P-47: bad at boom and zoom?

[Tomsk]

Returning to the game after a long absence and thought I'd give both the P-51 and P-47 a try, both being famous boom-and-zoom aircraft which is 100% the style I fly with (hundreds of hours in the FW-190). However, after a bunch of testing I'm concluding the P-47 seems to be really bad at boom-and-zoom, which seems very counter intuitive. The P-47 appears to bleed energy incredibly quickly if it has to pull any g, meaning that you only get 1 or 2 passes before you are chasing tail rather than BnZ. Additionally it seems really bad at chasing tail, as it's not long before it's low on energy and wallowing everywhere: I was struggling to keep up with the AI FW-190 A8, a plane that is not known for it's maneuverability. By contrast the P-51 is a boom-and-zoomer's dream, you can keep making passes with it all day, and you can happily pull g for guns without bleeding too much energy. 

 

This all seems very odd, the P-47 was known historically for being a boom-and-zoomer: even more than the P-51. Is it just me or have other people noticed the P-47 seems to be really bad at this style compared to the P-51 and FW-190?

 

CLARIFICATION: Also as a note, I'm not basing this on online play, this is just from fighting against the novice AI. It's also a relative comparison: FW 190 D9 amazing, P-51 really good, FW 190 A5 actually pretty good, FW 190 A3 okay, P-47 .. really bad. It is not a complaint that the P-47 is "not competitive" online, it's a question about whether it seems unreasonably bad in general.

 

UPDATE: I have added data to support my conclusions: the P-47 is underperforming both on high speed handling and on energy lost in high speed turns.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Tomsk

[Bernard_IV]

It does BnZ well at high altitude thanks to the big turbo.  Down low it isn't great, you get one pass really.  It's a good plane if you want do do a bombing run otherwise just stick to the excellent P51 or Tempest.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It is, as it stands right now, a 1943 Spec Plane fighting 1945 Spec Planes. It is fast against Non-MW50 109s and Radial Fw190s it is decent enough, but unless it gets 150 Octane at some Point there is very little it will do against G-14 and K-4.

Edited June 5, 2020 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[LuftManu]

What Klaus said. Even, the D22 we are getting with normandy will have better performance and will fight against lower spec enemies. 

[Atomic_Spaniel]

25 minutes ago, Tomsk said:

The P-47 appears to bleed energy incredibly quickly if it has to pull any g, meaning that you only get 1 or 2 passes before you are chasing tail rather than BnZ.

 

The real P-47 also appears to bleed more energy than contemporary fighter aircraft. See the pilot account here: https://vintageaviationecho.com/p-47-thunderbolt-nellie/ The FM we have in IL-2 feels very similar to the aircraft described by the pilot in the link.

 

(Queue posts explaining that the pilot is mistaken and that PC gamers know better. Ho hum.) 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

Again a difference between the game and reality.  In reality it did most of its fighter vs fighter work in 43 and early 44, when it was competitive.  It did this at relatively high altitude as an escort.  By the Bodenplatte time period it was a ground attack plane not generally called on to fly against fighters, which were mostly wiped out.  IN reality in 1945 the Germans had these lovely new designs being operated by badly undertrained pilots working in the midst of a logistics nightmare for a lost cause.

 

In the game we have the P47 operating against same very nice 1945 German designs being flown at equal odds by very skilled online pilots.  Your in game experience, especially online, simply does not correlate to the real world actions that earned this plane its reputation.

 

This plane did not suck in 43, 44, or 45.   It just sucks a bit in 2020 on the internet.

[[DBS]Browning]

As well as the above points, visibility issues with the game also hamper BnZ tactics.

[Stoopy]

7 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

This plane did not suck in 43, 44, or 45.   It just sucks a bit in 2020 on the internet.

 

Perfectly stated.   

 

When I get shot down within the first 20 seconds of arriving over the target on Combat Box tonight, I will shake my fist and curse Al Gore from the flaming smoking cockpit.

[Tomsk]

Thanks for the opinions everyone. Having flown it a bit more, I'd currently say it's weaker in the BnZ role (down low) than the FW 190 A3, which is a 1942 plane I believe. Additionally the .50 cals seem a bit weak overall. One short burst from the A3's twin MG151 cannons seems to be enough to finish most things, whereas you have to absolutely hammer stuff with the 8x .50s before much seems to happen.

Also as a note, I'm not basing this on online play, this is just from fighting against the novice AI. It's also a relative comparison: FW 190 D9 amazing, P-51 really good, FW 190 A5 actually pretty good, P-47 .. really bad.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Tomsk

[Gambit21]

10 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

This plane did not suck in 43, 44, or 45.   It just sucks a bit in 2020 on the internet.

 

Very well put.

It’s worth noting that 9th Air Force P-47 squadrons we’re occasionally tasked with fighter sweep missions in 44 and 45.

 

What those pilots didn’t have to contend with were ace pilots with hundreds and hundreds of hours of dogfighting experience who were resurrected from untold deaths to fight another day.

 

While it wasn’t a plausible one on one fighter below 15k, in reality it gave as good as it got down low with a squadron at work against the average German pilot of 1944-45.

[Stoopy]

28 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

What those pilots didn’t have to contend with were ace pilots with hundreds and hundreds of hours of dogfighting experience who were resurrected from untold deaths to fight another day.

 

(gets sudden idea!)

 

I'm going to wear a string of garlic around my neck to ward off the flying zombies, and if i still get shot down within the first 20 seconds of arriving over the target on Combat Box tonight, I will shake my fist and curse Al Gore from the flaming smoking cockpit as I breath in the wonderful aroma of sauteed garlic.

[smink1701]

Nice house but no furniture. 
 

Good for sightseeing but with current F’d FM that’s about it.  Shame. 

[RedKestrel]

 

14 minutes ago, Tomsk said:

Thanks for the opinions everyone. Having flown it a bit more, I'd currently say it's weaker in the BnZ role (down low) than the FW 190 A3, which is a 1942 plane I believe. Additionally the .50 cals seem a bit weak overall. One short burst from the A3's twin MG151 cannons seems to be enough to finish most things, whereas you have to absolutely hammer stuff with the 8x .50s before much seems to happen.

Also as a note, I'm not basing this on online play, this is just from fighting against the novice AI. It's also a relative comparison: FW 190 D9 amazing, P-51 really good, FW 190 A5 actually pretty good, P-47 .. really bad.

The 190A-3 outperforms the P-47 we have in game in every way at low level. Climbs better, turns better, and is faster. Its actually a harder opponent than the A-8 - the 190A series got a lot heavier as time went on.

The novice AI for the most part turns - just like novice pilots. And since the P-47 turns badly, and has poor sustained climb, and poor low-speed acceleration  what happens against a presumably inferior adversary that turns well is that you end up reducing your energy state to a point where you can't out-run, can't out-climb, and can't out-turn, and then they have you. The AI is actually tricky to boom and zoom while retaining energy, because they will often default to a relatively steep sustained turn when they run out of altitude. 

The FW-190 is probably the best armed aircraft in the game in terms of weaponry and configuration, in all its iterations: even its wing mounted armament is mounted close to the centreline so the effectiveness is not as reliant on convergence. This makes shooting at different ranges more forgiving and the cannons are lethal. There's a reason its called the butcher bird. 

With the P-47, unless you are hitting at convergence or something critical, it is difficult to get a quick kill because all you have is AP rounds, which do little damage to aircraft skin or structure when compared to cannon. We don't have the correct synchronization pattern for the Jug that resulted in a 'cloud' pattern that scattered bullets around at convergence to ensure a wider range margin of obtaining a decent concentration of fire, with the bonus that with the bullets going a little bit everywhere meant you were perhaps more likely to hit something critical. That said I get a very high proportion of pilot kills or engine fires when I hit the engine/cockpit area. Hits to the tail and wings don't do much unless you hit at convergence, whereas before a relatively few number of hits dewinged aircraft.

I ran tests against AI with the fifty cals when the new DM dropped and what I found was that I could not adequately test the power of the guns unless I did not do a head on pass. Why? Because every time I did a head on with the AI, I got a PK or an engine fire with the first burst. Just hold down the trigger when the enemy aircraft is at about 2X your convergence, and they will fly through your convergence setting with your guns all pointed right at their face. Then they die. Just make sure to open up a bit early. 

4 minutes ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

(gets sudden idea!)

 

I'm going to wear a string of garlic around my neck to ward off the flying zombies, and if i still get shot down within the first 20 seconds of arriving over the target on Combat Box tonight, I will shake my fist and curse Al Gore from the flaming smoking cockpit as I breath in the wonderful aroma of sauteed garlic.

Garlic only works for vampires, you F***ing casual!!!11! You need holy water for general-purpose undead repellant. Or a cleric riding shotgun to do Turn Undead. Or Boom and Zoom undead, I guess.

[Tomsk]

52 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

The 190A-3 outperforms the P-47 we have in game in every way at low level. Climbs better, turns better, and is faster. Its actually a harder opponent than the A-8 - the 190A series got a lot heavier as time went on

 

Thanks for your reply The FW 190 is definitely a great aircraft, but so was the P-47. The IL2 BoBP P-47 seems very weak compared to other versions I've flown: IL2 1946, DCS even War Thunder (yeah well!). I would expect the P-51 to be better, but I wasn't expecting it to be night and day better. The BoBP P-47 seems to be only useful as a ground attack plane, which is a shame because in real life it was a hugely important air combat plane as well. I really hope the Battle of Normandy version is more useable: the razorback P-47 played a very significant role in the air combat over Europe and was widely feared by the Germans.

 

As a side note the FW 190 A-3 really shouldn't be significantly faster than the P-47, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ shows them to be comparable down low.

 

Quote

The AI is actually tricky to boom and zoom while retaining energy, because they will often default to a relatively steep sustained turn when they run out of altitude. 

 

Yup it's why I often practice against the novice AI. In my experience most people online do not put up such a good defence against BnZ as even the novice AI does: it's surprisingly hard. The hardest AI is very hard to boom-and-zoom, it's very good at making awkward shots. It's very good practice .. if you can BnZ that you can BnZ anything

 

Quote

With the P-47, unless you are hitting at convergence or something critical, it is difficult to get a quick kill because all you have is AP rounds, which do little damage to aircraft skin or structure when compared to cannon.

 

I don't think the .50s are hugely underperforming, they just feel a little weak. Sure the FW 190 has nicely placed cannons, but it does only have 2 of them .. 8 fifty cals is an awful lot of firepower and real world accounts say it was devasting. It should be, 8 fifty cals weigh an absolute tonne compared to two MG 151s: the P-47 is already at a disadvantage for having them. I guess it's hard to know how things were in real life .. there's not much data on this, but my guess is they are probably slightly underperforming. I don't know if it's accurate, but I really like the analysis on this site describing various WWII aircraft weapons and how effective they were.

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Tomsk

[Bremspropeller]

2 minutes ago, Tomsk said:

the razorback P-47 played a very significant role in the air combat over Europe and was widely feared by the Germans.

 

It wasn't. The Germans had a pretty good understanding about the strengths and weaknesses of the Jug.

The strengths were the dive and high altitudes.

The weakness generally was a relatively mild 1v1 performance when outside optimal parameters.

 

[Tomsk]

18 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It wasn't. The Germans had a pretty good understanding about the strengths and weaknesses of the Jug.

The strengths were the dive and high altitudes.

The weakness generally was a relatively mild 1v1 performance when outside optimal parameters.

 

 

Well perhaps they should have, some historians certainly rate it:
 

Quote

Although the North American P-51 Mustang replaced the P-47 in the long-range escort role in Europe, the Thunderbolt still ended the war with 3,752 air-to-air kills claimed in over 746,000 sorties of all types, at the cost of 3,499 P-47s to all causes in combat. In Europe during the critical first three months of 1944 when the German aircraft industry and Berlin were heavily attacked, the P-47 shot down more German fighters than the P-51 (570 out of 873), and shot down approximately 900 of the 1,983 claimed during the first six months of 1944. In Europe, Thunderbolts flew more sorties (423,435) than the P-51s, P-38s and P-40s combined. Indeed, it was the P-47 which broke the back of the Luftwaffe on the Western Front in the critical period of January-May 1944.

 

I can also recommend Big Week: The Biggest Air Battle in WWII which covers the topic in some detail.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Tomsk

[Gambit21]

Willie Heilman of JG54 (author, I Fought You From the Skies)

Said, and I’m paraphrasing...”We we’re not afraid of Mustangs. The only thing that scared us we’re the P-47’s because they would dive through our formation with those 8 .50 calibers”

 

That said we’re they scared of a co-alt, co-energy Jug - no. Keeping in mind this is an ace talking. Not your average late war German pilot.

[312_Lazy]

@Tomsk:

• Make sure you operate turbo correctly.
• Don't take full tank.
• Shoot at convergence.
• Use flaps if needed.

You should be able to fight Fw 190 A on more or less equal terms.

[Tomsk]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Willie Heilman of JG54 (author, I Fought You From the Skies)

Said, and I’m paraphrasing...”We we’re not afraid of Mustangs. The only thing that scared us we’re the P-47’s because they would dive through our formation with those 8 .50 calibers”

 

That said we’re they scared of a co-alt, co-energy Jug - no. Keeping in mind this is an ace talking. Not your average late war German pilot.

 

Ah nice quote, very interesting! Right but who would fight co-energy in a Jug? It's almost the BnZ mantra: fight with advantage or don't fight at all!

 

2 minutes ago, 312_Lazy said:

You should be able to fight Fw 190 A on more or less equal terms.

 

Thanks ... I think you need to read my posts again; especially the OP 

[312_Lazy]

1 minute ago, Tomsk said:

Thanks ... I think you need to read my posts again; especially the OP 

Do you use turbo linked with throttle or manually?

[RedKestrel]

Just now, Tomsk said:

 

Well perhaps they should have, some historians certainly rate it:
 

 

Well, they would be rating it as it performed in the war...at high altitudes, where the Jug shines. At sufficiently high altitudes you can take on a D-9 pretty handily.

The comparative report on that site talks about them being comparable at low altitudes but enumerates several distinct advantages that the 190 had, like better initial acceleration and better climb, while frustratingly giving no actual numbers to deal in at least for climb and acceleration. And frankly, though the report talks about the FW-190 being in great condition (for a captured aircraft) it doesn't seem to be when they talk about the engine running rough at all times, or the stick vibrating so much you couldn't get a feel of flight. Topped off by the pilot of the 190 having no combat experience, going up against a pilot that had quite a bit (seventeen months!). I would take the conclusions drawn here with a grain of salt.

All this being said I have had dogfights with 190A at sea level, and against the A8 it really seems to come down to some luck and pilot skill since the planes are so close in most performance abilities. This is coming from an MP perspective more than SP, although in SP AI against the later 190s you can get on the tail and stay on the tail, and get some shots off at them, if you use some vertical maneuvering to cut the corner.
 

[Tomsk]

27 minutes ago, 312_Lazy said:

Do you use turbo linked with throttle or manually?

 

Cool so to explain: boom and zoom is the style of fighting where you start with a large energy advantage, dive on your opponent converting your altitude into speed, take a shot on your opponent, and then convert that excess speed back into altitude again to reposition. This is the style that the P-47, P-51 and the FW-190 specialized in: they don't build energy well and they don't turn well, but they do dive well, they handle well at high speeds, they hit hard, and they zoom climb really well. It's the style of combat I have very much specialized in: it's the only kind of WWII flying I do and I have a lot of practice at it.

BnZ is definitely not "dogfighting": it doesn't really focus on the climb performance of the aircraft, or the sustained turn performance or anything like that. As such things like "the correct engine settings" or "how much fuel you put in the plane" or "using flaps" (can't deploy the flaps at 500mph!) really don't matter that much. It's all about having a great dive, high speed handling, powerful snapshot shooting and zoom climbing (converting speed back to altitude, not sustained climbing). 

 

Additionally my comment was not that I couldn't beat the AI FW-190 A-8, I definitely can. But rather that I had found the P-47 currently doesn't work especially well as a BnZ fighter, which I found very surprising because it's a great BnZ fighter in other sims (e.g. IL2 1946, DCS) and this is also what it was known for in real life.

 

12 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Well, they would be rating it as it performed in the war...at high altitudes, where the Jug shines. At sufficiently high altitudes you can take on a D-9 pretty handily.
 

[snip]

Sure. My point was more: the P-47 wasn't a lemon. I can't prove it, but my strong suspicion is that the P-47 is pretty heavily under-modelled in IL2 BoS in terms of energy bleed due to maneouvers. I can see little reason why it would be significantly worse than P-51 or the FW-190 in this area. In other sims this certainly wasn't the case. That said, I'm not an expert and who knows. What I do know is that it's not a great BnZ aircraft at low-level in IL2 BoBP .. which more or less means that in this sim it is a lemon ?

Edited June 5, 2020 by Tomsk

[312_Lazy]

31 minutes ago, Tomsk said:

 

Cool so to explain: boom and zoom is the style of fighting where you start with a large energy advantage, dive on your opponent converting your altitude into speed, take a shot on your opponent, and then convert that excess speed back into altitude again to reposition. This is the style that the P-47, P-51 and the FW-190 specialized in: they don't build energy well and they don't turn well, but they do dive well, they handle well at high speeds, they hit hard, and they zoom climb really well. It's the style of combat I have very much specialized in: it's the only kind of WWII flying I do and I have a lot of practice at it.

BnZ is definitely not "dogfighting": it doesn't really focus on the climb performance of the aircraft, or the sustained turn performance or anything like that. As such things like "the correct engine settings" or "how much fuel you put in the plane" or "using flaps" (can't deploy the flaps at 500mph!) really don't matter that much. It's all about having a great dive, high speed handling, powerful snapshot shooting and zoom climbing (converting speed back to altitude, not sustained climbing). 

 

Additionally my comment was not that I couldn't beat the AI FW-190 A-8, I definitely can. But rather that I had found the P-47 currently doesn't work especially well as a BnZ fighter, which I found very surprising because it's a great BnZ fighter in other sims (e.g. IL2 1946, DCS) and this is also what it was known for in real life.

ws. What I do know is that it's not a great BnZ aircraft at low-level in IL2 BoBP .. which more or less means that in this sim it is a lemon ?

I see, now I understand what you meant.

My point was this: Unless you engage boost and operate turbo and rads properly you won't be as fast as you can be. It's noticeable difference even when you strictly BnZ. P-47 is one of the more complicated planes in GB.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Terminal dive tests from 10,000 meters straight into the deck, first time in seconds with engine on, QMB no power adjustments made, throttle and prop axis set full to start, damage off, invulnerable on.  Second time with engine turned off.  Kuban map autumn.

 

P-47 - 49/50

A-20 - 50/51

La-5FN - 47/50

Pe2-87 - 50/52

P-51 - 47/49

Yak-9 - 49/52

I-16 - 53/54

IL2-43 - 50/51

P-38 - 53/53

P40 - 48/48

Spit-9 - 47/50

Tempest - 47/49

Ju-88 - 51/51

He-111-H-6 - 55/55

Me-262 - 46/45

Ju-87 - 50/52

Hs-129 - 53/54

Ju-52 - 63/65

109K - 49/52

109F-2 - 50/51

Me-110-G-2 - 52/53

Fw190A-8 - 48/49

Me109E-7 49/48

Mc-202 51/50

 

Off hand seems like power loading don't mean a hill of beans.  Some of those are definitely not what one would expect.  Covered up pretty good with the damage on though.

[Legioneod]

The P-47 in il2 does have some errors in its modeling for sure, its not horrible but it's not great either. Energy retention is a real problem with the P-47 as well as it's zoom.

Power available at altitude is incorrect in some cases as well and it's performance at lower power is off in some situations (still testing this) This means it can really only get ok speed at full power which is a problem due to the P-47 only having 15min military and 5 min WEP.

 

P-47 is my favorite aircraft but it's defnitley a bit of a disappointment in Il2.

[ShamrockOneFive]

50 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The P-47 in il2 does have some errors in its modeling for sure, its not horrible but it's not great either. Energy retention is a real problem with the P-47 as well as it's zoom.

Power available at altitude is incorrect in some cases as well and it's performance at lower power is off in some situations (still testing this) This means it can really only get ok speed at full power which is a problem due to the P-47 only having 15min military and 5 min WEP.

 

P-47 is my favorite aircraft but it's defnitley a bit of a disappointment in Il2.

 

About the power available at altitude... are you saying its producing less manifold pressure at altitude than it should be? That is interesting.

[Tomsk]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Off hand seems like power loading don't mean a hill of beans.  Some of those are definitely not what one would expect.  Covered up pretty good with the damage on though.

 

Thanks, that's interesting. The Spit 9 is especially surprising to me .. not exactly known for its dive capabilities as I understand it. 

 

44 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

P-47 is my favorite aircraft but it's defnitley a bit of a disappointment in Il2.

Right it's not terrible .. it just seem kinda underwhelming. It's one of my 3 favourite WWII aircraft (P-51, FW-190 & P-47) and I agree it's a bit of a disappointment in IL2.

[=621=Samikatz]

1 minute ago, Tomsk said:

 

Thanks, that's interesting. The Spit 9 is especially surprising to me .. not exactly known for its dive capabilities as I understand it.

 

As I understand it, the design had a very high mach number and could safely pick up a lot of speed at high altitude, but had a low IAS limit? There's a few anecdotes about the type being tested with dives from 40,000ft and reaching remarkably high speeds with the prop feathered

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

About the power available at altitude... are you saying its producing less manifold pressure at altitude than it should be? That is interesting.

Yep. It also goes slower than it should at lower power settings (still need to test to confirm this 100%)

[Tomsk]

12 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

As I understand it, the design had a very high mach number and could safely pick up a lot of speed at high altitude, but had a low IAS limit? There's a few anecdotes about the type being tested with dives from 40,000ft and reaching remarkably high speeds with the prop feathered

 

Yeah could be that if invulnerable and you don't need to recover at all then it dives just fine. The Spit is not known as being a good diver .. but that may be as you say due the low do-not-exceed IAS limit, and the terrible control stiffening and control reversal issues. Might dive just fine if you only intend to plough it straight into the ground ... stuff is complicated ?

Edited June 5, 2020 by Tomsk

[ShamrockOneFive]

8 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Yep. It also goes slower than it should at lower power settings (still need to test to confirm this 100%)

 

That's interesting and something I can get behind. If the numbers clearly show then its a bit easier to say to the devs that the P-47 needs a look over.

 

I am hopeful that it will see a few updates with the D-22 coming along as well. I still am convinced its a big heavy fighter and should fly that way but I do want it to perform as it should!

[Tomsk]

2 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I am hopeful that it will see a few updates with the D-22 coming along as well. I still am convinced its a big heavy fighter and should fly that way but I do want it to perform as it should!

 

Right I wouldn't expect it to be a great climber, or even an amazing turn fighter .. but I'd have thought manoeuvres at high speed (e.g. BnZ) should be where it really shines. I also really hope the D-22 improves things. Normandy should be a really interesting theatre, I'm really excited to see razorback P-47s and P-51s against slightly earlier model 109s and 190s.

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

That's interesting and something I can get behind. If the numbers clearly show then its a bit easier to say to the devs that the P-47 needs a look over.

 

I am hopeful that it will see a few updates with the D-22 coming along as well. I still am convinced its a big heavy fighter and should fly that way but I do want it to perform as it should!

Yes but big and heavy doesn't mean it couldn't maneuver. The P-47 had lots of excess power and really didn't need much to get some speed and maneuver around.

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

2 minutes ago, Tomsk said:

 

Right I wouldn't expect it to be a great climber, or even an amazing turn fighter .. but I'd have thought manoeuvres at high speed (e.g. BnZ) should be where it really shines. I also really hope the D-22 improves things. Normandy should be a really interesting theatre, I'm really excited to see razorback P-47s and P-51s against slightly earlier model 109s and 190s.

 

For sure. I'm of mixed feelings on the P-47 in flight sims. On one hand if you believe some of the hype it was an incredible fighter that fought the Luftwaffe to a standstill but then it's also a big heavy beast that gets around that by having the most powerful radial engine in the sky pulling it around. Nearly every sim has portrayed it as a bit sluggish down low and pretty good at high altitudes.

 

I've had some very good P-47 sorties recently on Combat Box so it can definitely fight. Does it need a tweak or two? I don't know but I wouldn't mind it having another once over for sure - especially if we can show that it's got a few bugs in the engine modeling as is being suggested.

[Tomsk]

3 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Nearly every sim has portrayed it as a bit sluggish down low and pretty good at high altitudes.

As I say, it's the energy bleed on turn that I really noticed .. it's really extreme compared to the P-51 which can sustain that BnZing for ages by comparison. It was like you got 1 good pass in the P-47 before it was out of energy and like 5 or 6 in the P-51 before you were starting to look at a co-E fight.

[QB.Shallot]

You’re going to find the jug quite underwhelming at low and medium altitudes. But it has a little more magic under the hood than most planes. The flaps, those blessed cursed flaps. I can do just find in MP with the jug, but it’s for all the wrong reasons, and one of the primary reasons I’ll never dogfight one when I’m flying as blues. If you deploy your flaps with no regard for logic when you end up in a tight fight, or need to pull off a reversal, you’ll suddenly find your aircraft being tugged along by angels. Hop into QMB and give it a shot, you’ll find yourself prop hanging and blasting every blue fighter that exists. 

[Tomsk]

21 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:

Hop into QMB and give it a shot, you’ll find yourself prop hanging and blasting every blue fighter that exists. 

 

Sounds entirely .. realistic ?

[Sunde]

1 hour ago, QB.Shallot said:

You’re going to find the jug quite underwhelming at low and medium altitudes. But it has a little more magic under the hood than most planes. The flaps, those blessed cursed flaps. I can do just find in MP with the jug, but it’s for all the wrong reasons, and one of the primary reasons I’ll never dogfight one when I’m flying as blues. If you deploy your flaps with no regard for logic when you end up in a tight fight, or need to pull off a reversal, you’ll suddenly find your aircraft being tugged along by angels. Hop into QMB and give it a shot, you’ll find yourself prop hanging and blasting every blue fighter that exists. 

Indeed the Jug is one of the finer examples of WW2 VTOL fighters we have available in BOX.
 Deploying 100% flaps seem to give it a T/W of just around 1, effectively letting it helicopter around like a turret and blap pathetic non-vtol fighters. This is obviously a well documented and legitimate strategy ?

Edited June 5, 2020 by Sunde

[Raven109]

If you take it against the AI, just hold your altitude advantage and don't over commit. Don't do sharp turns, etc, keep it above 200mph. 2 x Ace FWs or 109s (any type) are pretty easy to take down in a P-47 if you start with an altitude advantage, i.e BnZ them. To me it seems to accelerate pretty fast, and the turn rate at high speeds exceeds most Axis aircraft, not to mention the increased resistance to Gs.

 

It's very hard to compare to the real world P-47, even more so if we base our judgement on the last years of WW2. IRL, the tactical situation, pilot skill, outweighed the performance of the aircraft. I highly doubt that a P-47 had a fighting chance at mid to low altitudes against Axis aircraft flown by skilled pilots.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Raven109

[Legioneod]

18 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

...I highly doubt that a P-47 had a fighting chance at mid to low altitudes against Axis aircraft flown by skilled pilots.

Not really, plenty of P-47s engaged enemies at lower altitudes and came out on top. P-47 wasn't a dog like it seems to be in Il2, it was mostly on par with 190s at lower altitudes and superior the higher it got.