Jump to content

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, steven197106 said:

This is a document from the USAAF test of a captured FW-190 V P-47,this show the P-47 is superior to the FW-190 wish the game would reflect this

http://www.mediafire.com/file/4331q77pjyb26vw/P-47_versus_FW-190.pdf/file

The document shows nothing of the sort, that is an extremely simplistic summary. The report amounts to the following:
 

1) Acceleration at multiple altitudes: the FW-190 accelerates better initially but the P-47 has a higher top speed at max engine settings. This tracks broadly with what we see in-game, depending on altitude. The P-47 generally gets faster than the 190 the higher it goes, but its initial acceleration is sluggish (which makes sense). 
2) Climb: The FW-190 outclimbed the P-47 during the initial pull up 'zoom climb' but the Jug outpaced it later on - the P-47, however, was using water injection to do this and overheated, whereas the 190 did not overheat. This tracks with climb rates seen in-game in the tech specs - at sea level, the P-47 climbs at 18.1 m/s at WEP, whereas the 190A-8 climbs at 13.8 m/s. So in a P-47 you can outclimb the A-8. The A-5 and A-3 are lighter and climb better but are still outclimbed by the P-47 in WEP, which is how this test was conducted. So this appears correctly modeled in-game. As you put it, the P-47 is 'superior'.
3) The P-47 outdives the FW190 eventually, but the FW has faster initial acceleration in the dive. This holds true in my experience in the game when diving after a FW, it gets away initially but I catch up later in the dive as long as there is enough altitude and I stay coordinated. The P-47 requires a lot of rudder work and I think many people complaining about the dive aren't realizing how much rudder you need to keep it straight and accelerating.
4) Turning - this shows the P-47 out-turning the FW-190 at 10000 feet when above 250 mph, whereas the FW-190 out-turns the P-47 at lower speeds than 250 mph. I haven't gotten into a prolonged turn-fight with a FW-190 in a P-47 as of yet, so I can't comment on this in-game. However, the remarks only show the P-47 as 'superior' in a high speed turn-fight above 10000 feet. In low speeds it recommends oblique turns (i.e. using better climb and energy to the pilots advantage, and using gravity-assisted turns) That advice indicates that low speed flat turning favours the FW-190, and its 'sudden acceleration' and ability to quickly change direction make it deadly at low speeds.

The report concludes itself by quite literally saying "The P-47 is at least as good as the FW-190 at low altitudes." It does not say "clearly superior" . The report indicates the aircraft have different advantages at different speeds and flight regimes. The P-47 should avoid turn-fighting with the 190s at low altitudes and at low speeds. The FW-190s initial acceleration advantage is particularly deadly in a prolonged fight where the aircraft may end up at low speed and low altitude (i.e. a huge percentage of fights online in Il-2). At higher altitudes the P-47 shines which...is pretty obvious, its a high altitude fighter whereas the FW-190A certainly is not.

There is a huge amount of information missing to make this report useful to compare to the game. Of note is that neither pilot was very experienced in the aircraft they tested, and the FW-190 pilot had no combat experience (from his flight hours, he appears to have been a test pilot). We have no idea what variant of FW-190 this is. The engine on the 190 is noted as running extremely rough at all times, to the point that the pilot cannot feel buffeting during a stall, which seems to indicate to me a problem with the aircraft's engine. The excessive vibration noted in the report indicates to me a setup problem, but I don't have sources to show if this is definitely the case.



 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To bad they do not state which model 190 they used. I do not direct see the superiority. That is also a bit hard to test in just 1 hour. 

 

The P47 out performs the 190 in some situations, but it could be the 190 was not in perfect good state (things like the shaking problem) And the 190 performs better in other cases.

The 190 seems to accelerate much better but the P47 goes better after that. I personally think I would prefer to get out as fast as possible before you get hit. Better as, "they shot me down, but if I had more time, at the end  I would have outrun him" 

 

The P47 used water injection and over heated, the 190 seemed to be without MW-50 and even then did not overheat. So I think it was not running full power. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, pa4tim said:

To bad they do not state which model 190 they used. I do not direct see the superiority. That is also a bit hard to test in just 1 hour. 

 

The P47 out performs the 190 in some situations, but it could be the 190 was not in perfect good state (things like the shaking problem) And the 190 performs better in other cases.

The 190 seems to accelerate much better but the P47 goes better after that. I personally think I would prefer to get out as fast as possible before you get hit. Better as, "they shot me down, but if I had more time, at the end  I would have outrun him" 

 

The P47 used water injection and over heated, the 190 seemed to be without MW-50 and even then did not overheat. So I think it was not running full power. 

 

 

Agreed on all points.

The test is a little bit illuminating in terms of general characteristics of the aircraft and how to fight in them, but you'd be hard pressed to use it as a source to modify any aspect of the flight modeling of the two aircraft. There is no hard evidence here, no numbers to crunch - its a qualitative head-on test between aircraft, neither of which (as far as I can tell) represent the aircraft variants we have in the sim. Even so, many of the general performance notes follow the specs we see in the sim.

Once again we come back to the reason for this report. It wasn't to evaluate the aircraft's performance but to test whether the P-47 could engage a FW-190, especially below 10000 feet, with any expectation of victory. In 1944 I have to think that this kind of testing is a prelude to committing P-47s to more low-level missions in the ETO in support of the upcoming invasion, quite a different scenario than their previous usage as high-altitude escort fighters. The conclusion drawn is that its basically an even fight - a conclusion I have to question. The test itself is not super rigorous in that it is conducted over 4 flights between only two different pilots, neither of whom have much time in their respective aircraft. I suspect the 190 in the test is underperforming against the 47 and in a real engagement would have a distinct advantage at lower altitudes.

All that being said, I have had some luck engaging FW-190s online at below 10000 feet in the Jug, as long as I stay fast. Which is exactly what the report is telling us to do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pa4tim said:

To bad they do not state which model 190 they used. I do not direct see the superiority. That is also a bit hard to test in just 1 hour. 

 

The report is from 14th April 1944, so it might have been that A4/U8 which Eric "Wrinkle" Brown tested as well for the RAF? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_operational_history#Western_Allied_view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont belive you can overheat P-47 we have in game with wep, as its only 5min, also in 1vs1 5min df p-47 is better then 190, especialy at lower alts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

i dont belive you can overheat P-47 we have in game with wep, as its only 5min, also in 1vs1 5min df p-47 is better then 190, especialy at lower alts


In regards to the climb, we can do some math with the numbers they gave in the report vs. the specs in game.

In the report, the first climb was made from 2000 feet to 7000 feet - a climb of 5000 ft, or 1524 m. At WEP at sea level, according to the specs, our P-47 climbs at 18.1 m/s. If we make some pretty big assumptions (climb rate is the same from 2000 - 7000 feet as at sea level, they climbed at best climb speed of 150 mph, etc), we can say that the P-47 should make that climb in eighty-four (84) seconds (1524 m / 18.1 m/s). Nowhere near the five minute limit to WEP. 

So it doesnt seem like it would be necessary to exceed the limits in the manual or the game to achieve what they did in the test. The way to test this would be, I guess, to climb at 150 mph with cowl flaps closed and WEP engaged at max RPM. I'm pretty sure I've overheated the P-47 on WEP during low-speed maneuvers, so a low speed climb at WEP on a warm map might do it. 

The other thing is they just say "Slightly overheated". So maybe it was not at the overheat limit per se but running hotter than you would like to in a non-combat situation. This is the real problem with the report here, there are precious few actual numbers for us to compare to in-game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got hold of this report years ago for IL2 1946 and I'm pretty sure it was a FW 190 A-5.

 

 

48081458426_61fa5f3515.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It was a captured, former Schlachtflieger F or G, rebuilt to what was believed to reflect an A-5.

Edited by Bremspropeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have odd experience in game P-47. 1/4 CH rudder deflection to counteract adverser yaw is causing P-47 to do a snap roll followed by a stall.  I hope this model is in "work in progress" stage.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sdflyer said:

I have odd experience in game P-47. 1/4 CH rudder deflection to counteract adverser yaw is causing P-47 to do a snap roll followed by a stall.  I hope this model is in "work in progress" stage.

 

 

The model is considered complete, insofar as they consider it ready to release. The models are periodically improved or have bugs fixed

Are you saying your P-47 is experiencing a snap roll and stall at 1/4 travel of your rudder pedals? Is this at low speeds and is your ball centred at the time? I can see how at very low airspeeds if you give it too much rudder, it might snap roll, but a quarter travel should be just a little excessive for entering a turn. It shouldn't cause a snap roll at normal speeds.

 

In my flying the P-47 drops a wing on a stall but only after significant buffeting (once again, appears to be as per manual). The rudder is a lot more sensitive than you would think on the P-47 for such a big aircraft - all the controls are described as 'light'. I don't think I've ever snap-rolled it unintentionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I believe the ingame P-47 currently i believe is marginally better overall then the FW-190A-5/8. Not better then the D-9 however

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

I believe the ingame P-47 currently i believe is marginally better overall then the FW-190A-5/8. Not better then the D-9 however

The D-9 is a beast on par with the 109K-4 in my opinion. The reason it is perhaps not as feared is that that 190s in general are just more difficult for most players to use. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

The model is considered complete, insofar as they consider it ready to release. The models are periodically improved or have bugs fixed

Are you saying your P-47 is experiencing a snap roll and stall at 1/4 travel of your rudder pedals? Is this at low speeds and is your ball centred at the time? I can see how at very low airspeeds if you give it too much rudder, it might snap roll, but a quarter travel should be just a little excessive for entering a turn. It shouldn't cause a snap roll at normal speeds.

 

In my flying the P-47 drops a wing on a stall but only after significant buffeting (once again, appears to be as per manual). The rudder is a lot more sensitive than you would think on the P-47 for such a big aircraft - all the controls are described as 'light'. I don't think I've ever snap-rolled it unintentionally.

 

When I did power off stalls in T-6 I had keep full right rudder to keep  airplane coordinated just before stall. I mean I literally pressed rudder to the wall, one inch different of pedal deflection cost me inverted airplane immediately after stall, which scared me a lot. LOL Basically T-6 is super stable as long as coordinated. 

 

This kind of behavior reversed in the game. When I don't use rudder P-47 is "handing" there at slow speed. However, if I invoke my muscle memory and tap on the rudder, just a little bit, it does exactly opposite. Since we don't have feed back on PC rudders, perhaps rudder efficiency should be reduce by a much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sdflyer said:

 

When I did power off stalls in T-6 I had keep full right rudder to keep  airplane coordinated just before stall. I mean I literally pressed rudder to the wall, one inch different of pedal deflection cost me inverted airplane immediately after stall, which scared me a lot. LOL Basically T-6 is super stable as long as coordinated. 

 

This kind of behavior reversed in the game. When I don't use rudder P-47 is "handing" there at slow speed. However, if I invoke my muscle memory and tap on the rudder, just a little bit, it does exactly opposite. Since we don't have feed back on PC rudders, perhaps rudder efficiency should be reduce by a much?

I'm confused about what is actually happening in the game for you here. Are you attempting power-off stalls in the P-47 when this is happening? Or is this something that happens every time you try to coordinate a turn, or just whenever you touch the rudder? I haven't tried power-off stalls yet.

I use the CH pedals and one thing I've found is that the detente in the centre makes it very difficult to do precise, small corrections near the centre of travel. You can adjust the sensitivity of the rudder in the keybinding settings so that the response follows a curve, if you haven't already done so. I added a small deadzone to my rudder to to compensate for the central detente in the pedals, and decreased the sensitivity curve so inputs aren't so abrupt. The rudder inputs in game seem very sensitive for some planes like the MiG-3 and Yak-7b, wheras others require quite a bit of rudder just to stay coordinated. The Jug is sensitive to rudder inputs and seems to need a very careful foot. I find it only needs rudder when entering and leaving a turn, whereas a lot of the other planes I fly seem to require a slight touch of rudder within the turn as well.

The P-47 manual mentions it being similar to an AT-6 (not sure if this is the same as the T-6 you refer to?)  in stall behaviour, but talks about differences in stall and spin recovery in the D-25 and later aircraft. The manual I'm looking at is here, section on spins and stalls at page 56-57:
http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=4209

EDIT: In the acrobatics section of the same manual, it says snap-rolls are prohibited as you may damage the structure of the plane in the attempt!

I'd like to test some of this stuff out but I've injured my hand a little sharpening a scythe (don't ask), I can type but gripping a flight stick gives me trouble, gonna be a few days until I can fly her again.

Edited by RedKestrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 1:25 PM, RedKestrel said:

I'm confused about what is actually happening in the game for you here. Are you attempting power-off stalls in the P-47 when this is happening? Or is this something that happens every time you try to coordinate a turn, or just whenever you touch the rudder? I haven't tried power-off stalls yet.

I use the CH pedals and one thing I've found is that the detente in the centre makes it very difficult to do precise, small corrections near the centre of travel. You can adjust the sensitivity of the rudder in the keybinding settings so that the response follows a curve, if you haven't already done so. I added a small deadzone to my rudder to to compensate for the central detente in the pedals, and decreased the sensitivity curve so inputs aren't so abrupt. The rudder inputs in game seem very sensitive for some planes like the MiG-3 and Yak-7b, wheras others require quite a bit of rudder just to stay coordinated. The Jug is sensitive to rudder inputs and seems to need a very careful foot. I find it only needs rudder when entering and leaving a turn, whereas a lot of the other planes I fly seem to require a slight touch of rudder within the turn as well.

The P-47 manual mentions it being similar to an AT-6 (not sure if this is the same as the T-6 you refer to?)  in stall behaviour, but talks about differences in stall and spin recovery in the D-25 and later aircraft. The manual I'm looking at is here, section on spins and stalls at page 56-57:
http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=4209

EDIT: In the acrobatics section of the same manual, it says snap-rolls are prohibited as you may damage the structure of the plane in the attempt!

I'd like to test some of this stuff out but I've injured my hand a little sharpening a scythe (don't ask), I can type but gripping a flight stick gives me trouble, gonna be a few days until I can fly her again.

 

 

T-6 is commonly refereed to  Texan family there are of course many variations. I flown SNJ-4  during in my post private exploration stage with taildraggers like Citabria and Decathlon. The major difference between all aircraft I  flew before and after T-6 was I have never had to give full right rudder to keep it coordinated during power off stall. In T-6 one inch  short required rudder input caused immediate inverted stall. Ironically, it exactly what happens with P-47  but then I barely touch right rudder stalls and rolls from slow flight. May be as you recommended I should tweak dead zone on my CH rudders. So far I get by using my CH rudders as is with other IL2 aircraft .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting cockpit cam showing ball going to the right during straight climb at around 28:47. I don't see this in IL2 P47

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sdflyer said:

Here is an interesting cockpit cam showing ball going to the right during straight climb at around 28:47. I don't see this in IL2 P47

 

From about 25:11 onwards to about 25: 40 the ball is also significantly to the right by about the same amount as when in the climb on several occasions, but the VSI shows he's not climbing. Hard to tell what's happening with the trim and the rudder from the viewpoint we have unfortunately. Perhaps the plane is out of trim?

I hope to get up in the 47 soon and do some testing of my own, I'm sure I remember having to add right rudder trim in the climb but I haven't spent enough time in the plane to get really good with it yet and I've been away from the game for a week or more now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 1:08 PM, RedKestrel said:

From about 25:11 onwards to about 25: 40 the ball is also significantly to the right by about the same amount as when in the climb on several occasions, but the VSI shows he's not climbing. Hard to tell what's happening with the trim and the rudder from the viewpoint we have unfortunately. Perhaps the plane is out of trim?

I hope to get up in the 47 soon and do some testing of my own, I'm sure I remember having to add right rudder trim in the climb but I haven't spent enough time in the plane to get really good with it yet and I've been away from the game for a week or more now.

 

Both P-51 and P-47 have rudder trim take off setting because rudder alone is insufficient to compensate toque, slipstream and gyroscopic precession  when the tail raised. I don't think they use rudder or aileron trim in combat because it's impractical. During the long haul perhaps?

 

https://www.spruemaster.com/wp-content/gallery/manual/Republic P-47 AAF Manual.pdf

Share this post


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

Both P-51 and P-47 have rudder trim take off setting because rudder alone is insufficient to compensate toque, slipstream and gyroscopic precession  when the tail raised. I don't think they use rudder or aileron trim in combat because it's impractical. During the long haul perhaps?

 

They have obviously not modelled the torque or the rudder effectiveness properly in the game then because I never bother with take-off trim in the P47.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

They have obviously not modelled the torque or the rudder effectiveness properly in the game then because I never bother with take-off trim in the P47.

I'm going to err on the side of over-effective rudder authority, as it seems a lot of planes in the sim are very sensitive to rudder inputs. 

EDIT: For what its worth, I can't find anything in the manuals I've perused saying that the torque on takeoff can't be compensated for without setting the rudder trim. One pilot's notes mentions setting the trim to Takeoff, but the other two manuals I looked at don't even mention trim in the section on takeoff, they just say to compensate for torque with rudder rather than with brakes.

Edited by RedKestrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it a well-known fact that most of these sims have torque artificially toned down, because most sim pilots would never be able to get off the ground?  Oleg admitted to this way back when, as I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JG13_opcode said:

Isn't it a well-known fact that most of these sims have torque artificially toned down, because most sim pilots would never be able to get off the ground?  Oleg admitted to this way back when, as I recall.

Maybe, but there's lots of 'well-known facts' that turn out to be partially or wholly untrue. I find torque effects are stronger in Il-2 GB than they were in Il-2 1946, but this is subjective. 

When reading the manuals for the P-47, no special mention is made of excessive torque on takeoff, except to avoid throttling up too fast to prevent excessive torque. One would think that the manuals would mention that torque is only able to be overcome with take-off trim and full rudder. The manuals go into all kinds of other minutiae of engine settings, flaps , when to raise gear, etc. In fact, the manuals talk about raising the tail intentionally off the ground during the take-off roll to improve rudder authority, rather than taking off from a three-point position, but never warn against excessive nose swing that occurs when this happens. That doesn't mean its not an issue, but from what I'm reading it doesn't seem to be official advice.

My suspicion is that the takeoff trim setting reduces control movements required and so is standard procedure, but is not absolutely required. At least on the P-47.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 10:10 AM, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

They have obviously not modelled the torque or the rudder effectiveness properly in the game then because I never bother with take-off trim in the P47.

 

I haven't tried to take off in P-47 yet, but I believe real P-47 as in many other aircraft rudder pedals are calibrated with specific resistance (40 lbs or so? ) design to get a better. Most gaming rudder hardware I'm aware of do not have this "force feed". This actually makes a big difference for between depressing rudder during take off or give full rudder during spin recovery.

 

I believe during take off no one depresses full  rudder! I'm not saying it's impossible but definitely too awkward. Also there is big chance to overcompensate and  make a ground loop or worse. That when I think rudder trim comes handy especially for tail draggers where a lot of  small rudder input happening during take off .  

 

In sim world my CH rudder pedals have absolutely no feed back. While in real life I have physical  sensation that can relate to my muscle memory how much rudder is depressed,  in sim I can go from full rudder deflection to 1/3 and  feel nothing. There on substitute  is to sense  foot extension and interpolate to the rudder depression. This effect can completely eliminate need do for rudder trim or manifest noticeable torque sensation.

 

I know some developers that did manage to simulate   rudder resistance by decreasing rudder sensitivity during take off, landing or slow flight ( It was TMB930 for X-plane 11 after many patches). I don't think it is simulated in Il-2 that well. I think they simulate rudder authority vs airflow but not vs physical input. 

Not quite P-47 but good view on rudder work in light tail dragger

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...