag. It becomes more important as indicated speeds go down with altitude. Having a larger wingspan helps, and basically weight²/span² is a great indicator. If you go with the mean weights given above, for 1 g flight you get

P-47 215000 kg²/m²

P-51 118000 kg²/m²

basically meaning that the P-47 produces twice as much induced drag as the P-51 when flying at the same speed. So all the extra power the R-2800 produces just goes into combating the aircrafts own weight and drag. Additionally, the P-47 has a higher stall speed while it is not enjoying a higher top speed, so the envelope in which it can manoeuvre is smaller than that of the P-51. The large weight is a disadvantage especially at altitude.

[AndytotheD]

6 hours ago, JtD said:

The operational ceiling for the P-47 is given with figures between 35k and 38k feet. Such as here.

 

The P-51 is usually given with more than 40k feet. Such as here.

 

Same way the P-47 can have higher ones, the P-51 can, if you take different turbo, engine or aircraft versions.

 

 

The weight of the P-47 is relevant because it produces a lot of induced drag. It becomes more important as indicated speeds go down with altitude. Having a larger wingspan helps, and basically weight²/span² is a great indicator. If you go with the mean weights given above, for 1 g flight you get

P-47 215000 kg²/m²

P-51 118000 kg²/m²

basically meaning that the P-47 produces twice as much induced drag as the P-51 when flying at the same speed. So all the extra power the R-2800 produces just goes into combating the aircrafts own weight and drag. Additionally, the P-47 has a higher stall speed while it is not enjoying a higher top speed, so the envelope in which it can manoeuvre is smaller than that of the P-51. The large weight is a disadvantage especially at altitude.

 

I’m not in a position to do any mathematics myself but take into account the fact that the P-47 has an elliptical wing, which has low lift induced drag to begin with. Doesn’t negate it completely, but it has a significant effect apparently.

[JtD]

Yes and no, I think it may have an influence in the 5 percent range. This can be considered significant, but not really for this comparison. We'd have to go into wing construction and airflow details to find realistic lift distribution and therefore drag production.

Edited July 18, 2019 by JtD

[AndytotheD]

i Honestly wish we could but of course Republic destroyed all of that data for some absurd reason.

[357th_Dog]

2 hours ago, AndytotheD said:

i Honestly wish we could but of course Republic destroyed all of that data for some absurd reason.

They did the same thing with the F-105 Thunderchief after they were done with it as well

 

[CIA_Yankee_]

4 hours ago, Rekt said:

 

No doubt the tactics that the US planes require are effective and probably historical but the kind of knife-fighting that can be done even with discipline-requiring planes like the FW 190 or La-5 is substantially more fun.

 

One would think that the same kind of discipline you need with an La-5 is the same as with the american planes. They're energy fighters that you shouldn't use as turn fighters.

 

The P-47 I can understand, much like the P-40 it is a fighter that you must always maintain energy superiority with, and when you're in danger of losing it you should quit the field and reset (magic flaps notwithstnanding). Those require their own kind of discipline: never engage in a situation where you do not have superiority, as every fighter in the inventory turns better, flies faster, and climbs better (the exception being at very high altitude for the P-47, which is rarely a factor in BoX). 

 

But the same cannot be said of the P-51, at least (not sure about the P-38). The Mustang definitely has attributes that gives it rough parity with its contemporary foes. But unlike the Spitfire it is not a turn fighter, and should be employed much like the 190 or La-5 should: use its speed to maintain an energy advantage, fight in the vertical, and don't get drawn into turning fights. Why it would require less discipline than its contemporaries escapes me.

[[DBS]Browning]

I suspect that if you do not like planes that do badly in a sustained angles fight, you will only find the 51 marginally better than other US craft.

[CIA_Yankee_]

7 minutes ago, Rekt said:

 

Maybe so...all I'm trying to say here is that the FW190 and La-5, in my limited experience, have some capacity for turning and vertical maneuvers in close combat and a reasonable ability to recoup lost energy in mid-fight. The P-39/40/47 are just pigs by comparison. Yes the 39/40 can participate successfully in an angles fight for a little while but have such a limited ability to recover energy that using their turn superiority against the Germans, effectively all they have going for them in the first place besides dive speed, is asking for trouble. Except for 5 minutes of WEP the P-47 can't really turn, climb or accelerate (except downhill of course) compared to axis or Soviet peers, so hammering people and bolting, pun intended, is all there is. After flying something like the FW-190A3 or even the lowly 109G2 all of the American fighters that we currently have are just a bad joke. 

 

On the other hand perhaps I just suck at being American. And hopefully the P-51 will be more accommodating for that.

 

 

Agreed on the 39/40/47. They're basically outclassed as dogfighters in general, and so have to be employed only when at an advantage. In a flight sim where people enjoy dogfighting, it's definitely a bigger challenge, but that does require its own discipline. There's pilots who do incredibly well in those airframes, and my hat's off to them because their success is a result of excellent skill and discipline (always recovering energy, fighting at an advantage, and making the most of the narrow opportunities they have).

 

But the P-51 (and maybe the P-38) are not in that category. The P-51 is anything but a pig, and has the capability to turn (not a great one, but it's not like LW aircraft were great turners either. The Spit and the Yaks will remain king there) and fight in the vertical, and recover energy. You can clearly see how effective it was by looking at the records of the fighter groups who switched from the P-47 to the P-51 (there's a nice book on the 352nd that's worth a read, called Fighter Group). As they switch to the P-51 a whole bunch of aces start popping up. That's not to say the P-47 is terrible, but the P-51 is definitely a fighter pilot's fighter.

4 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

I suspect that if you do not like planes that do badly in a sustained angles fight, you will only find the 51 marginally better than other US craft.

 

Turning is only part of the equation, in his post. It's not like the La-5 is a superb turner. It's probably comparable to the 51. But unlike the P-40/P-47, it can actually recover energy, fight in the vertical, and it's fast. It's a major difference over the current american fighters we have, who are badly outclassed but their main opposition in every way that matters (except perhaps the P-47 at high altitude, which generally does not matter).

Edited July 18, 2019 by 71st_AH_Yankee_

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

20 hours ago, Rekt said:

 

Turns out I cannot seem to play these tracks, but I'll take your word for it and try your suggestions. Were you running combat power or WEP?

 

Edit: Tried it again...can definitely run away from the Yak-1 without any difficulty, but any kind of turning fight is untenable. The Yak just stays glued to me with no problems. Which is fine I guess, turn fighting against Yaks is stupid to begin with...just thought it would be easier to do up high than it is.

 

On a side note, my engine also overheated and seized without any warning from the technochat ("note to self - check cylinder head temp gauge" LOL).

Uploaded both tracks to YT ^^
 

 

I used full RPM, throttle, turbo and water injection. Since at 10km manifold pressure is down to 47" or so it's considered combat mode and with water injecton it lasts a long time, you will run out of water before getting engine damage. I was overspeeding the turbo, I think at around 25000 RPM, and this can be done for 15 min so no problems there either. If you want to stick to the 22000 RPM limit the turbo needs to be set to 65% at 10 km altitude with full throttle and RPM, you will lose a couple inches of manifold pressure though. Engine shutters were at 10%, oil radiator 20%, intercooler 50%.

Edited July 18, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

1 hour ago, Rekt said:

 

Thanks, as I suspected most of the problem is the fact that I'm just a trash pilot at high altitude (probably low too). Will keep working on it.

Well, as far as I can see your Intercooler is far too open as well, the Temps need to be in the Yellow, otherwise the Water Injection actually kills a lot of Power.

Full Turbo is also quite often Counterproductive, as it tends to produce too much Boost for the 100 Octane, and the Automatic Manifold Pressure Regulator will Throttle you back to 66".

And Throttling a Supercharged Engine is a proper Power Killer and you end up with the Turbo and Supercharger fighting the Throttle and you loose even more Power due to Scavenging losses as well.

Normally the 90% Turbo Position is absolutely enough and you will never need more unless you are using Fuels Rated for the later 70"+ of Boost.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

10 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Well, as far as I can see your Intercooler is far too open as well, the Temps need to be in the Yellow, otherwise the Water Injection actually kills a lot of Power.

Full Turbo is also quite often Counterproductive, as it tends to produce too much Boost for the 100 Octane, and the Automatic Manifold Pressure Regulator will Throttle you back to 66".

And Throttling a Supercharged Engine is a proper Power Killer and you end up with the Turbo and Supercharger fighting the Throttle and you loose even more Power due to Scavenging losses as well.

Normally the 90% Turbo Position is absolutely enough and you will never need more unless you are using Fuels Rated for the later 70"+ of Boost.

With the intercooler I always found the best speed was leaving it at the 50% neutral position, and usually that is cool enough to not cause trouble.

For example in the 10km scenario discussed earlier, the top speed of the P-47 with 22000 RPM turbo, full throttle, full RPM, water injection, giving 46" is 375 km/h indicated. This is with 50% intercooler at 0ºC carb air temperature.

If I close the intercooler to 17% to enter the yellow region (slightly less than 40ºC carb air temp) without adjusting anything else, the turbo speed increases to 23000 RPM, manifold pressure drops to 44.5" and speed decreases to 347 km/h IAS.

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Well, as far as I can see your Intercooler is far too open as well, the Temps need to be in the Yellow, otherwise the Water Injection actually kills a lot of Power.

Why? It just leans the mixture that is otherwise up at about 10% and brings it back down to maybe 8% (best power) by adding an alternative heat sink. Besides, the colder your carb air, the more power you have as it contains more oxygen at the same MAP.

 

By keeping carb temp in the yellow range, you just make sure you‘re using the turbocharger to the maximum. 

[Mac_Messer]

19 hours ago, Rekt said:

 

Maybe so...all I'm trying to say here is that the FW190 and La-5, in my limited experience, have some capacity for turning and vertical maneuvers in close combat and a reasonable ability to recoup lost energy in mid-fight. The P-39/40/47 are just pigs by comparison. Yes the 39/40 can participate successfully in an angles fight for a little while but have such a limited ability to recover energy that using their turn superiority against the Germans, effectively all they have going for them in the first place besides dive speed, is asking for trouble. Except for 5 minutes of WEP the P-47 can't really turn, climb or accelerate (except downhill of course) compared to axis or Soviet peers, so hammering people and bolting, pun intended, is all there is. After flying something like the FW-190A3 or even the lowly 109G2 all of the American fighters that we currently have are just a bad joke.

In a way, flying the US planes is the same as in 109/190 against yaks/spitfires.

Flying the 109 against a yak, one can`t just resort to sustained climb or sustained turn because the yak is similar in sus. climb and better in sus. turn. One can joust with it for a limited time until he finds himself in yak`s performance envelope. That is the moment to bug off and reset - with a dive and/or speed advantage to gain separation and enter own performance envelope.

 

While flying the P40/P39 my experience is that this general rule works well until combat power runs out. Then the 109s has substantial performance advantage accross the board by running longer combat power, let alone emergency power when it pretty much turns into a jet. It is a problem since by that time any comparisons are worthless, you have to find help or run and hide. Knowing that I did have much success flying the birds, though never as big as when I maintained discipline while flying the 109/190.

 

In the Mustang I expect to do the same - dogfight the 109 for a moment or two and should disable him with .50cal. If not, zoom or dive away and reset the engagement situation since I should have again energy advantage if I do it correctly.

11 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

With the intercooler I always found the best speed was leaving it at the 50% neutral position, and usually that is cool enough to not cause trouble.

For example in the 10km scenario discussed earlier, the top speed of the P-47 with 22000 RPM turbo, full throttle, full RPM, water injection, giving 46" is 375 km/h indicated. This is with 50% intercooler at 0ºC carb air temperature.

If I close the intercooler to 17% to enter the yellow region (slightly less than 40ºC carb air temp) without adjusting anything else, the turbo speed increases to 23000 RPM, manifold pressure drops to 44.5" and speed decreases to 347 km/h IAS.

Never have to worry bout such things when flying 109/190s.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Mac_Messer