Jump to content
Badders46_VR

Feel slow in the P-47

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Whenever I see People complain about the American Planes currently I can guarantee that they are taking too much Fuel

You are wrong. I have tested the hard way what amount of fuel I need for a mission. 
I do not run home scared, I return because my fuel getting low. I preserve fuel in route in case I need extra. But you flying axis is not expected to agree ūüėú

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Well trained Pilots were not used by the Luftwaffe around Bodenplatte.

From what I understand, German pilot flew until they were killed. By Bodenplatte, they didn't have seasoned veterans left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Well trained Pilots were not used by the Luftwaffe around Bodenplatte.

That is what always will make our game non historical. 

4 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

From what I understand, German pilot flew until they were killed. By Bodenplatte, they didn't have seasoned veterans left.

They had, But they fought in Italy , east and west. The rest was pow or dead. 
Even US do not have manpower enough to take on all the world. Hitler said before Poland in 39 that he could not afford a war lasting longer than a year. He managed 6 , but then he had wasted all

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so bad.

 

Fun fact, for the same fuel load, it out climbs the Mustang, on 150 octane, at any altitude.

 

I get triggered by getting one shotted by a 110 gunner far too often though.

Share this post


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

Dont expect anything to change while we have fantasy engine limitations. Its great airplane for up to 5min DF on Berloga for anything els its pointles to take when you have flying¬†P-51 that is good for DF on any alt, have 150 oct fuel and is great for GA as its not build from glass like 47 or 38. Only good thing that happend to this airplane in this game is that it come few months before P-51 so players were forced to play with it for that time ūüėĄ

Doesn't the 47 have exactly the same engine limitations as the 51?

 

I.e. both 5min at emerg., both 15min at combat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real life P-47 could run in WEP (water injection) as long as it had water (15 min)

 

Hook up a water tank to that engine with 7 hours worth of water, and it would run in WEP for 7 hours.... and in fact they did just that as a test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

The real life P-47 could run in WEP (water injection) as long as it had water (15 min)

 

Hook up a water tank to that engine with 7 hours worth of water, and it would run in WEP for 7 hours.... and in fact they did just that as a test.

In real life a mustang could run 100% until fuel ran out too.

 

My point is I don't get how the IL2 method v the 47 is a unique case, it disadvantages every plane. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

In real life a mustang could run 100% until fuel ran out too.

 

My point is I don't get how the IL2 method v the 47 is a unique case, it disadvantages every plane. 

 

Yes, but the Mustang is a better performer overall so it doesn't feel as crippled by the limitations. The american planes get screwed by the fact that 75 years ago, the manual writers put conservative limits in place for power settings.

Its just pretty silly that the USAAF would put enough water in the planes for 15 minutes when it could only use 5. Currently with the P-47 it takes long enough to 'recharge' your engine timers that you may very well run out of fuel before you get it back. So that's however many gallons of water injection just in the back for decoration.

Meanwhile the 109K-4 recharges its emergency power while it runs on combat at a 1-to-1 ratio. None of this engine-recharging stuff is anywhere in the manuals or included in the tech specs and is the worst aspect of the whole system. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in essence, USAAF planes in this gaming series are at a disadvantage by program. That is what I figured. But it figures, coming out of Europe. I would imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be the other way around....It is, what it is. One can't really expect to beat a computer at it's own game, and shooting pool against a guy who owns the table you are shooting on, isn't a good idea either.

Edited by Knarley-Bob
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Yes, but the Mustang is a better performer overall so it doesn't feel as crippled by the limitations. The american planes get screwed by the fact that 75 years ago, the manual writers put conservative limits in place for power settings.

Its just pretty silly that the USAAF would put enough water in the planes for 15 minutes when it could only use 5. Currently with the P-47 it takes long enough to 'recharge' your engine timers that you may very well run out of fuel before you get it back. So that's however many gallons of water injection just in the back for decoration.

Meanwhile the 109K-4 recharges its emergency power while it runs on combat at a 1-to-1 ratio. None of this engine-recharging stuff is anywhere in the manuals or included in the tech specs and is the worst aspect of the whole system. 

Agree, I do not like the system of instant damage for exceeding the engine limits, but it's good that you use the word 'feel', I think that's some of the problem with the 47, people don't 'feel' comfortable with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is absolutely no reason to fly the the thing, not one."

I have to agree with this, unfortunately. If you want a heavy hitter, and something that you can fight in, grab a P-38.  I've been doing well in that airplane. Can't accomplish a thing in the GB Jug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

feel

Right? That big ol' radial just sounds slow. Even when you're cutting along at 300mph it doesn't seem fast. But it is! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

This sim is plagued by the engine timers. They have to go!

I don't understand this "Engine timer" stuff. What, ya damage your motor, fly slow for a while and it heals it's self? Might as well grow bullets too!

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

I don't understand this "Engine timer" stuff. What, ya damage your motor, fly slow for a while and it heals it's self? Might as well grow bullets too!

 

Nope,  restricted to certain time before engine damage , engines don't heal themselves after damage, 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I didn't realise that me posting this thread would result in so many people contributing.

 

I will persevere with the 47 when I don't mind being shot down but I am struggling all round. I am able to hit ground targets but all too often get shot after dropping bombs.

 

I will try the advice to see if I can find some more speed as at around 5-6000 feet I am struggling to trundle along at 250mph... Normally taking around 50% fuel. I look forward to testing the advice.

 

Thanks for the contribution and I cross my fingers that something can be done with the damage model ūü§ěūüŹĽ I appreciate that in a way multiplayer doesn't reflect real life in that the Luftwaffe is represented by very good and numerous pilots as opposed to almost air superiority in real life so flying the 47, you are open to more threats than in real life.

 

Keep smiling!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Nope,  restricted to certain time before engine damage , engines don't heal themselves after damage, 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

But how come that time can be recharged then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it as a cooling down period rather than the gamey term of recharging.

 

WEP is not a continuous power setting 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Think of it as a cooling down period rather than the gamey term of recharging.

 

WEP is not a continuous power setting 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

That's the most reasonable limitation for the WEP I could ever imagine. However, I can't think of it like that when I look at the temp gauges and see that water and oil temps are just fine. This is not a simulation then. It's a weird arcade where instead of simplifying things they artificially make them harder.

 

By the way, how long does it take to cool down the engine? Does it take 5, 10 or 15 minutes? If I overheat it, I open all the rads, ease on the throttle and it cools down within 1 or 2 minutes. 

 

Then again, I can't imagine that a plane would be cleared for use if it allowed pilot to use a power setting that would destroy the engine within couple of minutes or less (109s and P-39/40).

 

At least the devs could make an alternative setting where all WEP would be limited to at least 30 min. And let us decide.

Edited by Arthur-A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Another thing missing to be competitive with the late war fighters is the 150 octane fuel.

 

This. D-28 really needs 70" MAP for the late war scenarios, without it it's a sitting duck, not to mention the poor damage model. Hopefully 70" will come with Normandy since it was used during that timeframe. 150 fuel should be the standard anyways since all P-47s were operating from the UK. Definitely no excuse not to have it imo.

 

8 hours ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

Stop focusing on the wrong role for the plane and its fine.

Its a ww2 flying sim so that means its a bombing/ground war attack sim.
Load P47 with bombs, 
Remove 4 x guns and the ammo. 
Remove all other weight (forgot mods) 
Take 45% fuel 

Good for most ground pounding missions on most Normal servers.

Climbs better than pe2.
Heavier Bomb Load. 
Has better front guns.
But no gunner so must check 6. 

 

P-47 was a fighter first, ground pounder second. I'll never take a P-47 on a ground attack mission with the current DM, I'd rather take a P-51 at least I'll survive most of the time unlike in a P-47. My buddy and I were escoting some P-47s on a ground attack mission, we all decided to go in and strafe/bomb the target, both P-47s got hit and went down instantly, both of our P-51s also got hit yet we had no problem making it back to base.

 

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

150 octane fuel was not used by the US 9th AF on the Continent. 

Yes but it was used by the 8th AF which also operated over the continent. Also during the Normandy timeframe 150 octane was in use by the 8th AF so if 64" MAP isn't default and 70" is at least an option then there's something wrong. 150 was the standard fuel during the Normandy timeframe so there's really no excuse not to add 70" as an option for both P-47s.

 

1 hour ago, Arthur-A said:

This sim is plagued by the engine timers. They have to go!

 

Yep, the main culprit imo besides the DM.

 

 

Also on a side note. I ran a quick test a while back and it seems the D-28 is under performing at lower power settings, I'll need to do more test but it could be the reason the P-47 is so slow when operating below maximum power.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Cooling down period" = Healing themselves. Recharging is for batteries.

If those motors puked that easily, they wouldn't have never been taken into the air. IMHO

Edited by Knarley-Bob
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 March 1945, My Dad did that. His chute opened just before he hit the ground. His plane hit, then he hit. Was captured and survived.

 

Edited by Knarley-Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

"There is absolutely no reason to fly the the thing, not one."

I have to agree with this, unfortunately. If you want a heavy hitter, and something that you can fight in, grab a P-38.  I've been doing well in that airplane. Can't accomplish a thing in the GB Jug.

I have also given up on the 47.  Here is hoping the next update fixes the Jug.  I have also been doing  very well in the 38.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

Kinda offtopic but this is how it feels when you fly the P47D 

 

 

I am forever grateful for that time you refused to shoot me down because I was in a p47.

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I am forever grateful for that time you refused to shoot me down because I was in a p47.

 

Unlike flying K4 easy mod, flying the P47 takes real skill. Because you are one shot most of the time and even with the magic-flaps you are sluggish and slow in direction changes. The 8x 50s feel weaker than the 4x of the P51 and it dives just medium good. It accelerates bad in a dive and the Turbocharger does ONLY give you an advantage to the older german planes like G14 and A8 at high alt.

So i respect everyone a lot who is flying them as dogfighter and sometimes i spare them. ;)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

Unlike flying K4 easy mod, flying the P47 takes real skill. Because you are one shot most of the time and even with the magic-flaps you are sluggish and slow in direction changes. The 8x 50s feel weaker than the 4x of the P51 and it dives just medium good. It accelerates bad in a dive and the Turbocharger does ONLY give you an advantage to the older german planes like G14 and A8 at high alt.

So i respect everyone a lot who is flying them as dogfighter and sometimes i spare them. ;)

I also respect a8 heroes

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I did QMB duels against G14 at 500 meters. When I was in P-47 he danced around me and I couldn't do anything. He outturned and outclimbed me. I wasn't able to get on his 6. Ok, but then I choose A-20 and it was the opposite! I was able to outturn him, outclimb him, very quickly got on his 6 and shot him down.

 

What pissed me off the most is that I could easily catch up with him in A-20, but it was almost impossible in a Jug.

 

This is ridiculous. When you're able to easily shot down a 109 in a medium bomber, but it's almost impossible to dogfight it in a Jug - something's wrong.

I'm not going to touch P-47 in this sim again, until devs fix those issues. And for the first time, I'm starting to regret pre-ordering BON. See, P-47 was the first allied aircraft released for the Bodenplatte. More than 2 years ago. Devs had plenty of time to fix all those issues and yet it still remains half-assed.

 

Kinda sucks, especially if it's your favorite US fighter.

Edited by Arthur-A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

But it figures, coming out of Europe.

 

I assure you, it has nothing to do with that at all. All planes are affected by the engine timer system, to one extent or another. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

Unlike flying K4 easy mod, flying the P47 takes real skill. Because you are one shot most of the time and even with the magic-flaps you are sluggish and slow in direction changes. The 8x 50s feel weaker than the 4x of the P51 and it dives just medium good. It accelerates bad in a dive and the Turbocharger does ONLY give you an advantage to the older german planes like G14 and A8 at high alt.

So i respect everyone a lot who is flying them as dogfighter and sometimes i spare them. ;)

Perfect example of why the P-47 was not used primarily as a fighter. They called it a "Fighter/ Bomber" but it should have been called a "Bomber/ Fighter". It flies like a truck, because that's what it was. A flying Dump Truck, that dropped a lot on ordinance on trains, troops, convoys and the enemy's ordinance. For dancing in the sky, that's not the plane to take up. The guys who flew them, I don't think had much of a choice.

3 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

I assure you, it has nothing to do with that at all. All planes are affected by the engine timer system, to one extent or another. 

What I'm saying is the Brits thought their's were the best. The Germans thought their's were the best, and so did the Americans. The people programming these are going to have a little bias towards the other guy's, and a little for their own is all. Who know, maybe us Americans think "ours" should perform better, and really this is the way it was. I know guys who swear up and down their brand of motorcycle is better than the other guy's.

If I offended you, it was not my intention.

I'm too new on this board to start that alreadyūüėČ

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

For dancing in the sky, that's not the plane to take up.

Yeah, A-20 suits that role better, I just tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Ok, so I did QMB duels against G14 at 500 meters. When I was in P-47 he danced around me and I couldn't do anything. He outturned and outclimbed me. I wasn't able to get on his 6. Ok, but then I choose A-20 and it was the opposite! I was able to outturn him, outclimb him, very quickly got on his 6 and shot him down.

 

What pissed me off the most is that I could easily catch up with him in A-20, but it was almost impossible in a Jug.

 

This is ridiculous. When you're able to easily shot down a 109 in a medium bomber, but it's almost impossible to dogfight it in a Jug - something's wrong.

I'm not going to touch P-47 in this sim again, until devs fix those issues. And for the first time, I'm starting to regret pre-ordering BON. See, P-47 was the first allied aircraft released for the Bodenplatte. More than 2 years ago. Devs had plenty of time to fix all those issues and yet it still remains half-assed.

 

Kinda sucks, especially if it's your favorite US fighter.

You picked the worst possible situation for the jug. That’s how it was IRL...the P47 has poor climb and poor turn rate at low altitudes, and no way to use its dive performance that low. The P47 was designed as a high altitude escort fighter. It would be like getting mad at a Yak1 for not being able to beat a 109 at 8000 m. If you were able to out turn and out climb a 109 at 500 m in a P47 I would call BS.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Ok, so I did QMB duels against G14 at 500 meters. When I was in P-47 he danced around me and I couldn't do anything. He outturned and outclimbed me. I wasn't able to get on his 6. Ok, but then I choose A-20 and it was the opposite! I was able to outturn him, outclimb him, very quickly got on his 6 and shot him down.

 

What pissed me off the most is that I could easily catch up with him in A-20, but it was almost impossible in a Jug.

 

This is ridiculous. When you're able to easily shot down a 109 in a medium bomber, but it's almost impossible to dogfight it in a Jug - something's wrong.

I'm not going to touch P-47 in this sim again, until devs fix those issues. And for the first time, I'm starting to regret pre-ordering BON. See, P-47 was the first allied aircraft released for the Bodenplatte. More than 2 years ago. Devs had plenty of time to fix all those issues and yet it still remains half-assed.

 

Kinda sucks, especially if it's your favorite US fighter.

So objectively, what's wrong with it, other than you can't do well in it? Is it slower or faster than historical tests? Is its coefficient of lift wrong in game? Or are you expecting the dev's to change the FM because you subjectively say it's a POS. The only thing factual about your statement is the comparison with the a20 *but that may well be historically correct* you don't know without figures.

 

Sorry if this sounds harsh, no one wants the 47 to be more correct than I, but they are *less* likely to change it if the feedback is hidden amongst a load of chaff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Perfect example of why the P-47 was not used primarily as a fighter. They called it a "Fighter/ Bomber" but it should have been called a "Bomber/ Fighter". It flies like a truck, because that's what it was. A flying Dump Truck, that dropped a lot on ordinance on trains, troops, convoys and the enemy's ordinance. For dancing in the sky, that's not the plane to take up. The guys who flew them, I don't think had much of a choice.

 

Huh, what? Republic put that fancy turbocharger system in the plane so it could perform the role of a high-altitude fighter. You don't put a turbo in a plane that you plan to keep down in the weeds shooting up rail yards and supply trucks. And, besides that, what plane do you think was bearing the brunt of long-range bomber escort in 1943? It certainly wasn't the P-51. Same sort of deal in the Pacific: the N model was precisely meant to escort the bombers all the way from who-knows-where to Japan and back. No, ground attack was something that came some time later, and it turned out the P-47 was quite good at it, much to the chagrin of the Axis.

 

1 hour ago, Knarley-Bob said:

The people programming these are going to have a little bias towards the other guy's, and a little for their own is all.

 

Sorry, no offense intended, but you are greatly misinformed on that. The guys do their best to model these planes according to real-world test data, so claiming bias when something doesn't match your expectations is unwarranted. They have shown time and again they will fix things, provided the info they have been presented is convincing and they have time to fix said things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the 47 was intended to be a escort plane, and the 51 was intended to be a ground support plane. Go figure the engineers, figured it backwards. The Jug didn't have the range it needed, and once the Merlin was put into the 51, the roles changed for both planes. Check your information, "Easy's Angels" flew P-47s, and that's what they did, shoot up rail yards. I used to have the 35MM film from my Dad's gun cameras. Not saying that 47s didn't escort bombers, they did, but, they were better at blowing stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in this period Spitfires blew things up. Anything that flew on allied side was doing ground pounding in the west. 
P 47 happened to be a stable weapon platform with capability to carry a lot and still have adequate range, and could make the pilot feel safe. Sturdy radials mounted in a solid structure tend to do that. 
LA 5 pilots felt much safer going head to head against LW fighters with a big disc of radial in front of them

Edited by LuseKofte
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to "The Concise Guide to American Aircraft of World War 2 by David Mondey. Published 1994, page 221:

 

  The massive Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was designed around a mighty radial engine and it's associated turbocharger, and was intended primarily as an interceptor fighter. However, it found it's true role as a far-ranging hard-hitting ground attack aircraft. The type roved the lower altitudes above German and Japanese installations and transport, bombing, rocketing and machinegunning any thing that looked in the slightest unfriendly.

  The Thunderbolt's range at first suited the type to escort missions over the European continent and, fitted with drop tanks, missions could be flown as far as Berlin.

Respectfully,

KB

Edited by Knarley-Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Yes the 47 was intended to be a escort plane, and the 51 was intended to be a ground support plane. Go figure the engineers, figured it backwards. The Jug didn't have the range it needed,

 

 

However the salient point is, at altitude it matched the German fighters with aplomb. (range issues aside)

Share this post


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

You picked the worst possible situation for the jug. That’s how it was IRL...the P47 has poor climb and poor turn rate at low altitudes, and no way to use its dive performance that low. The P47 was designed as a high altitude escort fighter. It would be like getting mad at a Yak1 for not being able to beat a 109 at 8000 m. If you were able to out turn and out climb a 109 at 500 m in a P47 I would call BS.

Well, I flew against G14 at 10000 meters yesterday - same thing. Jug was helpless, couldn't outclimb and outturn it even at 10000 meters!

 

 

1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

So objectively, what's wrong with it, other than you can't do well in it? Is it slower or faster than historical tests? Is its coefficient of lift wrong in game? Or are you expecting the dev's to change the FM because you subjectively say it's a POS. The only thing factual about your statement is the comparison with the a20 *but that may well be historically correct* you don't know without figures.

 

Sorry if this sounds harsh, no one wants the 47 to be more correct than I, but they are *less* likely to change it if the feedback is hidden amongst a load of chaff. 

So a medium bomber being a much better dogfighter than a P-47 is historically correct? I don't know what to say..

 

I did the same test P-47 against G14 in 1946 both at 500 and 10000 meters. At 500 meters it wasn't easy to beat the 109, but I wouldn't say that it was too hard. I shot it down several times. At 10000 it was even easier. It was clearly obvious that P-47 has great advantage over the 109 at 10000 meters. Don't forget that the AI in 1946 is a beast compared to the GB, however, it wasn't that hard to shoot down a 109 in a Jug, while in GB it's nearly impossible.

 

I'm not saying that my flying skills are any good, but I'm sure that the Jug in the old sim is much more convincing. Yes, it also feels quite heavy and way less nimble than a 109, but it's not helpless against it.

Those are my facts, I suggest anyone to try themselves. Both scenarios in GB and in 1946 and share your experience. And try dogfighting 109 in A-20 too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Well, I flew against G14 at 10000 meters yesterday - same thing. Jug was helpless, couldn't outclimb and outturn it even at 10000 meters!

 

 

So a medium bomber being a much better dogfighter than a P-47 is historically correct? I don't know what to say..

 

I did the same test P-47 against G14 in 1946 both at 500 and 10000 meters. At 500 meters it wasn't easy to beat the 109, but I wouldn't say that it was too hard. I shot it down several times. At 10000 it was even easier. It was clearly obvious that P-47 has great advantage over the 109 at 10000 meters. Don't forget that the AI in 1946 is a beast compared to the GB, however, it wasn't that hard to shoot down a 109 in a Jug, while in GB it's nearly impossible.

 

I'm not saying that my flying skills are any good, but I'm sure that the Jug in the old sim is much more convincing. Yes, it also feels quite heavy and way less nimble than a 109, but it's not helpless against it.

Those are my facts, I suggest anyone to try themselves. Both scenarios in GB and in 1946 and share your experience. And try dogfighting 109 in A-20 too.

Ok so why is the 46 p47 "better" than the BoX version? Is it faster? Does it have a better sustained turn rate? It its climb rate higher? All these things are measurable and comparable to historical figures. 

 

Something may be wrong with it but until you can articulate in a way that's not dependent on pure subjectivity it's unlikely to be changed.

I suspect there's something very wrong in how you're flying the p47 if you can't outclimb a g14 at 10km as well.

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...