The Thunderbolt Conundrum

[VonBarb]

Hello,

 

Let me just start by saying I am admitedly not the best of pilots, especially when it comes to energy fighting, but I keep practicing

 

I've always been a fan of the P-47, in all its glorious variants, dating back to the hallowed days of European Air War. I also flew it a lot in the 'old' Il-2 Forgotten Battles, both stock and modded. All this time I was able to bring the thunder in the Jug and be successful enough to enjoy flying it. Sure it was tricky to fly right and never was a dogfighter, but I managed to make it work and best any if not most opponents I threw myself at in it.

 

Now, the current BoX iteration of the P-47 is giving me a little more trouble. It is very competent as an opponent (AI mostly) and is a serious threat whether I'm flying a 109 or 190 against it, but when I try to fly it myself I usually get shot out of the skies within minutes by German planes. In my hands it feels slow, sluggish, unstable, and the 109s just seem to be flying circles around me. Diving away only works for so long - when it works at all - and doesn't always enable me to disengage. I often find myself out of altitude to trade for speed, unable to climb and easily outran by Messerschmitts.

 

Again, not the best pilot, so throw all the 'git gud scrub' comments you like at me, I most probably deserve them. Still, does anybody else find that the Jug is feeling a bit... underwhelming ? What would account for it being a serious opponent but a disappointing steed ? Is it another case of a plane that only the very skilled or the AI can make the best of ? More importantly, any useful tips to help me rekindle my old flame with the Thunderbolt ?

 

Thanks.

[PatrickAWlson]

So ... many topics on this subject already. I will try to summarize pages of commentary as quickly as possible.

 

Real life:

The P47 flies best at high altitude.

P47 was used in air to air at combat at high altitude covering heavy bombers. It did well in this role.

P47 was used in the ground attack role later in the war.  In this war it rarely encountered air to air opposition.  When it did the enemy pilots were often novices.  It did well in this role.

 

The game:

The P47 flies best at high altitude.

P47 is not used in air to air at combat at high altitude.  If the P47 gets a fighter mission it will generally be relatively low.

P47 is often used in ground attack.  Often without cover.  Often outnumbered.  Often facing AI pilots that are better than novice.

 

It's not you (ok, maybe it is a little bit, but this comes from somebody who is probably no better).  It is not the plane.  Well, it is a little bit of that too.  The problem is the plane is being used as it was in history but in an environment that never existed in history.   

[JG7_X-Man]

@PatrickAWlson is spot on. Fact is, we are not recreating historically accurate air combat.

• The P-47 was designed for high altitude escort (hence the big ass supercharger) and it was at its best > 30,000 ft. (9,000M). I promise you, no one in any game is flying that high, so you WILL be flying by yourself .

 

• Between 1,000M (~3,300ft) and 2,500M (~8,000ft) the G-14 (The second common German aircraft used on late '44 servers) has a significant rate of climb advantage over the P-47D.  Since this is where almost all of online combat takes place, an experienced 109 online pilot will use this to control the fight. Thus, you have to fly with a wingman to survive when flying the P-47 online.
• In real life, most of the Luftwaffe pilots left were poorly trained fresh out of flight school and when they did meet the few skilled staffle commanders, they were grossly outnumbered in any engagement anyway.

The big difference in video games and real life is the lack of " true death".  Some of the guys have been flying online since 1997 with European Air War or longer, and have accumulated knowledge they just can't loose. It is not like this in real life, you can't learn from your mistakes when you are dead! The fact is the major late war issues the Luftwaffe had with logistics or poorly trained pilots are not possible to simulate.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Flys like crap at altitude in this game as far as I'm concerned.  Suffers substantially when it comes to inertia with its high end mass its extra noticeable.  You can't bank squat for energy in vertical maneuvers with this thing.  Don't buy it for a second.

[357th_KW]

I’ll just leave this here.  Not mine, but it demonstrates a couple of the challenges faced by the 47 in this game.

 

https://streamable.com/8fsbam

 

[enyak]

Patrick raises an excellent point about (lack of) opponent piloting skills. That's why I think the AI development should not exclusively be taken in the direction of better aerial gunning, since that often already hugely surpasses historical levels. Instead the AI should be better at being worse: More human mistakes, less flying the plane at its limits but perhaps more wingman cohesion and squad tactics out of a desire to survive.

[migmadmarine]

2 hours ago, enyak said:

Patrick raises an excellent point about (lack of) opponent piloting skills. That's why I think the AI development should not exclusively be taken in the direction of better aerial gunning, since that often already hugely surpasses historical levels. Instead the AI should be better at being worse: More human mistakes, less flying the plane at its limits but perhaps more wingman cohesion and squad tactics out of a desire to survive

Would be great to see things like this, especially for AI set to novice levels, though I could see issues arising with trying to work out if a dumb thing you see the AI doing being the AI being bad, being bugged, or pretending to be green. 

 

Assuming the OP is playing career mode, I really wish there was a historical setting option for amount and skill of enemy contact, that would try to provide era-apropriate enemy and friendly flights. It feels wrong to encounter the luftwaffe on almost every Bodenplatte flight. Might not be action packed enough for some, and fair enough to them, would be great to have the option though...

[[-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR]

Id suggest jumping into a P-40 prior to Thunderbolt. 
Both flight models are challenging in most aspects but we like to be challenged, dont we. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by [-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR

[PatrickAWlson]

9 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

You can't bank squat for energy in vertical maneuvers with this thing.

 

So it can't zoom well?  I'm going back decades but that was a positive characteristic that I remember Robert Johnson talking about.  

[ShamrockOneFive]

10 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

So it can't zoom well?  I'm going back decades but that was a positive characteristic that I remember Robert Johnson talking about.  

 

It does zoom well but it doesn't zoom as well as other fighters with a higher power to weight ratio. Johnson and other P-47 aces were often comparing their experiences to earlier 109 variants (as an example) often equipped to intercept B-17's (with gunpods, armored glass, etc.).

Setup an online scenario where the P-47 is up against these types of aircraft at higher altitudes and the story is very different than, as you point out, a lower altitude fight against Bf109G-14/K-4 and Fw190D-9.

[354thFG_Panda_]

When it comes to the P47 in game the non 150oct vs the 150oct are very different beasts. There is also a noticable difference D28 vs D22 and how heavy you load the plane with guns, ammo etc.... You also have to know what settings to use to squeeze every bit of performance out of it.

How high you fly it is also extremely important. You really have to pick your fights.

 

For the D28 150oct variant:

At lower alts speed is comparable in 1944 but completely outclassed 45. From testing (low alt) it has similar speed retention in a straight line to an A8 and vertically a G14 (for a bit).

From around 15kft there is this area where its better than 1944 birds. At higher alts it dominates with amazing speed, climb and zoom. You can have a squad of G14/G6 trying to catch you and they are left in the dust up there.

The Dora and K4 can be outclimbed by the D28 150oct extremely high up but it is extremely risky. The gap in performance is small and the K4 out runs you. At low to medium alts the Dora and K4 have nearly all the advantages. A small thing that helps if you need to turn with them for a bit, to make a shot or evade, deploy flaps 10 ~ 15%. Take away 150oct and its pretty much a high alt exclusive fighter. The climb, acceleration, low to medium alt speed just is not there.

 

The D22 is faster than the D28 by a good margin and has speed to compete with 1945 planes. It just has 7~8 mins of WEP injection so must be used sparingly. 

 

Flying these two takes a lot of effort compared to most planes and require a lot of practice and initially strict flying style. Once you get the hang of them you can throw them around quite a bit and they are pretty good planes.

Edited May 6, 2021 by theRedPanda

[Denum]

Huge part of the issue is the P47s DM appears to be bugged,

 

For something that held such historical durability it feels like glass in game. You even get kissed by a German 13mm HE round, your fight is over. The aircraft just seems to lose all of its speed and lift right away.

 

Trying to remain in the area is you fighting the plane as much the enemy.

 

Add in the .50s being extremely hard to use because of certain issues within that portion of the game the P47 becomes extremely challenging..

 

You're also fighting planes with extremely generous stall characteristics. 

 

TLDR 

 

If you want to dogfight in her, you need to be astoundingly cautious because even little mistakes are a death sentence.

 

I find diving, taking my shot and extending right away to be the best method of survival. Unless I know it's just me and one other plane I won't engage in a turn fight.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Denum

[Dagwoodyt]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

So it can't zoom well?  I'm going back decades but that was a positive characteristic that I remember Robert Johnson talking about.  

Are you referring to a book "co-authored" with Martin Caidin?

[Denum]

I have the book, they're talking about it with the new prop, 

 

I believe it was against a Spitfire IX?

 

First time he beat it on the beginning of the zoom, but the Spitfire roared by as he slowed like he was standing still 

 

Second time they claimed it out zoomed and outclimbed a Spitfire IX 

 

Which... Might be a stretch.

 

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

10 minutes ago, Denum said:

I have the book, they're talking about it with the new prop, 

 

I believe it was against a Spitfire IX?

 

First time he beat it on the beginning of the zoom, but the Spitfire roared by as he slowed like he was standing still 

 

Second time they claimed it out zoomed and outclimbed a Spitfire IX 

 

Which... Might be a stretch.

 

 

 

I used to take those books as "Gospel". It now appears that there are "issues" with some events depicted in various works.

[Hitcher]

The p47 ingame is plagued with all sorts of DM and FM issues.

Shooting at the inbound wing section of various aircraft it was found to be half as durable as every other aircraft.

Its flight model was revised last year and since then it handles like a b17 and wants to stall from any sort of stick deflection.

Engine timers also work against it as it's only truly useful power setting is depleted in 5-7 minutes.

Maybe its FM is realistic now however other planes still retain magical properties so its outmatched by practically every other fighter.

In PVP you get one pass before they see you and then you're chased to the nearest airfield and have to land, rinse and repeat.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Hitcher

[Toots_LeGuerre]

For me the D28 and D22 are two different planes.

Every time I fly the D28 it's a catastrophe.

Every time the D22 I come home safe. (If I don't do something spectacularly stupid.)

Rules of thumb:

Minimum fuel for the mission.

Link throttle and Turbo--I don't know about linking prop.

Get as much altitude as possible--this baby will still be climbing 2,000 feet per minute at 30K feet

Never dogfight. One diving pass and run like hell at about 500 mph.

It will Zoom Climb like nothing else in the sim.

Get out of the DF arena, climb like a bat, and reassess the situation.

 

I thought I'd hate it and did at first.

Currently it's my favorite US plane, even as I am currently learning the Mustang.

 

[twilson37]

The stock campaigns in game are designed to give relative parity between the two sides not just in the campaign but on any given mission.  In the stock campaign you will generally see enemy aircraft mid-mission and roughly the same altitude as you with numbers and skill varying on how you set up the mission beforehand.  I think this works fine in the Russian campaigns where there was a relatively parity between forces and the combat was Tactical in nature taking out targets close to the front line but in the Bodenplatte Campaign  it falls flat. This is very apparent in any P-47 campaign where you are tasked to fly at low level to attack ground targets unescorted, and constantly encounter enemy aircraft (the reality is they rarely encountered enemy aircraft), with the inability to use the superb diving characteristics of the P-47 most pilots struggle.  In my opinion this makes the Bodenplatte stock campaign unplayable.  My recommendation would be to learn how to use PWCG on the Bodenplatte map, the missions can be tailored to better match historical reality.

 

 

[Denum]

47 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I used to take those books as "Gospel". It now appears that there are "issues" with some events depicted in various works.

I was the same, I take it as a grain of salt. I figure if it was truely terrible they wouldn't have used it.

 

It does get frustrating when you raise points about certain aircraft (for example P38s with 150 Oct) that we can show was used, but don't get in game... But get a 109 with nearly undocumented engine and boost use. Life goes on I guess.

[DBFlyguy]

1 hour ago, Denum said:

I was the same, I take it as a grain of salt. I figure if it was truely terrible they wouldn't have used it.

 

It does get frustrating when you raise points about certain aircraft (for example P38s with 150 Oct) that we can show was used, but don't get in game... But get a 109 with nearly undocumented engine and boost use. Life goes on I guess.

GB and Casmo (both are former/current military pilots that use DCS primarily) made a really good point about simulating combat aircraft in games in their recent video.  They both agreed that modeling aircraft strictly by the numbers will typically leave a lot to be desired if you have no personal input from subject matter experts who actually have experience with the aircraft your trying to simulate.  I tend to agree.  Unfortunately, as the folks who actually flew these warbirds in combat are dying off daily, its hard to get personal experience feedback from them.  Though, there are definitely warbird pilots out there that could be reached out to for several aircraft like the P-47, P-51, Spitfire, P-40, BF109 etc...

 

I don't see anything wrong with taking Robert Johnson's feedback on P-47 performance, he was an actual ace who flew it in combat where performance and experience actually mattered.  That experience beats any nerd with a calculator or amateur internet "historian" as far as I'm concerned.  It just has to be weighed against other pilots observations, including from the other side who flew against it as well as manuals and data.  I think there is definitely a happy medium somewhere in there.  IL-2 and DCS for that matter are GAMES first and foremost after all.  

 

 

 

[Denum]

2 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

IL-2 and DCS for that matter are GAMES first and foremost after all.  

Absolutely.

 

But when you model some aircraft at the absolute apex of their performance in documented data and anecdotal capacity and then model competing aircraft strictly to documented data that causes alot of issues IMO. 

 

We see some of those issues in game currently.

[DBFlyguy]

10 minutes ago, Denum said:

Absolutely.

 

But when you model some aircraft at the absolute apex of their performance in documented data and anecdotal capacity and then model competing aircraft strictly to documented data that causes alot of issues IMO. 

 

We see some of those issues in game currently.

 

Yeah, agree with you there, it should definitely be across the board for all aircraft

[DD_Arthur]

27 minutes ago, Denum said:

Absolutely.

 

But when you model some aircraft at the absolute apex of their performance in documented data and anecdotal capacity and then model competing aircraft strictly to documented data that causes alot of issues IMO. 

 

We see some of those issues in game currently.

 

We do?

[Denum]

21 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

We do?

P40, P47 handling, Tempest turn, 109 low speed handling (most prominent one, universal issue but 109 benefits the most), 190 dive etc 

 

I should point out that none of these are huge but in certain situations it gives certain aircraft massive advantages where they shouldn't have one. 

 

They're still really well done.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Denum

[DD_Arthur]

You’ve pointed out some aircraft where you have concerns with their fm’s.

 

I don’t see where ‘anacdotal evidence’ was used by AnPetrov to develop their flight models?

[VonBarb]

@PatrickAWlson : Sorry, I should have guessed this had been discussed before and used the search function. Thanks for the quick summary

 

Some very interesting points being raised. I understood early on that the Jug would not be used in its high-flying 'Mighty Eighth' role in this game and that it would have to be flown '9th' style. The disparity of training between US and German pilots at the end of the war as well as the rarity of encounters accounting for the Jug's 'inflated' survivability in low level missions is another good point. Add this to the fact it is clearly home in much higher altitudes, and it seems logical I should be struggling.

It just seemed a little odd given how I didn't have the same problem flying the P-47 in other sims.

 

Most of my observations concern the D-28 as I haven't had time to put the D-22 through its paces yet and see how it compares. 

 

As for AI, being both too good against it and too good flying it, it is also the main reason I took a step back from the Dynamic Career system. Career brought be back to the franchise, but watching my wingmen locked in 'bomber mode' after dropping their ordinance on target completely ignore the enemy picking them off one after the other quickly killed all the hype. Now I'm getting into the scripted campaigns and aim at giving Hell Hawks over the Bulge a try, but not before a little bit of training  

 

Guess I'll keep trying to squeeze some low-level fun out of the Jug while trying to stay alive, there is nothing wrong with a bit of ground pounding once in a while

[Denum]

9 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

You’ve pointed out some aircraft where you have concerns with their fm’s.

 

I don’t see where ‘anacdotal evidence’ was used by AnPetrov to develop their flight models?

 

These aren't just my concerns. They've been brought up by the community at large. 

 

I'm not going to derail the original point of the thread here though. 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

A plug for PWCG and flying the P47 for the 9th AF.  In PWCG you will be escorted and you will not face overwhelming odds on ground attack missions.  Air missions, of which there will be plenty, will still be under less than real conditions with more and tougher opposition than was really present.  Allies do get a numbers advantage, but it is nowhere close to reallife.

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

the d22 is the way to go as it is generally faster, better accelerating, and more stable. In our sim the p47 is out of its element as others have stated

air to air:

This is gonna sound weird talking about the p47, but keep it as light as possible if you can stand to. If I was a better pilot and had more patience to climb to 20k feet I would say take full fuel, but in our sim I would take as few guns, ordinance, ammo, and fuel as you can stand, use your flaps if you have to maneuver below 210mph, and use boost when you have to. Alternatively, take all 8 guns and extra ammo and take every shot you can against enemy aircraft. In multiplayer, I personally take 70 percent fuel in the p47, extra ammo, and 8 guns but I feel like taking just 6 guns wouldn’t hurt and I’m going to start trying that. I climb over my airfield to about 8k feet before heading to the frontline or whatever objective I choose in a shallow climb keeping my speed up in case I get bounced. Try to hang on to your speed and alt because it is time consuming to get back and when all else fails pull flaps and try to learn the limits of what you can get out of it.
 

Ground attack:
The p47 is a large shiny target and even though it was a successful ground attacker in real life I would choose about any other aircraft for the role in game, except maybe the u2, i16, spitfires (low capacity wing guns) and some yaks (the 9t,1b and 7b are ok). The p47 just can’t accelerate with ordinance at all, the .50s are weak against targets that are not gun emplacements and trucks and is too wobbly of a gun platform. Dropping bombs and rockets seems to have a more dramatic effect on the balance of the aircraft compared to others so it is difficult to get the most out of what on paper looks like a decent bomb/rocket load.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Hajo_Garlic

[354thFG_Rails]

I'm going to just leave this here. It's an old write up that I should update since I do things a bit different now with good success. Plus the flight model is slightly different now, and the addition of 150 octane helps immensely. But it's a good baseline of how you should operate the Jug.

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by QB.Rails

[JG7_X-Man]

We are all regurgitating different versions of the same points over and over. Short of turning X-Plane into an air combat simulator - the best we can ever have to choose from is either IL-2 GB or DCS to recreate WWII aerial combat with some sense of realism regarding flight modeling. To everyone, sorry your favorite aircraft doesn't quite meet your expectation - it's not a fair world we live in. 

 

 

[Y-29.Silky]

6 hours ago, VonBarb said:

@PatrickAWlson : Sorry, I should have guessed this had been discussed before and used the search function. Thanks for the quick summary

 

The disparity of training between US and German pilots at the end of the war as well as the rarity of encounters accounting for the Jug's 'inflated' survivability in low level missions is another good point.  

 

Lol I was waiting for this comment. Despite the Jug being the first fighter escort when the Luftwaffe was at it's peak with more trained pilots than American pilots; American planes can just never win in WWII forums despite being historically good fighters.

[PatrickAWlson]

36 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said:

 

Lol I was waiting for this comment. Despite the Jug being the first fighter escort when the Luftwaffe was at it's peak with more trained pilots than American pilots; American planes can just never win in WWII forums despite being historically good fighters.

 

Wow, talk about taking a statement out of context just to gin up a little outrage.  The guy is on post #13 and he has to get a response like this one.

 

Later in the war - you know, when Bodenplatte takes place - German pilots were not as well trained as American.  That is just fact.  We are talking about the game, how the P47 was used in the game, how it was used historically, and the differences in context between the game and real life ... in late 44 and 45.  Nowhere has anybody not given the P47 its due as a high altitude fighter, but that is not the subject here.

 

The outraged tone is unnecessary. 

 

And down goes another thread.

[Legioneod]

P-47 in this game is disappointing to say the least. Not terrible but disappointing all the same. I prefer the P-47 in DCS, just "feels" more like a P-47 to me from my limited knowledge though I haven't flown it much at all compared to Il2 P-47.

 

Currently Il2 P-47 does have some fm issues.

-It's stall characteristics are wonky to me, it stalls quite easily especially at high altitude. It doesn't like to maneuver  at altitude and will stall easily if you aren't careful. This is   contrary to most accounts I've read that say it performed wonderfully at altitude. One pilot was quoted as saying it had the most amazing maneuverability of any plane he   flew. I'm not saying it should be outturning everything but it did perform better and better the higher it went thanks to all the power it had. 2000HP+ all the way up past   30,000ft, even more HP depending on the fuel/boost settings 2800hp max. I just find it odd that the P-47 with all its power stalls with the slightest pull of the stick when it   gets to higher altitudes. I can yank a 109 around all day above 20,000ft without stalling, can't do the same with the P-47 (not nearly as well or as easily anyways.)

 

-Power at altitude is lower than it should be. The power drops off too soon and isn't where it should be. It should be able to maintain 56" past 30,000ft but currently it drops much sooner and you can only maintain 50-52" past around 27,000ft. Critical Altitude for 64" is also lower than it should be. As a result of the power being wrong the speed is also wrong as well, should be able to achieve around 443mph up to 29,000ft but currently you only get around 418-420 iirc. May not be much concern to some because no one really flies at altitude but still needs to be fixed imo.

 

-.50s are disappointing but this has more to do with how the DM is modeled imo more than the .50 actual damage output/effectiveness. Can't be 100% sure though without knowing how the DM is actually modeled.

 

-DM is disappointing but mostly in regard to aerodynamic penalties or the overperformance of HE. HE causes massive loss of lift and takes you out of the fight immediately even with "minimal" damage/hits. I expect 30mm to take me out but 13mm and 20mm make maneuvering just as hard and causes massive loss of lift as well.

 

Not trying to knock Il2 devs at all, I really enjoy Il2 and imo it's the best ww2 experience you can get, I just feel the P-47 is done better in other games unfortunately. Only aircraft I feel this way about, 109s, P-51s, etc feel great in il2 (except for the tempest with its crazy turn, that feels a bit off lol)

 

[JG27_Steini]

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

P-47 in this game is disappointing to say the least. Not terrible but disappointing all the same. I prefer the P-47 in DCS, just "feels" more like a P-47 to me from my limited knowledge though I haven't flown it much at all compared to Il2 P-47.

 

Currently Il2 P-47 does have some fm issues.

-It's stall characteristics are wonky to me, it stalls quite easily especially at high altitude. It doesn't like to maneuver  at altitude and will stall easily if you aren't careful. This is   contrary to most accounts I've read that say it performed wonderfully at altitude. One pilot was quoted as saying it had the most amazing maneuverability of any plane he   flew. I'm not saying it should be outturning everything but it did perform better and better the higher it went thanks to all the power it had. 2000HP+ all the way up past   30,000ft, even more HP depending on the fuel/boost settings 2800hp max. I just find it odd that the P-47 with all its power stalls with the slightest pull of the stick when it   gets to higher altitudes. I can yank a 109 around all day above 20,000ft without stalling, can't do the same with the P-47 (not nearly as well or as easily anyways.)

 

 

 

The P47 is a heavy weight fighter-bomber. The P51 is allready very heavy. But the P47 weight is a nearly the same weight than 2 109. What do you expect? The wingspan weight ratio is one of the worst of all WW2 fighter. You can not expect an agile fighter here. It's mainly role was ground attack. It was not ment to close combat light weight enemy fighter.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

8 hours ago, Legioneod said:

This is   contrary to most accounts I've read that say it performed wonderfully at altitude. One pilot was quoted as saying it had the most amazing maneuverability of any plane he   flew.

And again a piece of anecdotal "evidence"... Define "wonderful". Does it mean speed? Maneuverability? Both? If so, then what speed and what maneuverability? Wonderful compared to what? What bias do the authors have? Did they fly several types equally often, or mostly the P-47?

 

"Most amazing maneuverability of any plane he flew" - quantify this. Does he mean roll speed, sustained turn, instantaneous turn? Or something else entirely? Horizontal or vertical maneuvers? What speed and altitude? What loadout and with how much fuel? What other planes did he fly? Was he as familiar flying those planes as with the P-47? Did he measure their performance with any instruments, or is it merely his feeling? Did he intend his statement to be objective, or did he mainly want to state his love for the P-47 and may have exaggerated one or two things in the process?

 

All these questions are important and must be answered before any value can be assigned to these statements. If you can answer these questions please do so, so that we may take them seriously. If you cannot, then I'd rather put my faith into hard numbers and physical simulations than in what are frankly very vague statements that are not shown to be reliable.

Edited May 7, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[LukeFF]

11 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

It's mainly role was ground attack.

 

...in late 1944-45, over Western Europe and the Med, sure. But, you're leaving out a lot of other time periods, theaters, and roles where it excelled quite well in the air-to-air role.

Edited May 7, 2021 by LukeFF

[Gambit21]

13 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

The P47 is a heavy weight fighter-bomber. The P51 is allready very heavy. But the P47 weight is a nearly the same weight than 2 109. What do you expect? The wingspan weight ratio is one of the worst of all WW2 fighter. You can not expect an agile fighter here. It's mainly role was ground attack. It was not ment to close combat light weight enemy fighter.

 

El wrongomundo

Up at 20k plus it was a dancing ballerina and a ballerina with 8 .50 cals to boot. As Luke said, you’re missing the whole picture here.

 

The Jugs problem was range, and 1 v 1 performance below 15,000 feet. It was hard to beat a Jug at altitude.

 

It’s main job was ground attack after the Mustang replaced it in the escort role, and yes it excelled in this department.

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Gambit21

[BraveSirRobin]

The P-47 was a pig down low.  I have talked to a warbird pilot who hates the P-47 more than any other aircraft he flies.  Another poster in here had a friend who owns a P-47 fly the GB P-47.  He said that it is “spot on”.  In MP we mostly fly the P-47 down low against experts who may even outnumber us.  That didn’t happen in real life.  Even the SP missions are probably low altitude and face more enemy than were seen in real life.
 

If there are problems with the P-47 up high, report them to the developer with supporting evidence.  

[LukeFF]

54 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

El wrongomundo

Up at 20k plus it was a dancing ballerina and a ballerina with 8 .50 cals to boot. As Luke said, you’re missing the whole picture here.

 

The Jugs problem was range, and 1 v 1 performance below 15,000 feet. It was hard to beat a Jug at altitude.

 

It’s main job was ground attack after the Mustang replaced it in the escort role, and yes it excelled in this department.

 

And of course it was escorting B-29s all the way up to V-J Day in August 1945 in the form of the P-47N. From what I've read, that version was very, very impressive.