The Thunderbolt Conundrum

[[CPT]Crunch]

It was the follow on and improved version of the P-43, which was designed with intent as a high altitude interceptor.  Everything the P-39 was suppose to be but never managed to become minus the intercept cannon.  No one had any real use or mission for those, except for Germany suddenly.?  Hence the very expensive P-43's all shipped to China where they performed very well at altitude for as long as they could keep them in service, which wasn't long.

 

I doubt any current flying versions of the Jug have operational or unrestricted turbosuper's still fully serviceable in many decades, of course they're going to be pigs, so is there a point in comparing.

[Denum]

@Legioneod

 

In regards to the flight model comparison between the 109 and the p-47, I would be inclined to guess that the p-47 model is probably fine and that the issue lies within the 109. 

 

 

Alot of the US birds have a high skill requirement to do well in. You need to be extremely accurate and disciplined in your attacks. 

 

Can't even really compare the two.

[69th_Panp]

On 5/5/2021 at 10:24 PM, VBF-12_KW said:

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

 

real sad that a damaged 190 can catch a undamaged P47 with  huge head start 

and the end of the video says it all when you fly the p47 as it is now   ( face down and ass up )

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

I doubt any current flying versions of the Jug have operational or unrestricted turbosuper's still fully serviceable in many decades, of course they're going to be pigs, so is there a point in comparing.

 

How useful is the turbo at 500m?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Have got an impression that today's flying Thunderbolts do not even use the turbo or it is not installed. Not needed in airshows and also expensive to keep in working condition. 

 

 

[Denum]

2 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S! 

 

Have got an impression that today's flying Thunderbolts do not even use the turbo or it is not installed. Not needed in airshows and also expensive to keep in working condition. 

 

 

Spitfires are limited to 8lbs of boost and that requires a 1 million + dollar overhaul at 500 hours. 

 

Running over 8lbs the overhaul time is reduced to 250 hours.

 

You're probably right I think!

Edited May 8, 2021 by Denum

[Legioneod]

Kinda OT but what determines Stall AOA? I'm not the most well versed in aerodynamics or in it's terminology, I barely know anything.

 

21 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

The P47 is a heavy weight fighter-bomber. The P51 is all ready 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.

It was a fighter and only took on the fighter bomber role later in the war.

P-47s destroyed over 7000 aircraft (only about half in air-air combat give or take) It certainly was a capable fighter.

At low altitude I agree it isn't agile in comparison to everything else, pilots confirm this in their accounts. At high altitudes however (20,000+) I would expect it to be a good in comparison to the opposition because it still had full 2600HP while other aircraft were starting to drop in power. Above a certain altitude the P/W ratio of the P-47 is on par or better than that of most 190/109s iirc. With all that power I'd think the P-47 would gain some edge when maneuvering at higher altitudes, in-game this isn't the case from my experience.

 

18 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

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.

I don't really like using anecdotal evidence but I was just saying what he said. He stated it's maneuverability was wonderful at high altitude, not necessarily that it was better than the enemies (though imo it was on par/better based on what I've read) He didn't mention speed.

4 hours ago, Denum said:

@Legioneod

 

In regards to the flight model comparison between the 109 and the p-47, I would be inclined to guess that the p-47 model is probably fine and that the issue lies within the 109. 

 

 

Alot of the US birds have a high skill requirement to do well in. You need to be extremely accurate and disciplined in your attacks. 

 

Can't even really compare the two.

How do you come to this conclusion that the P-47 is right and 109 wrong? Why make the assumption that the P-47 is correct? (things with it are wrong btw)

[Denum]

30 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

How do you come to this conclusion that the P-47 is right and 109 wrong? Why make the assumption that the P-47 is correct? (things with it are wrong btw)

 

Things are wrong, but I think a FM under performing a little bit isn't as bad a as FM over performing.

 

Easier to adjust down then it is up in my opinion.

[=621=Samikatz]

31 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

How do you come to this conclusion that the P-47 is right and 109 wrong? Why make the assumption that the P-47 is correct? (things with it are wrong btw)

 

Not who you quoted, but I have this theory that either the P-47 is too hard to control at extreme speeds, or its opponents are too responsive. We know from American testing vs the A6M Zero that the Thunderbolt doesn't have especially remarkable dive acceleration, but pilots consistently talk about being able to escape bad situations by diving, or that their opponents were reluctant to follow. Maybe the Thunderbolt was much easier to control and pull out of dives at high speed than its opponents? But as it stands in sim anything you come up against can happily follow you move for move to the deck except like a 110 or something

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, Denum said:

Spitfires are limited to 8lbs of boost and that requires a 1 million + dollar overhaul at 500 hours. 

 

Running over 8lbs the overhaul time is reduced to 250 hours.

 

You're probably right I think!

60 series Merlins usually do 12 lbs boost or 55 inches for take-off and stunting the plane. That is when you run it at 3000 rpm as well. Other than that, 4 - 8 lbs boost is all you need for happy flying at 2000 - 2400 rpm. Without guns/ammo and armor, those crates fly very well at lower boost.

 

At low altitudes, the supercharger in the P-47 gives you about 55 inches boost which is about the maximum you‘d push the engine today. (Probably even less than that, Take off rating is 52 inches.) You need the turbocharger at low altitude only to go beyond that with the ratings of late war P-47. Hence you can disconnect the turbocharger for airshows without losing anything but save a lot on maintenance.

[ICDP]

1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Not who you quoted, but I have this theory that either the P-47 is too hard to control at extreme speeds, or its opponents are too responsive. We know from American testing vs the A6M Zero that the Thunderbolt doesn't have especially remarkable dive acceleration, but pilots consistently talk about being able to escape bad situations by diving, or that their opponents were reluctant to follow. Maybe the Thunderbolt was much easier to control and pull out of dives at high speed than its opponents? But as it stands in sim anything you come up against can happily follow you move for move to the deck except like a 110 or something

 

I gave up using purely anecdotal pilot accounts to judge relative performance long ago.  Yet I still rate this far higher in my "give a shit" category than some rumblings of virtual pilots based on "feels".

 

Don't get me wrong, it is possible to tell when something isn't right.  IMHO the Tempest turnrate matches neither controlled tests nor anecdotal evidence.

 

You mentioned the A6M vs P-47 USAAF dive test and on the face of it, it pretty much disputes every P-47 pilot account I've read.  The A6M actually had better initial dive acceleration and when the USAAF tested a P47D against an Fw190A it left the P-47D behind with ease in a dive from 10,000ft.  It took the P47D 7,000ft to catch the 190 and overtake it, yes from 10,000 to 3,000ft.  Most virtual pilots get a nose bleed at 10,000ft.

 

The problem is all the armchair pilots stating "oh the 109 is wrong", "not it's the P47", "no it's all the planes that are wrong" are going of nothing but "feels".  They read some pilot accounts that say "nothing would catch a P47 in a dive", yet ignore the actual controlled comparison tests the USAAF conducted that says "no not really".  Most virtual P-47 pilots take the anecdotal sound bite as gospel and think "point the nose down = guaranteed escape".  They read one pilot account "saying the P-47 the most maneuverable plane he flew", I assume he only ever flew B-17s before that?

 

AHT (America's Hundred Thousand) has the P47D ranked 4th for initial dive acceleration after the P38, P51 and F4U.  It also ranked 7th for turn rate out of 8 USAAF and USN fighters.  The P47D rated 5th for aileron control at 350mph.  The thing is they rate it the best out of them all at higher altitudes.  So just like this sim models, the P47 was kind of a dog a low altitudes and much better at higher altitude.

 

If you are flying the P47D at low - medium altitude then don't expect to be competitive against late ware 109s or a 109D.

Edited May 8, 2021 by ICDP

[Legioneod]

11 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

I gave up using purely anecdotal pilot accounts to judge relative performance long ago.  Yet I still rate this far higher in my "give a shit" category than some rumblings of virtual pilots based on "feels".

 

Don't get me wrong, it is possible to tell when something isn't right.  IMHO the Tempest turnrate matches neither controlled tests nor anecdotal evidence.

 

You mentioned the A6M vs P-47 USAAF dive test and on the face of it, it pretty much disputes every P-47 pilot account I've read.  The A6M actually had better initial dive acceleration and when the USAAF tested a P47D against an Fw190A it left the P-47D behind with ease in a dive from 10,000ft.  It took the P47D 7,000ft to catch the 190 and overtake it, yes from 10,000 to 3,000ft.  Most virtual pilots get a nose bleed at 10,000ft.

 

The problem is all the armchair pilots stating "oh the 109 is wrong", "not it's the P47", "no it's all the planes that are wrong" are going of nothing but "feels".  They read some pilot accounts that say "nothing would catch a P47 in a dive", yet ignore the actual controlled comparison tests the USAAF conducted that says "no not really".  Most virtual P-47 pilots take the anecdotal sound bite as gospel and think "point the nose down = guaranteed escape".  They read one pilot account "saying the P-47 the most maneuverable plane he flew", I assume he only ever flew B-17s before that?

 

AHT (America's Hundred Thousand) has the P47D ranked 4th for initial dive acceleration after the P38, P51 and F4U.  It also ranked 7th for turn rate out of 8 USAAF and USN fighters.  The P47D rated 5th for aileron control at 350mph.  The thing is they rate it the best out of them all at higher altitudes.  So just like this sim models, the P47 was kind of a dog a low altitudes and much better at higher altitude.

 

If you are flying the P47D at low - medium altitude then don't expect to be competitive against late ware 109s or a 109D.

When he said it was the most maneuverable plane he flew, he was talking about higher altitudes. Every pilot agrees that the 47 was average or even below average in maneuverability when down low.

My problem with the P-47 in-game is that it doesn't seem to match pilot accounts or even the in-game stats when at higher altitudes. It's maneuverability is lackluster at high alt and it stalls very easily. Power to weight is better in the P-47 than most German aircraft above 20-25k ft, its climb is on par or better, its turn should be on par or better but I can't seem to get it to turn, it just stalls at the slightest pull of the stick imo.

 

I don't like comparing sims but suggest flying the DCS P-47 and compare it to the Il2 version, the difference in the way they fly is very noticeable imo. (granted I haven't flown dcs p-47 much except for at low altitude)

[Denum]

8 hours ago, ICDP said:

 

 

The problem is all the armchair pilots stating "oh the 109 is wrong", "not it's the P47", "no it's all the planes that are wrong" are going of nothing but "feels".  They read some pilot accounts that say "nothing would catch a P47 in a dive", yet ignore the actual controlled comparison tests the USAAF conducted that says "no not really".  Most virtual P-47 pilots take the anecdotal sound bite as gospel and think "point the nose down = guaranteed escape".  They read one pilot account "saying the P-47 the most maneuverable plane he flew", I assume he only ever flew B-17s before that?

 

 

 

The 109 has almost nothing for stall characteristics in game, can be recovered nearly instantly if you do stall. Has low speed handling that would make a Piper cub blush and can basically pull a cobra maneuver at will in a flat turn to pound off a snap shot? And the ability to perform that god awful luftwobble with next to no negative effect? I'm assuming this all accurate to you?

 

 

I like the 109s and can still step back and say this thing is a little ridiculous. 

 

 

It's painful how far people will go to protect their meta/interests in game.

 

No one is suggesting the P47 should easily take down 109s on the deck.

 

The skill gap there is absolutely massive, it's the easiest aircraft to fly in the game vs the hardest. But when the top players are struggling? One can step back and say hmmm..

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Denum
Cleaning up gin induced errors

[354thFG_Leifr]

Those 109s huh...

[Denum]

53 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

My problem with the P-47 in-game is that it doesn't seem to match pilot accounts or even the in-game stats when at higher altitudes. It's maneuverability is lackluster at high alt and it stalls very easily. Power to weight is better in the P-47 than most German aircraft above 20-25k ft, its climb is on par or better, its turn should be on par or better but I can't seem to get it to turn, it just stalls at the slightest pull of the stick imo.

 

 

I find very few players have taken it that high. But yeah it seems to handle like a rock at 25K. You can't even pull lead on the 109s because they have so much control up there still where the P47 feels like it's constantly dropping a wing mid turn.

The only time I had awesome success is when I had a few thousand feet and they didn't know I was there. Otherwise they'd just turn into you and you can't match it without putting yourself in a super bad situation.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

60 series Merlins usually do 12 lbs boost or 55 inches for take-off and stunting the plane. That is when you run it at 3000 rpm as well. Other than that, 4 - 8 lbs boost is all you need for happy flying at 2000 - 2400 rpm. Without guns/ammo and armor, those crates fly very well at lower boost.

 

At low altitudes, the supercharger in the P-47 gives you about 55 inches boost which is about the maximum you‘d push the engine today. (Probably even less than that, Take off rating is 52 inches.) You need the turbocharger at low altitude only to go beyond that with the ratings of late war P-47. Hence you can disconnect the turbocharger for airshows without losing anything but save a lot on maintenance.

I'm likely off on the exact numbers. All I heard was the overhaul cost and my jaw hit the floor. 

 

There goes that dream ?

[ZachariasX]

58 minutes ago, Denum said:

I'm likely off on the exact numbers. All I heard was the overhaul cost and my jaw hit the floor. 

 

There goes that dream ?

With these birds, the asking price is never the real issue should you envision to operate them regularly. Same goes for most vintage cars though.

[DBFlyguy]

5 hours ago, Leifr said:

Those 109s huh...

?

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by DBFlyguy

[ICDP]

7 hours ago, Leifr said:

Those 109s huh...

 

Have you tested other aircraft, or are you claiming no other plane in the sim can do something similar?

 

I just tried the same thing and found the K4 only marginally easier and very similar to the P40, P47 or Sptifre IX in the same kind of flying.  I eventually crashed in all 4 after getting them below ~100mph and really trying.  Maybe the fact it was marginally easier in the K4 was down to the slats.

 

So how many of those tests did you do until you got a perfect video?

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by ICDP

[354thFG_Leifr]

4 hours ago, ICDP said:

 

Have you tested other aircraft, or are you claiming no other plane in the sim can do something similar?

 

I just tried the same thing and found the K4 only marginally easier and very similar to the P40, P47 or Sptifre IX in the same kind of flying.  I eventually crashed in all 4 after getting them below ~100mph and really trying.  Maybe the fact it was marginally easier in the K4 was down to the slats.

 

So how many of those tests did you do until you got a perfect video?

 

 

It is not my video.

I have seen examples of the 190 doing the ridiculous flick-roll and recovering. I have also seen the Spitfire doing similar things to the 109 example above. The Thunderbolt used to do something similar with the flaps deployed. The whole lot [edited] if you ask me...

Edited May 8, 2021 by SYN_Haashashin
Language

[NIK14]

7 hours ago, Leifr said:

Those 109s huh...

RC drone FM

[Denum]

56 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

Have you tested other aircraft, or are you claiming no other plane in the sim can do something similar?

 

I just tried the same thing and found the K4 only marginally easier and very similar to the P40, P47 or Sptifre IX in the same kind of flying.  I eventually crashed in all 4 after getting them below ~100mph and really trying.  Maybe the fact it was marginally easier in the K4 was down to the slats.

 

So how many of those tests did you do until you got a perfect video?

 

Low speed handling is pretty generous as a rule for all planes.

 

But 

Spitfire MKV/IX will snap into an inverted flat spin if you push to hard at the top of your curve. Non-recoverable below 500 feet. 

 

P47/P40 is a free kill if it wobbles on the deck also. Once below a certain speed the handling gets very mushy also.

 

The Tempest is very capable of it but we all kinds knew that was a UFO. 

 

 

 

La-5 is somewhat capable but you bleed a ton of speed doing so.

 

That video is only the beginning of the witchcraft the 109s can pull at low speed.

 

Personally I'm not suggesting drop everything and fix it now.

 

But it would be nice if it was looked into. 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Denum

[ICDP]

Oh I absolutely agree that it could be better, my only question was if the guy who posted was getting at the 109 only.  A quick try of the other planes I mentioned showed similar low speed stability when being very rough on the controls.

[oc2209]

9 hours ago, ICDP said:

 

I gave up using purely anecdotal pilot accounts to judge relative performance long ago.  Yet I still rate this far higher in my "give a shit" category than some rumblings of virtual pilots based on "feels".

 

You mentioned the A6M vs P-47 USAAF dive test and on the face of it, it pretty much disputes every P-47 pilot account I've read.  The A6M actually had better initial dive acceleration and when the USAAF tested a P47D against an Fw190A it left the P-47D behind with ease in a dive from 10,000ft.  It took the P47D 7,000ft to catch the 190 and overtake it, yes from 10,000 to 3,000ft.  Most virtual pilots get a nose bleed at 10,000ft.

 

The problem is all the armchair pilots stating "oh the 109 is wrong", "not it's the P47", "no it's all the planes that are wrong" are going of nothing but "feels".  They read some pilot accounts that say "nothing would catch a P47 in a dive", yet ignore the actual controlled comparison tests the USAAF conducted that says "no not really".  Most virtual P-47 pilots take the anecdotal sound bite as gospel and think "point the nose down = guaranteed escape".  They read one pilot account "saying the P-47 the most maneuverable plane he flew", I assume he only ever flew B-17s before that?

 

 

Most instances of the P-47 rapidly catching a diving target probably began at or above 20k feet. Do you have any testing examples at those heights?

 

I refuse to believe the P-47 didn't dive well at some altitude levels. Maybe not all, but it surely must've possessed some advantage somewhere. Myths generally don't spring up out of thin air. There's usually a kernel of truth somewhere that just happens to get exaggerated/misunderstood over time.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Gunther Rall was caught in a dive and nearly killed by P-47s. Many other German experts suffered similar fates. If Gunther effing Rall can't escape P-47s in a diving 109, then I don't really give a damn what a Zero test indicates.

[ICDP]

43 minutes ago, Leifr said:

 

It is not my video.

I have seen examples of the 190 doing the ridiculous flick-roll and recovering. I have also seen the Spitfire doing similar things to the 109 example above. The Thunderbolt used to do something similar with the flaps deployed. The whole lot is pretty fucked if you ask me...

 

I love the fact this forum doesn't autocensor posts.

 

I was intriqued enough to try the same thing in the DCS K4 and it is possible to do similarly crass stick and throttle smashing there as well.  Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying both are wrong (or right), just that it is similar.

 

I would imagine in real life nobody would really do such a thing so low to the ground.  Well unless you are Wild Bill Kelso in his P40.

[Denum]

I think part of the issue is the lack of prop torque in both games, 

 

IRL that would be impossibly dangerous to do.

 

I imagine that either it's very hard to model, or it's a layer of difficulty that most devs feel is too much for the average sim player.

 

[ICDP]

34 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

Most instances of the P-47 rapidly catching a diving target probably began at or above 20k feet. Do you have any testing examples at those heights?

 

I refuse to believe the P-47 didn't dive well at some altitude levels. Maybe not all, but it surely must've possessed some advantage somewhere. Myths generally don't spring up out of thin air. There's usually a kernel of truth somewhere that just happens to get exaggerated/misunderstood over time.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Gunther Rall was caught in a dive and nearly killed by P-47s. Many other German experts suffered similar fates. If Gunther effing Rall can't escape P-47s in a diving 109, then I don't really give a damn what a Zero test indicates.

 

And how many P47 pilots were caught in a dive they thought was impossible for a 109 or 190 to match?  Therein lies the problem with posting and believing only anecdotal pilot accounts.  Even a P47 does not defy the laws of physics and the reason a Zero or an Fw190 was able to keep pace or even outive a P47D during the initial part of the dive, is power to weight ratio.  Eventually the mass and power of that big engine does allow the P47 to catch and pass the Zero and eventually after 7,000ft the Fw190A.  It just wasn't a dive and within seconds you are outside gun range, or instantly caught a foe who was stupid to dive away from a P47D.

 

Are you genuinely going to dismis actual WWII USAAF controlled tests because they doesn't match with your version of reality?

 

Here is the Zero vs USAAF fighters in controlled testing.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf

 

Both the P47D and A6M began a dive from 10,000ft and 200IAS.  After 30 seconds the P47D was 100 yards ahead.  The same test at 20,000ft and the P47D was 300 yards ahead (274 meters).  So in both cases after 30 seconds the P47D was inside the effective kill range of the Zero.  Diving away in a P47D in real life from co alt and speed took time to gain any advantage.  And the same is for any matchup.

 

Similar report on P47D vs Fw190A5

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-47_versus_fw-190-pdf.592080/

 

I can't find it but I remember a simiar report on the F4F vs an A6M2 and the advice was to dive away but to keep rolling to not present an easy target.  The same obvioulsy applies to any of the aircraft in this sim.

Edited May 8, 2021 by ICDP

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

22 minutes ago, Denum said:

I think part of the issue is the lack of prop torque in both games, 

 

IRL that would be impossibly dangerous to do.

 

I imagine that either it's very hard to model, or it's a layer of difficulty that most devs feel is too much for the average sim player.

 

Torque is trivial to model. If you know the engine power and RPM, you know the torque. I very much doubt that it is incorrect unless it has been intentionally reduced.

 

I suspect that aerodynamic characteristics like slipstream, asymmetric propeller thrust, and airfoil stall and post-stall behaviour are the real challenge..

Edited May 8, 2021 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[BCI-Nazgul]

On 5/6/2021 at 8:03 AM, Denum said:

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.

 

 

I pretty much agree with everything Denum says here.   Even in DCS the 47 is a much better plane than IL2.   In DCS it's faster, can take a beating, turns pretty well without stalling, and the guns are deadly.  The only advantage the IL2 version has is the engine isn't nearly as prone to damage when you overrev the prop (in fact, you really can't do that in IL2.)  Since I don't own a real 47 it's hard to say who is right, but I think IL2 is wrong about the stall characteristics, the guns, the amount of damage it can take and still be fightable, and the energy retention.  The reviews of real modern pilots I've read say the 47 is well mannered, stable and easy to fly.  Of course, they're not putting through air to air combat so it's hard to say what happens when you really push it.   In IL2 it seems overly sensitive to accelerated stalls and will flip over even at high speeds with moderate stick deflection.   It's even worse at low speeds.   Also, with the current state of the .50 AP rounds it's biggest "plus" (8x.50s) is actually wiped out, so even when you get a shot it often does nothing of import to the enemy.  Generally, if you fly the 47 in IL2 be prepared for continuous frustration.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, ICDP said:

And how many P47 pilots were caught in a dive they thought was impossible for a 109 or 190 to match?  Therein lies the problem with posting and believing only anecdotal pilot accounts.  Even a P47 does not defy the laws of physics and the reason a Zero or an Fw190 was able to keep pace or even outive a P47D during the initial part of the dive, is power to weight ratio.  Eventually the mass and power of that big engine does allow the P47 to catch and pass the Zero and eventually after 7,000ft the Fw190A.  It just wasn't a dive and within seconds you are outside gun range, or instantly caught a foe who was stupid to dive away from a P47D.

 

Are you genuinely going to dismis actual WWII USAAF controlled tests because they doesn't match with your version of reality?

 

 

It's not my reality that doesn't match up with events--it's reality spoken straight from the mouths of people who lived it. Anecdotes add up to either reinforce a claim or debunk it. I think there's more than enough anecdotal evidence to support the P-47's exceptional diving ability.

 

Excerpt from a combat that occurred around 17k feet, by Dave Schilling:

 

"By this time I was alone, and saw a 63rd FS plane. I called, and he joined up just as a formation of Fw-190s flew by heading west about 1000 feet above. I had hoped to sneak by and turn upon their tails, but they saw my climbing turn. I knew I would have to hit the deck sooner or later, but I thought I could get their tail-end man before I had to. My wingman lagged back, and just as I was getting set, he called and said two were on his tail. I thought I saw him get hit and told him to do vertical aileron rolls and hit the deck. At that time two got behind me and were getting set, so I did several rolls as I started down, hit the switch, and outran them by a mile as I got to the deck. I lost them and zoomed back up to 8000 ft."

 

Here we have an example of the obvious common sense that he could not, in fact, dive away within a blink of an eye. He had to maneuver first; but then, it seemed, he gained distance.

 

That's the point. He wasn't caught in the dive. He gained speed faster than his pursuers. What excuses can be made? The 190s didn't want to shoot him down? They didn't try? They throttled back?

 

Edit addition:

 

My other point here, is that Schilling said he knew he'd have to hit the deck eventually. Meaning, that was his established escape procedure. So are you telling me he staked his life on a stupid idea that had no basis in fact? On the mythical delusion of the P-47's ability to dive?

Edited May 8, 2021 by oc2209

[BCI-Nazgul]

59 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

And how many P47 pilots were caught in a dive they thought was impossible for a 109 or 190 to match?  Therein lies the problem with posting and believing only anecdotal pilot accounts.  Even a P47 does not defy the laws of physics and the reason a Zero or an Fw190 was able to keep pace or even outive a P47D during the initial part of the dive, is power to weight ratio.  Eventually the mass and power of that big engine does allow the P47 to catch and pass the Zero and eventually after 7,000ft the Fw190A.  It just wasn't a dive and within seconds you are outside gun range, or instantly caught a foe who was stupid to dive away from a P47D.

 

Are you genuinely going to dismis actual WWII USAAF controlled tests because they doesn't match with your version of reality?

 

Here is the Zero vs USAAF fighters in controlled testing.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf

 

Both the P47D and A6M began a dive from 10,000ft and 200IAS.  After 30 seconds the P47D was 100 yards ahead.  The same test at 20,000ft and the P47D was 300 yards ahead (274 meters).  So in both cases after 30 seconds the P47D was inside the effective kill range of the Zero.  Diving away in a P47D in real life from co alt and speed took time to gain any advantage.  And the same is for any matchup.

 

Similar report on P47D vs Fw190A5

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-47_versus_fw-190-pdf.592080/

 

I can't find it but I remember a simiar report on the F4F vs an A6M2 and the advice was to dive away but to keep rolling to not present an easy target.  The same obvioulsy applies to any of the aircraft in this sim.

Your same test also says this about the 47 vs. Zero: 

So, the 47 had no trouble diving away from a Zero on it's tail with a substantial height advantage.

 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, ICDP said:

 

And how many P47 pilots were caught in a dive they thought was impossible for a 109 or 190 to match?  Therein lies the problem with posting and believing only anecdotal pilot accounts.  Even a P47 does not defy the laws of physics and the reason a Zero or an Fw190 was able to keep pace or even outive a P47D during the initial part of the dive, is power to weight ratio.  Eventually the mass and power of that big engine does allow the P47 to catch and pass the Zero and eventually after 7,000ft the Fw190A.  It just wasn't a dive and within seconds you are outside gun range, or instantly caught a foe who was stupid to dive away from a P47D.

 

Are you genuinely going to dismis actual WWII USAAF controlled tests because they doesn't match with your version of reality?

 

Here is the Zero vs USAAF fighters in controlled testing.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf

 

Both the P47D and A6M began a dive from 10,000ft and 200IAS.  After 30 seconds the P47D was 100 yards ahead.  The same test at 20,000ft and the P47D was 300 yards ahead (274 meters).  So in both cases after 30 seconds the P47D was inside the effective kill range of the Zero.  Diving away in a P47D in real life from co alt and speed took time to gain any advantage.  And the same is for any matchup.

 

Similar report on P47D vs Fw190A5

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-47_versus_fw-190-pdf.592080/

 

I can't find it but I remember a simiar report on the F4F vs an A6M2 and the advice was to dive away but to keep rolling to not present an easy target.  The same obvioulsy applies to any of the aircraft in this sim.

While we can use the zero test I don't think the Fw190 test is as useful  in this case. It certainly helps us get an idea but the P-47 in the test isn't what we have in-game. It seems to have been using a much lower WEP than what we have 2000HP vs 2600-2800HP (what we have in-game) I'm guessing the results may have been slightly different if the P-47 had the higher WEP not sure of course but that'd be my guess. Another thing is that we don't know what prop the 47 had, results could differ depending on what was used. The 190 could also have been underperforming as well.

 

I like the zero test, imo it's much more helpful than the 190 test, 190 test is just too vague in some of its details. Both are interesting though.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Legioneod

[DBFlyguy]

These are long but Greg has done an incredible job addressing the P-47 in-depth backed up by research, data AND pilot feedback:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ICDP]

1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Your same test also says this about the 47 vs. Zero: 

So, the 47 had no trouble diving away from a Zero on it's tail with a substantial height advantage.

 

 

Yes, all that does is prove my point that context is key and that there are no absolutes.

 

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

It's not my reality that doesn't match up with events--it's reality spoken straight from the mouths of people who lived it. Anecdotes add up to either reinforce a claim or debunk it. I think there's more than enough anecdotal evidence to support the P-47's exceptional diving ability.

 

Excerpt from a combat that occurred around 17k feet, by Dave Schilling:

 

"By this time I was alone, and saw a 63rd FS plane. I called, and he joined up just as a formation of Fw-190s flew by heading west about 1000 feet above. I had hoped to sneak by and turn upon their tails, but they saw my climbing turn. I knew I would have to hit the deck sooner or later, but I thought I could get their tail-end man before I had to. My wingman lagged back, and just as I was getting set, he called and said two were on his tail. I thought I saw him get hit and told him to do vertical aileron rolls and hit the deck. At that time two got behind me and were getting set, so I did several rolls as I started down, hit the switch, and outran them by a mile as I got to the deck. I lost them and zoomed back up to 8000 ft."

 

Here we have an example of the obvious common sense that he could not, in fact, dive away within a blink of an eye. He had to maneuver first; but then, it seemed, he gained distance.

 

That's the point. He wasn't caught in the dive. He gained speed faster than his pursuers. What excuses can be made? The 190s didn't want to shoot him down? They didn't try? They throttled back?

 

Edit addition:

 

My other point here, is that Schilling said he knew he'd have to hit the deck eventually. Meaning, that was his established escape procedure. So are you telling me he staked his life on a stupid idea that had no basis in fact? On the mythical delusion of the P-47's ability to dive?

 

That proves my point.  Schilling knew that simply diving was not going to cut it and he had to use evasive manuevers as well.  It also doesn't state the starting altitude or starting speed, so again provides no context.  Like I said and have been trying to point out, we know that the P47D would eventually outrun an Fw190A in a prolonged dive.  The report I posted and Schillings account just proves this.  Not sure what you are trying to argue?

Edited May 8, 2021 by ICDP

[oc2209]

22 minutes ago, ICDP said:

That proves my point.  Schilling knew that simply diving was not going to cut it and he had to use evasive manuevers as well.  It also doesn't state the starting altitude or starting speed, so again provides no context.  Like I said and have been trying to point out, we know that the P47D would eventually outrun an Fw190A in a prolonged dive.  The report I posted and Schillings account just proves this.  Not sure what you are trying to argue?

 

I said the starting altitude was about 17k feet.

 

I'm saying the 190s couldn't catch him in the short term, when you say they should be able to. You just said:

2 hours ago, ICDP said:

And how many P47 pilots were caught in a dive they thought was impossible for a 109 or 190 to match?  Therein lies the problem with posting and believing only anecdotal pilot accounts.  Even a P47 does not defy the laws of physics and the reason a Zero or an Fw190 was able to keep pace or even outive a P47D during the initial part of the dive, is power to weight ratio.

 

How many P-47 pilots were caught in a dive? My guess: not many. Schilling (and other pilots) make it appear rather easy to shake a pursuer in a dive. Also, the P-47's roll rate must've been high enough while diving to actually provide some defensive value. 

 

Plenty of Germans were caught in dives, though. Does that mean they're stupid? No. It means they were using tactics that used to work against most of their previous foes before the P-47 came on the scene. The 109 was generally known to be an adequate to above-average diver.

 

If, for example, a German plane like the Do-335 could suddenly out-dive the P-47 easily, I'm sure it'd take the Americans a little while to learn this lesson the hard way.

 

My argument is straightforward. If something works, pilots continue to do it. If it doesn't work, they stop doing it. If Schilling's go-to defensive move was a dive, it must work more often than not. Meaning your previous assertion of the Fw-190 catching P-47s at any point, even in the early part of the dive, wouldn't hold up very well.

 

Again: Schilling and others are betting their lives on the P-47's ability to dive faster than pursuers. If the 190 could keep up with the P-47 for 7000 feet, that doesn't sound like enough of an advantage to consistently bet your life on.

[ICDP]

1 minute ago, oc2209 said:

 

I said the starting altitude was about 17k feet.

 

I'm saying the 190s couldn't catch him in the short term, when you say they should be able to. You just said:

 

How many P-47 pilots were caught in a dive? My guess: not many. Schilling (and other pilots) make it appear rather easy to shake a pursuer in a dive. Also, the P-47's roll rate must've been high enough while diving to actually provide some defensive value. 

 

Plenty of Germans were caught in dives, though. Does that mean they're stupid? No. It means they were using tactics that used to work against most of their previous foes before the P-47 came on the scene. The 109 was generally known to be an adequate to above-average diver.

 

If, for example, a German plane like the Do-335 could suddenly out-dive the P-47 easily, I'm sure it'd take the Americans a little while to learn this lesson the hard way.

 

My argument is straightforward. If something works, pilots continue to do it. If it doesn't work, they stop doing it. If Schilling's go-to defensive move was a dive, it must work more often than not. Meaning your previous assertion of the Fw-190 catching P-47s at any point, even in the early part of the dive, wouldn't hold up very well.

 

Again: Schilling and others are betting their lives on the P-47's ability to dive faster than pursuers. If the 190 could keep up with the P-47 for 7000 feet, that doesn't sound like enough of an advantage to consistently bet your life on.

 

Schilling said he had to dive and use evasive maneuvers all the way to the deck, then run for how long to gain 1 mile of estimated separation?  He also said he thought he saw one of his flight take hits, but still you insist the P47D pilot could stake his life on always outdiving a 190 or 109?

 

Yet you think this proves your point and not mine?  Wow.

[Gambit21]

The Jug would run in WEP as long as it had water - 15 minutes. When they gave it 7 hours of water for a bench test - it ran in WEP for 7 hours - no problem. They didn’t stop the test because the engine failed, they stopped because the water ran out.

 

The Jug would reach terminal velocity in a dive and no parts flew off.

 

That’s what I know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Gambit21

[ZachariasX]

If the dive is started at slow speed, usually the lighter aircraft accellerates faster. If the dive starts at elevated speeds, this is where added weight starts to help the heavy machine. Before that, weight works against the heavy machine.

 

Also, when people are happy about diving at max. power, this tells you more about the control (and the feel of it) a pilot has in his aircraft. The Thunderbolt can be flown at high speeds (especially high up!) and the pilot has good control. It remains a stabke gun platform. The 109 is easily as fast, but should a pilot go that fast, it is unlikely that he can do more than come out of the dive alive, but forget about being able to take a shot. And being able to take a shot is what determines the outcome of a diving contest in combat. Much more so than „being able to follow“.

[HR_Zunzun]

45 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

Schilling said he had to dive and use evasive maneuvers all the way to the deck, then run for how long to gain 1 mile of estimated separation?  He also said he thought he saw one of his flight take hits, but still you insist the P47D pilot could stake his life on always outdiving a 190 or 109?

 

Yet you think this proves your point and not mine?  Wow.

No, he didn´t say such a thing. He said he did the alieron rolls at the beginning of the dive. Not all the way down to the deck.  That has being your point but taken out of nowhere.

I agree you however in that diving is not a life insurance policy and that some maneouver is necessary if you want to survive a close chasing enemy.

What I understand oc2209 is trying to say is that diving away was a basic tactic used by the p-47 pilots in the same way that it was used by 109/190s against the spit.

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by HR_Zunzun

[Art-J]

17 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S! 

 

Have got an impression that today's flying Thunderbolts do not even use the turbo or it is not installed. Not needed in airshows and also expensive to keep in working condition. 

 

 

 

Apparently, four still have their turbos operational, but they're indeed an exception rather than the rule.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/237182-engine-sound-or-the-lack-of/?do=findComment&comment=4322673

Edited May 8, 2021 by Art-J

[ICDP]

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

No, he didn´t say such a thing. He said he did the alieron rolls at the beginning of the dive. Not all the way down to the deck.  That has being your point but taken out of nowhere.

I agree you however in that diving is not a life insurance policy and that some maneouver is necessary if you want to survive a close chasing enemy.

What I understand oc2209 is trying to say is that diving away was a basic tactic used by the p-47 pilots in the same way that it was used by 109/190s against the spit.

 

Think about it logically for a second because he said he did "several" aileron rolls as he started down and it takes more than a few seconds to do "several" aileron rolls in a P47D.  If we use logic we know roll rate charts show a P47D would do around 80deg per second at 300-400mph, or just over 4 seconds for a full 360 deg roll.  We also know several is more than 2, if we assume even 3 it means he was rolling for at least 10-12 seconds as he was diving.  So he would have been well into his vertical dive as he was on his way down to the deck.  This also points to a problem of interpreting pilot accounts in combat conditions compared to actual controlled test conditions that give all the factors we need to make valid conclusions.

 

• What was the starting speed?
• Were the 190s slower than the P47s despite being 1,000ft (estimated) higher?
• The 190s scored hits on the other P47D according to Schillings account, did the pilot bail out or make it back to base?
• Or was the other P47D pilot one of the unfortunate ones (I alluded to earlier) oc2209 suggests could stake his life on always outdiving a 190?

 

Ironically the fact that Schilling did the evasive maneuvers as he dove from the 190s indicates he knew diving alone would be a mistake.  I bet like all USAAF pilots they were briefed and trained on proper evasion techniques when bounced by a 190 or 109.  Probably based on the tactical trials I posted above.

 

The problem I see from oc2209s posts (and please accept my apologies If I have concluded wrong here oc2209) is that he is implying the P47D should always outdive an Fw190 or Bf109.  At no point have I stated that diving in the P47D was not a valid tactic, simply that it was not such a major advantage that some virtual pilots seem to imagine it should be.

 

Just as a quick test in sim I did a dive in a P47D22 at 17,000ft, 250MPH IAS.  I did 3 rolls starting as I entered the dive and by the time I had completed these 3 rolls I was already at ~7,000ft and had to begin my dive recovery.  Recovery was at roughly 565MPH IAS on the deck and this was not the 150 octane version.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

If the dive is started at slow speed, usually the lighter aircraft accellerates faster. If the dive starts at elevated speeds, this is where added weight starts to help the heavy machine. Before that, weight works against the heavy machine.

 

Also, when people are happy about diving at max. power, this tells you more about the control (and the feel of it) a pilot has in his aircraft. The Thunderbolt can be flown at high speeds (especially high up!) and the pilot has good control. It remains a stabke gun platform. The 109 is easily as fast, but should a pilot go that fast, it is unlikely that he can do more than come out of the dive alive, but forget about being able to take a shot. And being able to take a shot is what determines the outcome of a diving contest in combat. Much more so than „being able to follow“.

 

100% agreed.  It is all about context.

Edited May 8, 2021 by ICDP