P-47 and Normandy

[RCAFChevy]

What I would like to see in this new map is a fix to the extreme roll and spin of mostly the FW 190 on takeoff and the Spitfire on landings.  If Capt Winkle Brown said the FW had no vicious caracteristics on landing or takeoff, it should be as easy to taxy the FW 190 as for the P-51 mustang or the Hurricane which were also made with wide landing struts for safety reasons. As of now, it is way too sensible on the ground the be realistic (the FW).  

 

Erick Brown (I found taxying the essence of simplicity as the fighter could be swung freely from side to side on its broad-track undercarriage. Furthermore, the brakes were very good, although the view with the tail down left much to be desired.  I soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire Mk IX.)

 

Sorry, but this is by far not what we feel with the FW in this simulation as it is now!!!

 

RCAF_Chevy  

[TempestV]

36 minutes ago, RCAFChevy said:

What I would like to see in this new map is a fix to the extreme roll and spin of mostly the FW 190 on takeoff and the Spitfire on landings.  If Capt Winkle Brown said the FW had no vicious caracteristics on landing or takeoff, it should be as easy to taxy the FW 190 as for the P-51 mustang or the Hurricane which were also made with wide landing struts for safety reasons. As of now, it is way too sensible on the ground the be realistic (the FW).  

 

Erick Brown (I found taxying the essence of simplicity as the fighter could be swung freely from side to side on its broad-track undercarriage. Furthermore, the brakes were very good, although the view with the tail down left much to be desired.  I soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire Mk IX.)

 

Sorry, but this is by far not what we feel with the FW in this simulation as it is now!!!

 

RCAF_Chevy  

FW it's worth I don't have trouble taking off an FW-taxying is another story

{DCS ANTON..I need 2% takeoff assist since it swings a touch too much at takeoff IMHO}

 

Agree on the Spitfire.

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by TempestV

[Jade_Monkey]

6 hours ago, RCAFChevy said:

What I would like to see in this new map is a fix to the extreme roll and spin of mostly the FW 190 on takeoff and the Spitfire on landings.  If Capt Winkle Brown said the FW had no vicious caracteristics on landing or takeoff, it should be as easy to taxy the FW 190 as for the P-51 mustang or the Hurricane which were also made with wide landing struts for safety reasons. As of now, it is way too sensible on the ground the be realistic (the FW).  

 

Erick Brown (I found taxying the essence of simplicity as the fighter could be swung freely from side to side on its broad-track undercarriage. Furthermore, the brakes were very good, although the view with the tail down left much to be desired.  I soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire Mk IX.)

 

Sorry, but this is by far not what we feel with the FW in this simulation as it is now!!!

 

RCAF_Chevy  

 

It's the brakes, they are made of butter in this sim.

 

I've posted about it countless times, and the AI has lots of trouble taxiing the later high powered planes like the Tempest and K4. Many of the missions I've built with cold start had to be tossed or started from the runway because of that.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Jade_Monkey

[SAS_Storebror]

The plane anticipated the most for me is the razorback Jug, hands down.

Just for the look of it - unfortunately, as long as the flight model remains as nerfed as it is.

 

Mike

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

On 5/21/2020 at 10:53 PM, SAS_Storebror said:

The plane anticipated the most for me is the razorback Jug, hands down.

Just for the look of it - unfortunately, as long as the flight model remains as nerfed as it is.

 

Mike

 

There are folks that still think the P47 FM is nerfed? Have you used it at any point in the past few weeks? 

[Dutchvdm]

12 minutes ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

There are folks that still think the P47 FM is nerfed? Have you used it at any point in the past few weeks? 

Was it changed? I might missed that.

 

Grt M

[=621=Samikatz]

3 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

There are folks that still think the P47 FM is nerfed? Have you used it at any point in the past few weeks? 

 

What exactly is meant to be wrong with it? Is it not matching IRL data or are people still just upset that a gigantic aircraft hauling a massive turbocharger around is sluggish at low altitudes?

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

9 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

What exactly is meant to be wrong with it? Is it not matching IRL data or are people still just upset that a gigantic aircraft hauling a massive turbocharger around is sluggish at low altitudes?

 

This is what I'm asking. Really the only thing that was wrong with it in my opinion was the damage model, but that has been fixed already. 

 

Some of the various reasons I see people upset is that it doesn't accelerate very quickly and it doesn't turn well when slow. But these things are realistic. Just because it has tons of power doesn't automatically make it accelerate quickly. Just because it's very heavy doesn't mean it will accelerate faster than anything in a dive either. Rudimentary physics here. 

 

Someone who has actually flown real P47s has used this plane in this game and for the most part he said it was spot on with the exception of the damage model (which I've already mentioned has been recently tweaked)

[SAS_Storebror]

That's so wrong in so many ways...

How come you think you'd be more entitled to consider a flight model being realistic above anyone else?

The simple physics indeed indicate that something with lots of power and high mass to drag ratio should dive faster. You seem to believe the opposite - it's all yours, your opinion, have fun with it.

The pilot who flew both a P-47 in real life and the one in our game had fun with it and he found that the general feeling was right.

That's fine with me.

What he probably never did in real life was to fly the plane - and in particular it's engine - to it's very limits.

But that's what we do here all the time, in contrast to airshow planes which are rarely even flown to continuous max power settings for obvious reasons.

Our P-47 accelerates as if you'd try to keep it airworthy for another 30 years - yes, in that regard, it seems fine. Nice airshow kite.

 

It's being outperformed in every single way by the plane it superseded in ETO, the P-38.

Tell me this: Has the USAAF been all nuts when they put the P-47 into service in favour of the P-38?

 

Mike

[[-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR]

5 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

There are folks that still think the P47 FM is nerfed? Have you used it at any point in the past few weeks? 

There are people noticing strange things in P-47 FM such as: prophang on flaps etc. but what makes it annoying is loss of energy when pulling out of a dive.

Trading energy for altitude seems the issue.

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

That's so wrong in so many ways...

How come you think you'd be more entitled to consider a flight model being realistic above anyone else?

The simple physics indeed indicate that something with lots of power and high mass to drag ratio should dive faster. You seem to believe the opposite - it's all yours, your opinion, have fun with it.

The pilot who flew both a P-47 in real life and the one in our game had fun with it and he found that the general feeling was right.

That's fine with me.

What he probably never did in real life was to fly the plane - and in particular it's engine - to it's very limits.

But that's what we do here all the time, in contrast to airshow planes which are rarely even flown to continuous max power settings for obvious reasons.

Our P-47 accelerates as if you'd try to keep it airworthy for another 30 years - yes, in that regard, it seems fine. Nice airshow kite.

 

It's being outperformed in every single way by the plane it superseded in ETO, the P-38.

Tell me this: Has the USAAF been all nuts when they put the P-47 into service in favour of the P-38?

 

Mike

 

The only way we can realistically deal with any potential problems with the P-47 is through looking at performance numbers. If it's hitting the numbers then I'm reasonably satisfied. Would I like to see a hot rod engine option? Oh yeah I would definitely like to see that.

 

The problem with bringing the USAAF's experience in Europe in is that we then have to look towards a wider range of variables from training to operational realities. The USAAF in the Pacific wanted P-38's because of the range and twin engine reliability and initially rejected the P-47 until they were basically forced to take it. And then they did start to eventually develop at least some appreciation for it. In Europe the P-38's troublesome engine cooling problem at the higher operational altitudes certainly played a big role in why the USAAF was not a fan of the aircraft there. There are plenty more that could be said of course.

 

If something is wrong, I'd like to know what it is ... by the numbers. IMHO, and I say this as a bit of a fan of the Thunderbolt, I think its reputation exceeds its performance figures and I'm REALLY curious to see how the 47 performs in that other sim very soon because they did their own wind tunnel and fluid dynamics testing (at apparently great expense). I'm already willing to bet that it will be more similar than different... But it'd be equally interesting if it did end up coming out somehow very differently.

[=621=Samikatz]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

If something is wrong, I'd like to know what it is ... by the numbers. IMHO, and I say this as a bit of a fan of the Thunderbolt, I think its reputation exceeds its performance figures and I'm REALLY curious to see how the 47 performs in that other sim very soon because they did their own wind tunnel and fluid dynamics testing (at apparently great expense). I'm already willing to bet that it will be more similar than different... But it'd be equally interesting if it did end up coming out somehow very differently.

 

Went out of my way to look it up because of the above video and at the very least the flaps are out of line

 

 

Which is taken from AN 01-65BC-1A, a training document for late D models. Unfortunately the PEC chart in that doc only goes down to 170 MPH so I don't know how far off the "actual" that should be but I don't think it's a 40 MPH difference. Hopefully the upcoming D-22 is a reason for them to take another pass at the Thunderbolts, like how we just got some Yak-7 adjustments with the release of the Yak-9

[Legioneod]

The main thing wrong with the P-47 (it's not a P-47 only issue) is that torque is undermodeled and energy retention/inertia seems to be incorrect or just odd. A  heavy aircraft will take some time to accelerate and gain speed but once it has that speed it should be able to keep it for longer than it does, this is especially noticeable when at the bottom of a dive, as soon as you level out you begin losing all your built up speed and other more lighter aircraft has little trouble keeping up. This also has a huge effect on zooming ability which the P-47 was known for, currently the P-47 losses too much speed to zoom effectivley imo.

 

The only problem that is P-47 specific is that power levels at altitude decrease when they shouldn't and you end up having less power available than you did historically.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Legioneod

[oc2209]

On 5/23/2020 at 5:33 AM, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Some of the various reasons I see people upset is that it doesn't accelerate very quickly and it doesn't turn well when slow. But these things are realistic. Just because it has tons of power doesn't automatically make it accelerate quickly. Just because it's very heavy doesn't mean it will accelerate faster than anything in a dive either. Rudimentary physics here. 

 

I've often wondered why IL-2 (multiple versions) depicts the P-47 in such an unflattering light. I was so curious, in fact, that I bought a P-47 book even though I'm not a fan of American designs (I think late-war Japanese aircraft design was the best balance of speed, maneuverability, and armament; that the Japanese lost without these planes making a dent in the war effort is irrelevant to their superior design).

 

My initial bias was that the P-47 was an excellent ground attack plane, but worthless in a dogfight. The book (part of the Osprey Duel series) says otherwise. While the P-47 undoubtedly was a worthless dogfighter at low altitudes, that doesn't mean its pilots were sitting ducks. It's also important to note the huge difference (again, according to the book) that the later D-model's addition of the new paddle blade had on performance at all altitudes.

 

What I gathered, in a nutshell: the P-47 completely earned its reputation as one of the best, possibly THE best, diving plane of the war. There is one account of a famous pilot (Robert Johnson if memory serves) where he said following a 109 in a dive was like catching up to something standing still. I'll take his word for it. It makes perfect sense that the P-47 would power-dive well; it had more horsepower than the Me-109 or Fw-190. More horsepower + more momentum entering the dive = faster power dive. It's important to remember that no one's saying the P-47 simply falls out of the sky faster than a 109; it's the power dive that matters. 

 

Another account mentioned pulling the P-47 up into a high climbing turn to shake a pursuer who simply stalled away.

 

While the P-47 was best (and surprisingly agile) at high altitude like most American planes, it could essentially dictate the terms of battle by outrunning or out zoom-climbing a pursuer from the deck. All it really had to do to stay invulnerable was stay high, dive on enemy planes, rapidly regain altitude, and repeat. This was remarkably similar to the tactics that the Luftwaffe perfected earlier in the war, and what most 109 pilots did. The P-47, being a heavier and more powerful design, simply did it better. If its pilot wasn't foolish enough to burn off speed in a turning fight (which the AI does constantly), it was nigh-on invincible.

 

I think what happened historically was this: the early versions (lacking the paddle prop) did perform badly. Coupled with the fact that American pilots hadn't refined their tactics, also. This gave Germans a false sense of security when dealing with the later, improved P-47s and their pilots. I would say by 1944, the P-47 was an efficient ace-killer. Just as a little anecdote: Gunther Rall had his thumb shot off by a P-47, while attempting to escape. This was a man with nearly 300 kills. Many other lesser-known Experten died to P-47s.

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

58 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I've often wondered why IL-2 (multiple versions) depicts the P-47 in such an unflattering light. I was so curious, in fact, that I bought a P-47 book even though I'm not a fan of American designs (I think late-war Japanese aircraft design was the best balance of speed, maneuverability, and armament; that the Japanese lost without these planes making a dent in the war effort is irrelevant to their superior design).

 

My initial bias was that the P-47 was an excellent ground attack plane, but worthless in a dogfight. The book (part of the Osprey Duel series) says otherwise. While the P-47 undoubtedly was a worthless dogfighter at low altitudes, that doesn't mean its pilots were sitting ducks. It's also important to note the huge difference (again, according to the book) that the later D-model's addition of the new paddle blade had on performance at all altitudes.

 

What I gathered, in a nutshell: the P-47 completely earned its reputation as one of the best, possibly THE best, diving plane of the war. There is one account of a famous pilot (Robert Johnson if memory serves) where he said following a 109 in a dive was like catching up to something standing still. I'll take his word for it. It makes perfect sense that the P-47 would power-dive well; it had more horsepower than the Me-109 or Fw-190. More horsepower + more momentum entering the dive = faster power dive. It's important to remember that no one's saying the P-47 simply falls out of the sky faster than a 109; it's the power dive that matters. 

 

Another account mentioned pulling the P-47 up into a high climbing turn to shake a pursuer who simply stalled away.

 

While the P-47 was best (and surprisingly agile) at high altitude like most American planes, it could essentially dictate the terms of battle by outrunning or out zoom-climbing a pursuer from the deck. All it really had to do to stay invulnerable was stay high, dive on enemy planes, rapidly regain altitude, and repeat. This was remarkably similar to the tactics that the Luftwaffe perfected earlier in the war, and what most 109 pilots did. The P-47, being a heavier and more powerful design, simply did it better. If its pilot wasn't foolish enough to burn off speed in a turning fight (which the AI does constantly), it was nigh-on invincible.

 

I think what happened historically was this: the early versions (lacking the paddle prop) did perform badly. Coupled with the fact that American pilots hadn't refined their tactics, also. This gave Germans a false sense of security when dealing with the later, improved P-47s and their pilots. I would say by 1944, the P-47 was an efficient ace-killer. Just as a little anecdote: Gunther Rall had his thumb shot off by a P-47, while attempting to escape. This was a man with nearly 300 kills. Many other lesser-known Experten died to P-47s.

 

I appreciate your well written response. 

 

Although the P47 did indeed possess much more power than the BF109, the fact is that the power was offset by high mass and the fact that it was a less aerodynamically efficient airframe. Hence why it needed to make well over 2000hp to attain similar speeds as what other planes were achieving with 1600hp in level flight at altitude. 

 

Many variables come into play when considering why a certain engagement ended the way it did. These variables are the reason why personal pilot accounts are not generally used as a solid foundation for judging how well a plane should perform. 

 

As far as the zoom climb, the P47 should, and does, outperform many other aircraft in the game. It's very high mass means that it carries much more inertia which allows it to lose speed at a slower rate than many lighter aircraft after the dive is complete. But inertia is not the only factor when considering zoom climb ability. Some German planes have such an incredible power to weight ratio when in boosted mode that this offsets their much lower level of inertia when climbing out of a dive. 

 

As far as speed attained in a powered dive, there is a point where the propeller begins to seriously struggle to produce enough thrust to overcome drag created during the dive and the plane will struggle to accelerate any faster. This point occurs a bit later in more aerodynamic aircraft. 

 

There are much more qualified people than myself present in this forum who can answer questions more technically; but I believe we may have a starting point here.

[[CPT]Crunch]

When an I-16 with the engine shut off can out dive a P-47 at max power from 10K to the dirt by five seconds, there's a little problem.

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Although the P47 did indeed possess much more power than the BF109, the fact is that the power was offset by high mass and the fact that it was a less aerodynamically efficient airframe. Hence why it needed to make well over 2000hp to attain similar speeds as what other planes were achieving with 1600hp in level flight at altitude. 

 

Many variables come into play when considering why a certain engagement ended the way it did. These variables are the reason why personal pilot accounts are not generally used as a solid foundation for judging how well a plane should perform.

 

It's true that pilot accounts aren't everything. But the specific one I used was from an accomplished ace, and (I just looked it up now to confirm) he gives a detailed description. From a 27,000 foot start, in a vertical dive, he caught the 109 with relative ease. The 109's pilot in this instance had shown skill in evasive maneuvers--right up until the fatal dive. 

 

Now, turn rates are indeed something highly subjective in pilot stories. There are, as you mentioned, many variables. Altitude, individual pilot strength, and pilot skill. However, I consider diving a pretty straightforward affair. If one plane catches another in a dive, it's largely due to the plane and not the pilot.

 

I suspect a large number of German pilots of all levels of experience died while trying to escape P-47s, chiefly because they had grown accustomed to out-diving British planes since the Battle of Britain.

 

Now, as for the P-47 being aerodynamically inefficient, I have to disagree there on the grounds of the M model. 470+ MPH top speed. Granted, it took 2800 horsepower to do so, but nevertheless, anything over 450 MPH is just about the limit of piston engine technology and airframe design of the period. Thus, for the P-47M to exceed 450 in level flight indicates a perfectly clean aerodynamic design. The funny thing about plane design is that the Americans proved you could make monstrously oversized airframes like the P-47 and F4U, and if given powerful enough engines, these planes could outperform smaller 'frames with thinner wings.

 

To summarize, I'll give some hard facts (provided by the aforementioned book):

 

18 of the top 30 American aces in the ETO flew the P-47.

 

The following is a breakdown of the sorties and fighter losses of the 8th and 9th air forces from 1942-5, in the ETO:

 

P-47: 423,435 sorties; 3082 air victories; 3202 ground victories; 3077 lost

P-38: 129,849 sorties, 1771 air victories; 749 ground victories; 1758 lost

P-51: 213,873 sorties, 4950 air victories; 4131 ground victories; 2520 lost

 

The clear dogfighter is, of course, the P-51. However, there are mitigating factors. The P-47 was operational well before the P-51; and bore the brunt of a less-depleted Luftwaffe accordingly. All things considered, in terms of overall survivability, the P-47 is the clear winner. While a radial engine always increases a plane's ability to withstand damage, the disparity between the P-51's loss/sortie ratio and the P-47's is too large to just be a matter of construction. The P-47 must have had a few tricks up its sleeve beyond diving ability.

 

As an aside, it could be argued that the P-51's staggering kill totals are in large part extreme overkill of an already-dying Luftwaffe. The tipping point of the air war over Europe occurred by late 1943, before the P-51 made a major impact. While many people see the P-51 as a war-winning airplane, the P-47 could have done the job by itself, if need be. The P-51 just made the job easier.

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

When an I-16 with the engine shut off can out dive a P-47 at max power from 10K to the dirt by five seconds, there's a little problem.

The question is, on which side?

[ciderworm]

Having read Capt Eric Browns description of RAE transonic flight testing (Wings on my Sleeve, Chap 6) I'm not sure I would want to try and out dive an Me109 or FW190 in either a P38 or P47 ? These were trials in 1944 requested by Jimmy Doolittle after unacceptable losses of USAAF fighters on high cover. The RAE report apparently convinced Doolittle that the P51 (which had slightly better tactical Mach numbers at 30000ft than either German fighter) was to replace both the P38 and P47 as escort fighter. 

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

31 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

It's true that pilot accounts aren't everything. But the specific one I used was from an accomplished ace, and (I just looked it up now to confirm) he gives a detailed description. From a 27,000 foot start, in a vertical dive, he caught the 109 with relative ease. The 109's pilot in this instance had shown skill in evasive maneuvers--right up until the fatal dive. 

 

Now, turn rates are indeed something highly subjective in pilot stories. There are, as you mentioned, many variables. Altitude, individual pilot strength, and pilot skill. However, I consider diving a pretty straightforward affair. If one plane catches another in a dive, it's largely due to the plane and not the pilot.

 

I suspect a large number of German pilots of all levels of experience died while trying to escape P-47s, chiefly because they had grown accustomed to out-diving British planes since the Battle of Britain.

 

Now, as for the P-47 being aerodynamically inefficient, I have to disagree there on the grounds of the M model. 470+ MPH top speed. Granted, it took 2800 horsepower to do so, but nevertheless, anything over 450 MPH is just about the limit of piston engine technology and airframe design of the period. Thus, for the P-47M to exceed 450 in level flight indicates a perfectly clean aerodynamic design. The funny thing about plane design is that the Americans proved you could make monstrously oversized airframes like the P-47 and F4U, and if given powerful enough engines, these planes could outperform smaller 'frames with thinner wings.

 

To summarize, I'll give some hard facts (provided by the aforementioned book):

 

18 of the top 30 American aces in the ETO flew the P-47.

 

The following is a breakdown of the sorties and fighter losses of the 8th and 9th air forces from 1942-5, in the ETO:

 

P-47: 423,435 sorties; 3082 air victories; 3202 ground victories; 3077 lost

P-38: 129,849 sorties, 1771 air victories; 749 ground victories; 1758 lost

P-51: 213,873 sorties, 4950 air victories; 4131 ground victories; 2520 lost

 

The clear dogfighter is, of course, the P-51. However, there are mitigating factors. The P-47 was operational well before the P-51; and bore the brunt of a less-depleted Luftwaffe accordingly. All things considered, in terms of overall survivability, the P-47 is the clear winner. While a radial engine always increases a plane's ability to withstand damage, the disparity between the P-51's loss/sortie ratio and the P-47's is too large to just be a matter of construction. The P-47 must have had a few tricks up its sleeve beyond diving ability.

 

As an aside, it could be argued that the P-51's staggering kill totals are in large part extreme overkill of an already-dying Luftwaffe. The tipping point of the air war over Europe occurred by late 1943, before the P-51 made a major impact. While many people see the P-51 as a war-winning airplane, the P-47 could have done the job by itself, if need be. The P-51 just made the job easier.

 

Sidebar; do the loss totals include only losses in air-to-air combat or does the tally include losses to AAA and accidents?

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

the P-47 could have done the job by itself

 

I doubt it.

 

The Jug was a very good airframe for many missions, but it couldn't fly deep-escorts to Prague or Munich. By the time that range was available to the Jug (P-47N), the war in Europe was over. One could - of course - argue that had the war dragged on (because the escorts lacked range), the N could have made it to Europe eventually.

 

Then again there was the P-38, which had the range, but lacked the finesse at high altitudes. The later fixes would have been band-aids to improve it's escort-capability.

 

Both fighters lacked the overall A-A suitability (across all altitudes) of the P-51.

[310_cibule]

16 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Jug was a very good airframe for many missions, but it couldn't fly deep-escorts to Prague or Munich.

 

Just a small remark: Prague was never a target for allied heavy bombers. The city was hit once only. By mistake. It would be more apt to mention Pilsen or Brno ; )

Edited May 27, 2020 by 310_cibule

[RedKestrel]

6 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Sidebar; do the loss totals include only losses in air-to-air combat or does the tally include losses to AAA and accidents?

Probably losses to all causes.

I suspect that the lion's share of the P-51 losses would be due to the (very dangerous) airfield strafing attacks undertaken in the later stages of the war. At least in the memoirs I have read, pilots flying the P-51 against AA really missed the more robust engine and extra guns of the Jug for strafing. A lot of it may just have been subjective feeling though, being in a smaller aircraft you are going to feel more exposed even if your actual survival rate is broadly similar.

And of course as the old joke says, in the P-47, you can evade enemy fire by running around inside the cockpit!

[Legioneod]

8 hours ago, ciderworm said:

Having read Capt Eric Browns description of RAE transonic flight testing (Wings on my Sleeve, Chap 6) I'm not sure I would want to try and out dive an Me109 or FW190 in either a P38 or P47 ? These were trials in 1944 requested by Jimmy Doolittle after unacceptable losses of USAAF fighters on high cover. The RAE report apparently convinced Doolittle that the P51 (which had slightly better tactical Mach numbers at 30000ft than either German fighter) was to replace both the P38 and P47 as escort fighter. 

Eric Brown only flew the P-47 for a handful of hours iirc so imo he's not the best source on the subject. I'd take someone who flew the P-47 for 100s/1000s hours over someone who spent a few days in it.

I'm not discrediting Browns work but there are others who are more qualified on the subject.

The reason the P-47 was replaced in the 8th AF was due to the lack of range, not due to it's capabilities in a dive or as a fighter. P-47s escorted Bombers in the pacific until the end of the war.

The way certain aircraft dives are modeled in-game is incorrect, some aircraft lose surfaces when they shouldn't. Currently the P-47 losses control surfaces at around 560-570 mph which shouldn't happen in normal circumstances. Realistically what we'd see is the P-47 hitting a plateau and being unable to go any faster, it would stiffen up until it got to lower altitude and regained control or just hit the dirt.

 

The only real obvious problems I see with the P-47 are power at altitude being incorrect, torque model wrong and inertia being modeled oddly (torque and inertia apply to all aircraft as well, not just the P-47)

[Bremspropeller]

23 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Eric Brown only flew the P-47 for a handful of hours iirc so imo he's not the best source on the subject. I'd take someone who flew the P-47 for 100s/1000s hours over someone who spent a few days in it.

I'm not discrediting Browns work but there are others who are more qualified on the subject.

 

I would very seriously listen to him - especially since the recommendations by the RAE were based on an objective, physical matter (tactical Mach), rather than subjective* matters.

 

Also, being exposed to a plethoria of different aircraft - including flight-hours in enemy crates - he's probably one of the most athoritative sources.

Other than say, Mr. Johnson or Kit Carson.

 

* Handling criteria can be expressed in very objective matters - such as the Cooperr-Harper scale - even though personal preferences might no be congruent on details with different pilots.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[Lusekofte]

I gonna forgive the flying zippo p 47 fault when we get the razorback. But unfortunately we get the Tiffy as well. And Mossie. So god knows what to do

40 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Eric Brown only flew the P-47 for a handful of hours iirc so imo he's not the best source on the subject. I'd take someone who flew the P-47 for 100s/1000s hours over someone who spent a few days in it.

I would agree if it was another pilot than Eric Brown. He was the most experienced test pilot of the era when it came to multiple types. He had a totally different perspective and a more strategic overview than a pilot flying one type

[PatrickAWlson]

I'm most interested in seeing a BON thread turn into a P47 thread  ... but I have to admit it is kind of interesting.

 

Per Johnson: what one of the best American pilots in the ETO could do is not necessarily what everybody could do.  Just because Johnson (or anybody else in any other plane) said this was his experience does not make it a universal truth.  Who was flying the other plane?  What were the other factors?  Actual combat is anything but a clean evaluation environment.

 

The P47 that we have right now is a model that did not perform much, if any any better than the late 1943 model.  The planes it has to face are all late war last generation piston engine fighters.  The P47 in RL by late 1944 didn't have to be a dogfighter.  It had to carry a lot of ordnance, drop it, and bring the pilot home safely.  It infrequently saw a German plane and when it did that plane was rarely flown by a competent pilot.

 

Dial the clock back even 8 months and the Germans have the Me109 G6 and FW190 A6 and A8.  No 109K, no 190D.  The P47 of that time is actually a bit faster than the one we have on BoBP.  

 

Per Johnson: He largely flew in 1943.  LW pilots were better at that time but the planes were more evenly matched.  His experience is not really relevant to a flight sim set in late 1944/early 1945.  The sim time period means the German planes are better  when the P47 really was not.  The fact that it's a game means that the numbers and skill level are more equal. 

[RedKestrel]

16 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I'm most interested in seeing a BON thread turn into a P47 thread  ... but I have to admit it is kind of interesting.

 

Per Johnson: what one of the best American pilots in the ETO could do is not necessarily what everybody could do.  Just because Johnson (or anybody else in any other plane) said this was his experience does not make it a universal truth.  Who was flying the other plane?  What were the other factors?  Actual combat is anything but a clean evaluation environment.

 

The P47 that we have right now is a model that did not perform much, if any any better than the late 1943 model.  The planes it has to face are all late war last generation piston engine fighters.  The P47 in RL by late 1944 didn't have to be a dogfighter.  It had to carry a lot of ordnance, drop it, and bring the pilot home safely.  It infrequently saw a German plane and when it did that plane was rarely flown by a competent pilot.

 

Dial the clock back even 8 months and the Germans have the Me109 G6 and FW190 A6 and A8.  No 109K, no 190D.  The P47 of that time is actually a bit faster than the one we have on BoBP.  

 

Per Johnson: He largely flew in 1943.  LW pilots were better at that time but the planes were more evenly matched.  His experience is not really relevant to a flight sim set in late 1944/early 1945.  The sim time period means the German planes are better  when the P47 really was not.  The fact that it's a game means that the numbers and skill level are more equal. 

It also did not have to deal much with the Mk108 30mm cannons. And unlike in real life, pilots in the game often have hundreds of hours learning how to hit things with that, so the ballistics is less of an issue. I don't expect the Jug to withstand multiple 30mm impacts, and there are guys that put two or three into the same spot with relative ease. Even with that, it often takes fighters several passes to ensure my demise, or just for a pair to jump me. It never fails that if you survive the first guy's attack, his buddy will get you on the followup.

A P-47 pilot getting jumped in the late war by two 109K-4s, piloted by experts, with the 30mm cannon, should not in any world expect to survive the encounter. And that is honestly a fairly typical online engagement in the Jug. I'm basically an expert at this point at getting shot down in the P-47. 

I don't find the P-47 to be unduly fragile anymore after the big DM update - it is frankly a sea change from before. It is a rare thing for a luftwaffe pilot to 'one shot' me, usually if that happens its from a cannon shell to the cockpit that kills my pilot. I don't lose wings much anymore. Single hits to the engine from light AA no longer seize it, and now it is possible to limp all the way back to friendly territory with a black windscreen from oil, or after taking  hits from cannon AA guns. Previously even MG hits to the engine spelled doom.

The D-22 variant will be much better equipped to deal with its contemporary enemies as a fighter.

 

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Dial the clock back even 8 months and the Germans have the Me109 G6 and FW190 A6 and A8.  No 109K, no 190D.  The P47 of that time is actually a bit faster than the one we have on BoBP.  

 

Per Johnson: He largely flew in 1943.  LW pilots were better at that time but the planes were more evenly matched.  His experience is not really relevant to a flight sim set in late 1944/early 1945.  The sim time period means the German planes are better  when the P47 really was not.  The fact that it's a game means that the numbers and skill level are more equal. 

 

Exactly. Part of the answer with regard to P-47 performance compared to other types you can find here:

 

Don´t use that plane below 25.000 feet for dogfighting.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by sevenless

[Legioneod]

36 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Exactly. Part of the answer with regard to P-47 performance compared to other types you can find here:

 

Don´t use that plane below 25.000 feet for dogfighting.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

 

 

 

Outdated chart, at least in regards to the D-22 and D-28. Climb and top speed are wrong for a later war P-47.

[sevenless]

Just now, Legioneod said:

Outdated chart, at least in regards to the D-22 and D-28. Climb and top speed are wrong for a later war P-47.

 

Are you sure? Article is from 1946: The Aeroplane June 21st 1946.

 

 

[Legioneod]

Just now, sevenless said:

 

Are you sure? Article is from 1946: The Aeroplane June 21st 1946.

 

 

Yep. P-47 was using 64" by March 44 and 70" by June/July 44. I'll edit the chart and post it here to give a better idea of what the comparative performance was like.

[sevenless]

Just now, Legioneod said:

Yep. P-47 was using 64" by March 44 and 70" by June/July 44. I'll edit the chart and post it here to give a better idea of what the comparative performance was like.

 

I see. Yep would appreciate that.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

P-47 we should be getting is at 64"Hg (~2600hp) instead of 58" (~2300hp)
That P-47 chart shows the P-47 underperforming compared to other data like the Tactical Planning and Performance charts that has data for 2300 hp

Speed  compare to D-26 for example

30,000 ~405mph vs  423 mph

20,000 ~360 mph vs 397 mph

10,000 ~355mph vs 368 mph

 

And climbrate

30,000 ~1300ft/min vs 1475 ft/min

20,000 ~2000ft/min vs 2340 ft/min

10,000 ~2600ft/min vs 2675 ft/min

[oc2209]

12 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Sidebar; do the loss totals include only losses in air-to-air combat or does the tally include losses to AAA and accidents?

 

To all causes, I believe.

 

The official kill/loss ratio for air combat alone is 4.6 to 1 (for the P-47; I don't have the specific data on the P-38 and P-51).

[Legioneod]

@sevenless

 

Here's the chart edited for a P-47 with 70" Power settings and 13,200 lbs weight. (Keep in mind it may not be exact due to no accurate lines, also climb speed IAS isnt listed, only maximum climb in ft./m.

 

0 ~345mph

10,000 ~395mph

20,000 ~435mph

30,000 ~435mph (actual chart shows only 420mph but at 56" WI the P-47 was capable of 435-440 mph @ 29,000ft)

 

Climb (not exact but with 50-100ft, couldn't read the chart 100%)

0 ~3125ft/min

10,000 ~3250ft/min

20,000 ~3000ft/min

30,000 ~1600ft/min

Edited May 27, 2020 by Legioneod

[sevenless]

14 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Here's the chart edited for a P-47 with 70" Power settings and 13,200 lbs weight. (Keep in mind it may not be exact due to no accurate lines, also climb speed IAS isnt listed, only maximum climb in ft./m.

 

0 ~345mph

10,000 ~395mph

20,000 ~435mph

30,000 ~435mph (actual chart shows only 420mph but at 56" WI the P-47 was capable of 435-440 mph @ 29,000ft)

 

Climb (not exact but with 50-100ft, couldn't read the chart 100%)

0 ~3125ft/min

10,000 ~3250ft/min

20,000 ~3000ft/min

30,000 ~1600ft/min

 

Thanks, that is quite a performance boost compared to the 58"Hg especially if you now compare Mustang III and P-47. Do you know when those increased boost settings above 58"Hg settings were introduced? Did also the RAF Thunderbolt II planes make use of the increased settings?

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Thanks, that is quite a performance boost compared to the 58"Hg especially if you now compare Mustang III and P-47. Do you know when those increased boost settings above 58"Hg settings were introduced? Did also the RAF Thunderbolt II planes make use of the increased settings?

I don't know if the RAF ever used higher boost settings but the 8th AF started using 64" in Feb/March 44 and then upped it to 70" in June/July of 44.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

64" Were for the whole P-47D fleet

[Legioneod]

Just now, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

64" Were for the whole P-47D fleet

Yes but I'm not 100% sure when all units started using it, I just know the 8th started using it in Feb/March of 44. (probably 9th as well since it was in the UK for the Normandy Invasion)