P-47: bad at boom and zoom?

[Raven109]

4 minutes ago, CountZero said:

But again then how we get same numbers then when we go by logic that game shows you ias, then speeds would be wrong, but they are not if game shows you ias what we get in game is correct to what specs say when converted in tas. If your right and its cas,  what speeds you get at 300ft, 5000ft 15000ft and 24500ft for P-47 in tas ?

 

The specs are obtained using CAS to TAS, otherwise comparing two different aircraft types using their IAS would not be correct, because each aircraft's measuring system introduces different errors.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Raven109

[CountZero]

1 minute ago, Raven109 said:

 

The specs are obtained using CAS to TAS, otherwise comparing two different planes using their IAS would not be correct.

What speed do we see in in game cockpit of airplane and in hud (they are same) ?

Edited June 11, 2020 by CountZero

[Raven109]

Just now, CountZero said:

What speed do we see in in game cockpit of airplane and in hud (they are same) ?

 

From what I can tell, yes, they are the same. If we assume that IAS errors are not implemented, then it follows that IAS and CAS are the same in the game world.

[Legioneod]

17 hours ago, JtD said:

Both the HUD and the indicator show CAS in game. Glad to see someone here who knows there's a difference.

 

If you look at the figures of the D 44-1 fuel report, you have to consider that it is performing pretty poorly. In particular its high altitude performance is off compared to most other tests, with a low full throttle altitude. You don't need more power for better performance, you need a better aircraft (condition). Maybe a bare metal polished one instead of one painted in standard camo. Or one fitted with a Hamilton 6507A2 prop instead of the Curtiss one, giving 5-8 extra mph. A small plus might be that it is a razorback D. They also don't say what turbo rpm they used. Not sure if you mentioned all that, because I only skimmed this last page.

 

The reason for the lower critical altitude is because of the increase in power from 56" WEP to 64/65" WEP. The turbo can't maintain 64" up to the previous altitudes. And one thing to keep in mind is that the 44-1 test was at combat loads of 13,200lbs with wing racks. It's not really underperforming for the most part.

 

You'll notice that the P-47D with 150 fuel 70" MAP is comparable in speed to the P-47M or N at lower altitudes though the M and N are faster. The only real reason the M/N reach such high speeds is because they are running a different turbo that allows them to get 2,800HP up to 32,000ft. (they also have a different engine and probably regulator so this should be considered as well. I think they run at higher rpms also)

Main point is that the turbo is what makes the difference for the P-47. When the D got uprated to higher power the turbo and regulator remained the same, this caused the critical altitude to become lower due to the turbo not being able to maintain the new power up to the previous altitude of 29,000ft.

 

This is the reason for the plateau in the speed curve (straight line). Since the Engine/Turbo/Regulator remained the same when they increased power it dropped the critical altitude but the old power of 56" WEP was still possible when they got to 29,000ft. Just so happens that the Speeds at the two different altitudes are similar, which is why you see (or would see) a straight line between the two critical altitudes.

 

.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Legioneod

[JtD]

5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The reason for the lower critical altitude is because of the increase in power from 56" WEP to 64/65" WEP.

 

At 56" it is still lacking compared to other P-47's tested, which maintained 56" up to altitudes > 30k.

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

At 56" it is still lacking compared to other P-47's tested, which maintained 56" up to altitudes > 30k.

The test P-47 did as well, my only guess is that it didn't use water injection at those higher altitudes. That's the only explanation imo for it not reaching similar speeds as other P-47s at 56" WEP.

 

Notice 56" Critical altitude is listed as around 29,500ft yet the power is for 56" without water. 56" with water injection produces power slightly less than the 65" dry mark (around 2300HP)

Edited June 12, 2020 by Legioneod

[JtD]

10 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The test P-47 did as well, my only guess is that it didn't use water injection at those higher altitudes. That's the only explanation imo for it not reaching similar speeds as other P-47s at 56" WEP.

 

No, 29500ft is not higher 30000ft. 31000ft for instance are. With a power gradient of about 100hp per 1500ft of altitude, it is lacking 100hp due to the low full throttle altitude alone. And it used water injection at altitudes above 30k and obtained less than 420mph at 31k.

 

10 hours ago, Legioneod said:

56" with water injection produces power slightly less than the 65" dry mark

 

Yes, 100hp less. Below full throttle altitude.

 

Give it a good full throttle altitude, a bare metal finish and the best prop available, and you'll have it go 435@31k.

[Legioneod]

5 hours ago, JtD said:

 

No, 29500ft is not higher 30000ft. 31000ft for instance are. With a power gradient of about 100hp per 1500ft of altitude, it is lacking 100hp due to the low full throttle altitude alone. And it used water injection at altitudes above 30k and obtained less than 420mph at 31k.

 

 

Yes, 100hp less. Below full throttle altitude.

 

Give it a good full throttle altitude, a bare metal finish and the best prop available, and you'll have it go 435@31k.

What I'm saying is that the P-47 should be able to maintain 56" 2300hp up to 29,000ft regardless of whether it's boost was raised to 64". When the boost was raised the engine, turbo, and turbo regulator remained the same so the same previous powers were achievable.

 

In a majority of the reports I've read, 56" critical altitude is listed as 29,000ft give or take, after this the power starts to drop off. Also I'm not really understanding full throttle altitude. FTH for the P-47 was well before it even reached 20,000ft, the turbo made up the difference.

Most of the sources I've listed give the P-47 top speed between 335-343mph at 29,000ft with 56" Water Injection.

[HR_Zunzun]

The speed graph in the p-47 42-26167 using the 150oct fuel shows two different set of speeds (as I understand it).

-On the left you see the 52, 56 and 65in Hg curves without water. Both tend to get together as the altitude increase.

-On the rigth you see 65 and 70in Hg curves with water on. Also, those two converge at high altitudes.

 

The way I understand this is as follows. If we follow the curves with water injection on, we see that once you get to the 23000ft the 70in speed curve starts to recede because it can no longer sustain the 70in. At (around) 25000ft it converges with the 65in with water and from there on , as the altitude keeps on increasing, they (now together) keep on decreasing.

This fused curves showed the speed at decreasing levels of mp. Even if the 56hg with wi is not depicted with it is own curve its critical altitude it is somewhere in the fused curve.

If we now look at the other three curves (no water injection) we can see they become one above 25500ft.

So both unified lines mean different speeds for different (decreasing ) levels of mp above the critical altitude for both different engine set ups (with and without water injection).

Looking at the curves and the difference between the critical altitude for both 65 (with and without WI) my guess is that the critical altitude for 56in with WI on would be around 28500-29000ft. That, in the curve, equals to around 425mph for this particular airplane (that is applying the same amount of altitude diference than the 65 curves have).

I have made a very crude mock up of how I interpret the curve. Including another crude guess of what the 56in hg WI curve could look like.

Edited June 13, 2020 by HR_Zunzun

[Legioneod]

31 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

The speed graph in the p-47 42-26167 using the 150oct fuel shows two different set of speeds (as I understand it).

-On the left you see the 52, 56 and 65in Hg curves without water. Both tend to get together as the altitude increase.

-On the rigth you see 65 and 70in Hg curves with water on. Also, those two converge at high altitudes.

 

The way I understand this is as follows. If we follow the curves with water injection on, we see that once you get to the 23000ft the 70in speed curve starts to recede because it can no longer sustain the 70in. At (around) 25000ft it converges with the 65in with water and from there on , as the altitude keeps on increasing, they (now together) keep on decreasing.

This fused curves showed the speed at decreasing levels of mp. Even if the 56hg with wi is not depicted with it is own curve its critical altitude it is somewhere in the fused curve.

If we now look at the other three curves (no water injection) we can see they become one above 25500ft.

So both unified lines mean different speeds for different (decreasing ) levels of mp above the critical altitude for both different engine set ups (with and without water injection).

Looking at the curves and the difference between the critical altitude for both 65 (with and without WI) my guess is that the critical altitude for 56in with WI on would be around 28500-29000ft. That, in the curve, equals to around 425mph for this particular airplane (that is applying the same amount of altitude diference than the 65 curves have).

I have made a very crude mock up of how I interpret the curve. Including another crude guess of what the 56in hg WI curve could look like.

56" WI gives around 2300hp around 29,000ft and a top speed of 443mph for the D-22. Why the chart above doesn't show this I really don't know. Speeds for the D-22 at 56" WI are similar to 65" dry in the chart above.

 

D-22 at 56" WI

Speeds

5000' - 358mph

15,000' - 395mph

29,000' - 443mph

 

marked on the chart (red dots)

Edited June 13, 2020 by Legioneod

[HR_Zunzun]

It is weird this report. The serial number is the one of a D-22 but the engine is a R-2800-63 that was only used up to the D-16 and it used a Curtis electric propeller while as far as I know all the p-47D-22 used the hamilton standar.

Starting with the D-22 they introduced the A-23 turbo regulator.

Maybe all those details account for the discrepancies observed. I am not sure what difference made the different regulators but it could be that they change critical altitude and thus the different speeds?

When 64hg WI was introduced they have to change the regulator (from A-17 to A-13 or A-23). A-17 couldn´t be used to produce the 64in. We can asume that a-13 or a-23 was used with this plane (as 64hg wi is used).

Wich regulator was used in the report that you mention (the one with 443mph at 29000?)

[Legioneod]

20 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

It is weird this report. The serial number is the one of a D-22 but the engine is a R-2800-63 that was only used up to the D-16 and it used a Curtis electric propeller while as far as I know all the p-47D-22 used the hamilton standar.

Starting with the D-22 they introduced the A-23 turbo regulator.

Maybe all those details account for the discrepancies observed. I am not sure what difference made the different regulators but it could be that they change critical altitude and thus the different speeds?

When 64hg WI was introduced they have to change the regulator (from A-17 to A-13 or A-23). A-17 couldn´t be used to produce the 64in. We can asume that a-13 or a-23 was used with this plane (as 64hg wi is used).

Wich regulator was used in the report that you mention (the one with 443mph at 29000?)

 

A-23 for the D-22 in the post I made. A-23 was the standard regulator the D-22 so they wouldn't of had to change it to get 64" power.

My guess is the test used an A-13 since it's a series 63 engine.

 

I think the engine was just one they used for testing various things, they'd take an engine and just fit it to an aircraft to test, they didnt really have engines to spare I'm assuming so they just used what they had.

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Legioneod

[ICDP]

The P47D will get 150 octane fuel and some FM refinements in the upcoming 4.08 patch.  It will be interesting to test these changes in the context of this post.

[Raven109]

Does this mean it will be boosted to 70"Hg?

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I have to question what the turbo RPM limit used in the D-22 150 octane test is.

The P-47D-10 tests on wwiiaircraft performance are at 56" Hg and a turbo RPM limit of 22,000 and in those tests, the critical altitude at high speed is 31,000ft for that power setting.

The manuals for the D-25 onwards give a turbo rpm limit of 22,000 for 15 minutes.

Going back to these images

I have doubts that the D-25 and D-26 have the same crit alt as the D-22 when the manuals give the D-25/26 a higher turbo rpm limit, which will only increase the crit alt; as we see in the D-10s it would be 31,000ft for 56"Hg. It seems to me that the data is for 18250 turbo rpm for all 3 planes

The D-22 150 Octane test seems to have been likely at a 18,250 rpm limit, given that the crit alt in the speed graphs at 56"Hg was 29,000ft, the same as in the spec book, and it seems that the data for the aircraft below is also at 18,250 rpm

meanwhile at 22,000 rpm the critical altitude for the D-30 in this case is likely 29,000ft at 64"

Edited June 27, 2020 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[Legioneod]

56 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

I have to question what the turbo RPM limit used in the D-22 150 octane test is.

The P-47D-10 tests on wwiiaircraft performance are at 56" Hg and a turbo RPM limit of 22,000 and in those tests, the critical altitude at high speed is 31,000ft for that power setting.

The manuals for the D-25 onwards give a turbo rpm limit of 22,000 for 15 minutes.

Going back to these images

I have doubts that the D-25 and D-26 have the same crit alt as the D-22 when the manuals give the D-25/26 a higher turbo rpm limit, which will only increase the crit alt; as we see in the D-10s it would be 31,000ft for 56"Hg. It seems to me that the data is for 18250 turbo rpm for all 3 planes

The D-22 150 Octane test seems to have been likely at a 18,250 rpm limit, given that the crit alt in the speed graphs at 56"Hg was 29,000ft, the same as in the spec book, and it seems that the data for the aircraft below is also at 18,250 rpm

meanwhile at 22,000 rpm the critical altitude for the D-30 in this case is likely 29,000ft at 64"

 

Thats from the official P-47 model document. The D-22, D-25, and D-26 in the documents above are all using the same engine, turbo.

The critical altitude for all of these aircraft is 29,000ft @ 56" MAP.

 

The reason you see a lower critical altitude for the D-27, D-28, and D-30 is because they were running at a higher manifold of 64". They used the same engine, turbo, and regulator as the D-22 so they could only maintain 64" up to 24,000ft hence the drop in critical altitude.

 

Since every single of these aircraft used the same turbo, turbo regulator, and engine their critical altitudes will not differ unless they use higher/Lower MAP or different Turbo RPM from each other.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Legioneod

[Raven109]

The D-22 on ww2 aircraft performance can hold 56"Hg up to 29500ft.

 

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Raven109 said:

The D-22 on ww2 aircraft performance can hold 56"Hg up to 29500ft.

 

 

Yes and so should the D-28 in-game yet we can't achieve 56" at 29,000ft in-game.

[Raven109]

Just now, Legioneod said:

 

Yes and so should the D-28 in-game yet we can't achieve 56" at 29,000ft in-game.

 

Well, I'm not sure how the D-28 in-game is modeled, since it seems somewhat confusing. You can't get 56"Hg on the gauge at 29500ft, but the speeds you get in-game seem to match the 65"Hg+WI speed curve of a 150 octane fuel D-22.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

20 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Thats from the official P-47 model document. The D-22, D-25, and D-26 in the documents above are all using the same engine, turbo.

The critical altitude for all of these aircraft is 29,000ft @ 56" MAP.

 

The reason you see a lower critical altitude for the D-27, D-28, and D-30 is because they were running at a higher manifold of 64". They used the same engine, turbo, and regulator as the D-22 so they could only maintain 64" up to 24,000ft hence the drop in critical altitude.

 

Since every single of these aircraft used the same turbo, turbo regulator, and engine their critical altitudes will not differ unless they use higher/Lower MAP or Turbo RPM.

But the D-25 onwards had a different turbo rpm limit - increased from 18250 to 20,000 and 22,000 being the max for 15 minutes. The D-10 propeller tests ran with a turbo limit of 22,000 rpm reached up to 31,000ft with 56 "Hg

 

If the document displayed data for 22k rpm, the critical altitude for the D-25/26 should be 31k ft and for the D-27 to 30 in the region of 28-29k ft. But they are not. Their crit alts are similar to the D-22/23 in the document and the D-22 in the 150 Octane tests

Edited June 27, 2020 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[Legioneod]

15 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

 

Well, I'm not sure how the D-28 in-game is modeled, since it seems somewhat confusing. You can't get 56"Hg on the gauge at 29500ft, but the speeds you get in-game seem to match the 65"Hg+WI speed curve of a 150 octane fuel D-22.

You should be able to get 56" without water injection. With water injection at 29,000ft we should see speeds closer to 436mph (which is the high speed for 56" WEP at 29,000ft)

14 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

But the D-25 onwards had a different turbo rpm limit - increased from 18250 to 20,000 and 22,000 being the max for 15 minutes. The D-10 propeller tests ran with a turbo limit of 22,000 rpm reached up to 31,000ft with 56 "Hg

 

If the document displayed data for 22k rpm, the critical altitude for the D-25/26 should be 31k ft and for the D-27 to 30 in the region of 28-29k ft. But they are not. Their crit alts are similar to the D-22/23 in the document and the D-22 in the 150 Octane tests

Yes but my point was that if all of these aircraft ran at the same turbo rpms then their critical altitudes would not differ except for the MAP involved. So for example a D-27 could run the same 56" at 29,000ft as the D-22 and achieve similar speeds.

 

My point was that all of these aircraft share the same turbo, turbo regulator, and engine so even with an increase in power to 64" they should still achieve the previous power of 56" at the previous critical altitude. The critical altitude and performance speed of 56" wouldn't drop just because the P-47 was uprated in power.

 

The actual turbo rpm in this case is irrelevant as long as they are all running the same max rpm. (which they are in the document I posted)

As far as the D-27/D-30 being able to maintain 64" up to 28,29k ft at 22k rpm I doubt. Maximum alt for 64" at 22k rpm is 26,000ft.

 

I'm not arguing against you, I agree that turbo rpm would effect critical altitude but in this case it's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Good looking out though as I actually didnt consider at what turbo rpms the P-47s in the doc were operating at, but it's clear they were all operating at the same turbo rpms just different MAP

 

Thanks for pointing this out though as it's another error with the game, I'll try and mention it to the devs and see what they think.

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Legioneod

[Raven109]

Water doesn't increase the FTH of an engine. In decreases it. Water (as well as higher octane fuel) let you tap the power at lower altitudes which could not be tapped because of too high temperatures which result from over boosting.

 

This can easily be seen in the D-22 power graph, where more power is available at lower altitudes where cooling off the charge via water injection and making it less prone to pre-ignite and/or knock allows the boost to be increased further and further. 

 

The D-10 report shows what a 56"Hg+WI engine can do at 29500ft. It shows a speed limit not far away from that of the D-22 at the same altitude.

 

Unless there is something fundamentally different between the D-10 and the D-22 I don't see why the 22 would run better at the same altitude.

 

The D-10 was using the -63 engine and the D-22 was using the -59 engine. The only difference between these two is their magnetos (as per their spec). They also have different boost regulators, with the difference that the A-13/23 boost regulator in the D-22 can be used to get to 64".

 

Anyway, my answer regarding the D-22 being able to hold 56"Hg up to 29500ft was aimed at RoflSeal. Since it can hold 56"Hg up to 29500ft it should mean that it's using a 22000RPM turbo, just like the D-10.

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Raven109

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Water doesn't increase the FTH of an engine. In decreases it. Water (as well as higher octane fuel) let you tap the power at lower altitudes which could not be tapped because of too high temperatures which result from over boosting.

 

This can easily be seen in the D-22 power graph, where more power is available at lower altitudes where cooling off the charge via water injection and making it less prone to pre-ignite and/or knock allows the boost to be increased further and further. 

 

The D-10 report shows what a 56"Hg+WI engine can do at 29500ft. It shows a speed limit not far away from that of the D-22 at the same altitude.

 

Unless there is something fundamentally different between the D-10 and the D-22 I don't see why the 22 would run better at the same altitude.

 

The D-10 was using the -63 engine and the D-22 was using the -59 engine. The only difference between these two is their magnetos (as per their spec). They also have different boost regulators, with the difference that the A-13/23 boost regulator in the D-22 can be used to get to 64".

 

 

The D-22 here is running 56" WI at 29,000ft.

 

D-10 running 56" WI at 29,000ft

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Legioneod

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

D-10 in the test is holding 56"Hg at 31,000ft at 22,000 RPM

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

D-10 in the test is holding 56"Hg at 31,000ft at 22,000 RPM

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that at 22,000 rpm it'll hold 56" up to that altitude, I was never arguing against that.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Just now, Legioneod said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that at 22,000 rpm it'll hold 56" up to that altitude, I was never arguing against that.

which means that the specs documents, the critical alts are either for 18,250 rpm (in my opinion seems most likely to me at this moment) or 20,000 rpm, because the only way to get a worse critical altitude is to have a lower max turbo rpm

[Raven109]

You are right, however the difference between the D-10 and the D-22 is that they don't have the same turbo regulator. Unfortunately I have not found any spec for them, so I can't say whether the turbo regulators have an impact on FTH for 56"Hg or not. The only documented difference is that the turbo regulator on the D-22 is needed to run 64", which is not possible with the one on the D-10.

 

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

which means that the specs documents, the critical alts are either for 18,250 rpm (in my opinion seems most likely to me at this moment) or 20,000 rpm, because the only way to get a worse critical altitude is to have a lower max turbo rpm

I know and I agree but thats not what I was arguing or pointing out.

 

I'm saying that 

Aircraft A: Has max power of 56" 29,000ft at 18,250 turbo rpm. Top speed 440 mph

Aircraft B: Has power of 64" 24,500ft at 18,250 turbo rpm. Top speed 440mph

 

Aircraft B should still be able to achieve the lesser power of 56" at 29,000ft and achieve similar speeds to aircraft A. The increase in power doesnt change the older performance possibility.

4 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

You are right, however the difference between the D-10 and the D-22 is that they don't have the same turbo regulator. Unfortunately I have not found any spec for them, so I can't say whether the turbo regulators have an impact on FTH for 56"Hg or not. The only documented difference is that the turbo regulator on the D-22 is needed to run 64", which is not possible with the one on the D-10.

 

They have different engine, and regulators. 

 

D-10: Either a 21 or 63 Engine. C23 turbo, and A-17 Turbo Regulator.

D-22: 59 Engine, C23 Turbo, and A-23 Turbo Regulator.

[Raven109]

21 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

They have different engine, and regulators. 

 

D-10: Either a 21 or 63 Engine. C23 turbo, and A-17 Turbo Regulator.

D-22: 59 Engine, C23 Turbo, and A-23 Turbo Regulator.

 

Yes, already noted the different engines. The only difference between the two seems to be the ignition system (magnetos). That could probably explain the difference in performance at the same altitude. Also, the supercharger ratio seems to be different, which could also account for the different FTH.

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Raven109

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

7 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

You are right, however the difference between the D-10 and the D-22 is that they don't have the same turbo regulator. Unfortunately I have not found any spec for them, so I can't say whether the turbo regulators have an impact on FTH for 56"Hg or not. The only documented difference is that the turbo regulator on the D-22 is needed to run 64", which is not possible with the one on the D-10.

 

Well, a regulator can only worsen it if it isn't optimized, as can be seen in the graphs for the D-10 , where it is pointed out the aircraft can't maintain 56" as high as it should in a sustained climb because of the regulator. It is possible the A-23 solved this issue, but in high speed level flight, this issue wasn't there, the regulator didn't inhibit the high speed performance of the aircraft.

The other difference I can find in manuals is that aircraft fitted with A-17s had WEP engage in the last 1/8 inch of throttle travel.  The A-13 and A-23 had WEP engaged with a switch on the throttle.

[Raven109]

8 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

 

Well, a regulator can only worsen it if it isn't optimized, as can be seen in the graphs for the D-10 , where it is pointed out the aircraft can't maintain 56" as high as it should in a sustained climb because of the regulator. It is possible the A-23 solved this issue, but in high speed level flight, this issue wasn't there, the regulator didn't inhibit the high speed performance of the aircraft.

The other difference I can find in manuals is that aircraft fitted with A-17s had WEP engage in the last 1/8 inch of throttle travel.  The A-13 and A-23 had WEP engaged with a switch on the throttle.

 

Well, I couldn't find much info on how the regulators worked. But I can also see a regulator being optimized for a certain range of altitudes and different models being able to regulate the waste gates for different altitudes. It's all assumptions, unfortunately.

[Legioneod]

The chart from Americas Hundred Thousand

It doesnt have precise speeds and I'm not sure on the power settings in the chart but it does show the speed curve similar (not exact) to what we would see in my example above.

 

Copy/paste of earlier post:

Aircraft A: Has max power of 56" 29,000ft at 18,250 turbo rpm. Top speed 440 mph

Aircraft B: Has power of 64" 24,500ft at 18,250 turbo rpm. Top speed 440mph

 

Aircraft B should still be able to achieve the lesser power of 56" at 29,000ft and achieve similar speeds to aircraft A. The increase in power doesnt change the older performance possibility. We would see a speed curve similar to the one above.

 

[Raven109]

58 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

The D-22 here is running 56" WI at 29,000ft.

 

D-10 running 56" WI at 29,000ft

 

 

 

 

Ok, but with different props from the ones in the D-22 test, right? I mean the D-10 performance at 29000ft is close to the D-22 performance at 29000ft when looking at the data from this graph (if we consider the aircraft using the same prop Curtiss 836-2C2-18) :

 

 

Your data also indicates that their performance was close at the same alt and same boost. Does the data you posted above show speeds for aircraft using the same prop? 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Raven109

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

 

Ok, but with different props from the ones in the D-22 test, right? I mean the D-10 performance at 29000ft is close to the D-22 performance at 29000ft when looking at the data from this graph (if we consider the aircraft using the same prop Curtiss 836-2C2-18?

 

Spoiler

 

Your data also indicates that their performance was close at the same alt. 

 

 

Different props. The D-10 in the doc I posted was using a 714-1C2-12 prop, D-22 was using a Hamilton Standard.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Legioneod

[Raven109]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Different props. The D-10 in the doc I posted was using a 714-1C2-12 prop, D-22 was using a Hamilton Standard.

 

Ok, then from what I can tell by looking at the above tests is that a D-22 when using the same 714-1C2-12 prop will have approx the same speed as the D-10 at 29000ft. It seems the 714-1C2-12 prop removes ~3mph from the max speed when compared to the Hamilton Standard.

 

When compared to the Curtis 836-2C2-18 it seems to add ~6mph. So, the D-22 from the test data you posted would get to around 437mph with the Curtis prop at 29000ft, which is still ~13mph faster than the performance of the D-22 from the ww2 aircraft performance test with the same prop.

 

But then again the D-10 from the data you posted is also faster by ~7mph than the D-10 from the ww2ap site, when using the same prop.

 

Regarding the graph from AHT, I did find something similar (where speed si approximately constant over a range of altitudes), but it's for the P-47N.

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Raven109

[ACG_Smokejumper]

On 6/5/2020 at 2:27 PM, Tomsk said:

 

Sounds entirely .. realistic ?

 

Some guys have figured it out. I'm not one of them but I remember one specific fight where a P47 pilot nearly got me when I underestimated him.

 

I turn fought him and I bled my speed before him. I broke off and tried to climb away when I see him hanging on my ass blasting away with 8 .50's. If a team mate had not cleaned him up I think I would have been caught.

 

He was good. Made me much more wary of P47's.

[Angry_Kitten]

Can we agree that the manuals dont show what can and was done in life. 

 

that the game doesnt reflect the manual or the real life abilities.  That the game seems to follow the old russian adage of "always make the stuff made by mother russia just a bit better then the foreign stuff"

 

 

Besides, the p47 and p40 are better then the russian I-16. Yet i saw a video by "scharfi" online taking out 3 fw-190s with one.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, pocketshaver said:

That the game seems to follow the old russian adage of "always make the stuff made by mother russia just a bit better then the foreign stuff"

 

LOL no, sorry, but that's not even close to being the case. Many here have tried using that tactic before, but in every case they've been proven wrong.

Edited January 30, 2021 by LukeFF

[Angry_Kitten]

It isnt hard to feel that way as alot of things german in ROF and even FC are biased to be inferior then the non german stuff was.. 

[=IRFC=majorqc]

The p47 is good if you fly in formation high and support each other like pilot would do in real life if you expect to be good at medium alt on your own your wrong