Feel slow in the P-47

[Rei-sen]

16 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

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.

I suspect there's something very wrong in how the P-47 is modeled in this sim if I can perfectly outclimb and outturn a G14 in 1946 at 10000 meters, while in this sim I can't. While the AI is harder to fight against in 1946, not in this sim.

 

This story reminds me the situation with the P-40. When it was released it had a bunch of flaws in it's FM, flew like a brick and a lot of people complained, only then devs revised it's FM and now it flies like it should (except for those damn engine timers).

Edited February 15, 2020 by Arthur-A

[Knarley-Bob]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

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

In real life, I agree!! In this simulation, not too much.....

[Barnacles]

33 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

I suspect there's something very wrong in how the P-47 is modeled in this sim if I can perfectly outclimb and outturn a G14 in 1946 at 10000 meters, while in this sim I can't. While the AI is harder to fight against in 1946, not in this sim.

 

This story reminds me the situation with the P-40. When it was released it had a bunch of flaws in it's FM, flew like a brick and a lot of people complained, only then devs revised it's FM and now it flies like it should (except for those damn engine timers).

There is nothing wrong with suspecting something is wrong and working from there, but if your experiments show that you cannot out climb a g14 at 10k, then perhaps your poor experience with the p47's performance is because you are missing some control out or similar? 

 

Of course there might be something wildly wrong with it, but the p40 didn't get its flight model change because someone once lost a dogfight against an ai bomber because they forgot to raise their gear or something like that.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Rei-sen]

1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

perhaps your poor experience with the p47's performance is because you are missing some control out or similar?

Let's see what am I missing:
Throttle? 100%

Engine RPM? 100%

Turbo RPM? ~20000 RPM

Intercooler flaps? Neutral

Cowl flaps? Fully closed

Oil cooler flaps? Neutral

 

Oh yeah, and I used boost mode.

Still 109 was faster.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Arthur-A

[Barnacles]

1 hour ago, Arthur-A said:

Let's see what am I missing:
Throttle? 100%

Engine RPM? 100%

Turbo RPM? ~20000 RPM

Intercooler flaps? Neutral

Cowl flaps? Fully closed

Oil cooler flaps? Neutral

 

Oh yeah, and I used boost mode.

Still 109 was faster.

Sounds right, mixture should be 85% but 100% is fine. Soon after it first came out I tested it against a K4 at high altitude and it out climbed that. I'll check again with the g14 I believe 22k rpm is allowed for 15 mins on the turbo too, which should help.

Edited February 15, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Rei-sen]

3 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Sounds right, mixture should be 85% but 100% is fine. Soon after it first came out I tested it against a K4 at high altitude and it out climbed that. I'll check again with the g14 I believe 25k rpm is allowed for 15 mins on the turbo too, which should help.

Oh, forgot the mixture, but it is set to Auto Rich by default if you spawn in the air.

[Barnacles]

30 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Oh, forgot the mixture, but it is set to Auto Rich by default if you spawn in the air.

Cool, it does suprise me. I'll check it out when I can. That high you're quite right it should match the 46 version.

[Rei-sen]

Tried again at 10000 meters. I managed to get on his 6, but I wouldn't say that the P-47 had an obvious advantage. Acceleration and speed was about on par, but he was still more maneuverable than me.

In 1946 the Jug is clearly superior at 10000 m.

And I've just tried P-47 D27 vs Bf-109 G14 at 500 meters in 1946. It wasn't easy to win a turn fight, but power wise it didn't feel like a pig. I got on his 6 and shot him down. It was impossible in BoX. So in 1946 you can feel that the Jug is heavy and it's hard to turn with a 109, but it's not that helpless.

[Barnacles]

2 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Tried again at 10000 meters. I managed to get on his 6, but I wouldn't say that the P-47 had an obvious advantage. Acceleration and speed was about on par, but he was still more maneuverable than me.

In 1946 the Jug is clearly superior at 10000 m.

I just got home and tried a 9500-10500m climb in both planes, same fuel load (400l) and one with the p47 at 1000l (where the main tank but not reserve is full)

1:12 for 47 400L 

1:22 for p47 with 1000l

1:24 for p47 with full fuel

1:44 for g14 with full fuel

 

I noticed the performance increased with 100% supercharger inlet, but I don't think it was massively significant.

I'll caveat this with it's a very down and dirty test with lots of possibilities for human error, so I can see that in a dogfight with loads of other variables it's going to mask some of the performance differences.

[Rei-sen]

10 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

noticed the performance increased with 100% supercharger inlet

So it's faster when it's fully open at 10000 m?

I just did another test in 1946. I flew A20G (there's no A20B, but it should be relatively close) against G14 at 500 m. It was completely different experience compared to GB. While in GB every time I was able to outturn him and get on his 6, I was able to catch up with him both horizontally and in a climb, in 1946 however, I couldn't outturn him, I couldn't follow him horizontally and in a climb. That behavior for me is more realistic for a medium bomber rather than how it behaves in GB. What's weird is, in 1946 A20G I kind of felt the same as I felt in a P-47 in GB.

[Barnacles]

Yes it's giving me a couple of extra " MP, so it'll be faster. In reality it may well have caused carb icing if you did that, but the difference in speed isn't massive. The a20 in GB is indeed very manoeuvrable but if you're doing that it is very close to its G limits. In fact you can rip its wings off easily in a dogfight.

Once test I heard someone did with a p47 is to dive straight down at full power from 10000m (with unbreakable on) and time it against the i16 doing the same. He said the I16 was faster, with the engine stopped! Now that does sound incontrovertibly wrong.

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[unreasonable]

19 hours ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

Good 'nuff. I'll post it in the Single Missions section of the forum tomorrow.  Being as this is Valentine's day and I hope we all have better things to focus on tonight. 

 

...Then you and anyone else can run it and we can build a collection of non-subjective results to argue about.

 

I wonder if your own results are similar to those from my own comparative testing vs flak, documented in this thread. Given your comments on the P-47 it seems likely.  I suppose it is now academic, given a review of the whole DM that is on the way, but interesting. 

 

 

20 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

 

When I see people complain about the Damage Model, I see Fw190s with up to two 30mm and two 20mm and two 13mm Guns, 109s with one 30mm and two 20mm Guns and two 13mm and Me-262s with four 30mm Guns.

 

No one should complain about being shot down by a full broadside, but they are reasonable in complaining that, for instance, a single 20mm LAA hit to the engine has a very high probability of stopping the engine in seconds. A 20mm  hit to the tail has a very high probability of causing a fuel/oil leak from the fuselage leading to engine failure in a few minutes at best. It is currently much less robust than the Fw 190 series, as well as getting hit much more often by virtue of it's size, making it useless in ground attack, if you want to RTB, that is.

[Stoopy]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

I wonder if your own results are similar to those from my own comparative testing vs flak, documented in this thread. Given your comments on the P-47 it seems likely.  I suppose it is now academic, given a review of the whole DM that is on the way, but interesting. 

 

 

I would bet our results should be the same and it seems you have a much better method of accessing mission event statistics than what I've worked out (I don't run dserver and am not sure how to get mission log files to parse, otherwise I'd be all over that approach).  At any rate, I've posted the "Aircraft Damage Comparator" test mission in the Single MIssions section if you want to check it out.  Would be extremely interesting to pull any hit/damage stats out of a full mission run...

 

Heads up to @Diggun, @Jade_Monkey and @ShamrockOneFive if you're interested.