The Thunderbolt Conundrum

[BCI-Nazgul]

4 hours 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.

 

The other part is that you can't just smash the stick back and forth to it's limits in a real plane without power assisted surfaces.  It will fight you all the way.   The amount of force required is impressive even in a light civilian plane.  

[ICDP]

Just now, BCI-Nazgul said:

The other part is that you can't just smash the stick back and forth to it's limits in a real plane without power assisted surfaces.  It will fight you all the way.   The amount of force required is impressive even in a light civilian plane.  

 

Good point and there is also the physical forces and limitations on the pilot in such violent maneuvers.

[HR_Zunzun]

23 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

That's not how I read it 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 hits got 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 who staked 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.

 

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.

 

All very speculative on your side. By instance, evasive alieron rolls don´t have to be 360 or diving completely vertical. So your test is not valid and we better do not get involved in an speculation contest.

The funny thing is that, by doing alieron rolls, Shilling was not only able to dodge any possible shooting made at him but, at the same time, was able to outpace the pursuers. If anything, it indicated superb diving performance.

 

 

[BCI-Nazgul]

Just now, ICDP said:

 

Good point and there is also the physical forces and limitations on the pilot in such violent maneuvers.

This is one of my real complaints about IL2.  You planes flipping around like butterflies specially the 109 and then instantly getting right back on your six.  Sure some planes could make really tight turns, BUT you can't just enter that instantly like some of planes in IL2 seem to be able to do.  I bet no one can find any video of a 109/190 doing the flip and flop in real life.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a big one that I forgot to mention. In-game the P-47 losses control surfaces in a dive when in reality no such thing happened (except for when the early P-47s had fabric surfaces). P-47 should be able to dive to it's maximum speed without losing surfaces, whether you survive the dive is a different matter altogether though. The P-47 would survive until it hit the ground though, it didn't lose it's control surfaces.

 

I agree with the WEP as well, we should be able to use WEP for the full duration of the tank (it varies on power setting and what 47 you fly. D22 has less water)

[ICDP]

15 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

All very speculative on your side. By instance, evasive alieron rolls don´t have to be 360 or diving completely vertical. So your test is not valid and we better do not get involved in an speculation contest.

The funny thing is that, by doing alieron rolls, Shilling was not only able to dodge any possible shooting made at him but, at the same time, was able to outpace the pursuers. If anything, it indicated superb diving performance.

 

 

 

It's all very speculative on yours as well and that's kinda the point about pilot accounts being dubious sources without context.

14 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

This is a big one that I forgot to mention. In-game the P-47 losses control surfaces in a dive when in reality no such thing happened (except for when the early P-47s had fabric surfaces). P-47 should be able to dive to it's maximum speed without losing surfaces, whether you survive the dive is a different matter altogether though. The P-47 would survive until it hit the ground though, it didn't lose it's control surfaces.

 

I agree with the WEP as well, we should be able to use WEP for the full duration of the tank (it varies on power setting and what 47 you fly. D22 has less water)

 

This is something that affects all aircraft and is an understandable limitation of the damge model.

[HR_Zunzun]

2 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

It's all very speculative on yours as well and that's kinda the point about pilot accounts being dubious sources without context.

 

This is something that affects all aircraft and is an understandable limitation of the damge model.

The difference being that I didn´t speculate. Only pointed out your theory flaws.

[Denum]

31 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

The other part is that you can't just smash the stick back and forth to it's limits in a real plane without power assisted surfaces.  It will fight you all the way.   The amount of force required is impressive even in a light civilian plane.  

 

Actually you raise a really good point. 

 

When I compress in a dive, my ability to pull out is dictated by pilots strength isn't it? 

 

The argument could be made that the same limitations could be placed on a aircraft attempting to do multiple low speed maneuvers from one extreme to the next. 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Denum

[ICDP]

Just now, HR_Zunzun said:

The difference being that I didn´t speculate. Only pointed out your theory flaws.

 

Are you claiming this is not you speculating?  Because his actual quote was "so I did several rolls as I started down"

 

Yet you assumed (or speculated) he meant this.

 

"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."

 

If he started a dive while rolling several times from 17,000ft, then he would have been most of the way through the dive by the time he stopped rolling.  That is not speculation, it is logical.

[oc2209]

2 hours 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.

 

As HR_Zunzun said, Schilling didn't say he rolled the whole time. He said he rolled as he entered the dive. Secondly, he gave his wingman the command to dive and roll after the wingman had been hit. Not during the dive.

 

I'd like to see one single anecdote where a German pilot said he caught and shot down/hit a P-47 in a dive. Early in the dive, late, whatever. I've yet to read one.

 

Here's some other anecdotes, though.

 

Hans-Werner Lerche 'extensively flew a captured P-47D-2 in late 1943,' and says the following:

 

"I was astonished to note how lively the Thunderbolt became at higher altitudes [...] climbed to 36,000ft with ease [...] The strength of the Thunderbolt in a dive was particularly impressive. This is just as well, since it was no great dogfighter, particularly at heights below 15,000ft. It was excellent at higher altitudes, in diving attacks and when flying with maximum boost. No wonder then that the P-47s were always the decisive factor as escort fighters for bomber attacks conducted at higher altitudes."

 

Hub Zemke:

 

"Strangely, the rate of roll and maneuverability were good at high speeds. Above 20,000ft, the P-47 was superior to German fighters. In the dive, my God, the P-47 could overtake anything. Therefore, I made it policy in my group that we used the tactic of 'dive and zoom'."

 

So we've got a German saying it dived well, and an American who went on to develop tactics that involved nothing but diving attacks. When Zemke says it 'can overtake anything', do you suppose he really meant to say it can gradually overtake some planes, when given at least 10,000 feet to work with, provided the dive is initiated from around 30,000 feet? I don't think that would impress anyone too much, including a German test pilot. Remember that Lerche probably wouldn't have even flown the paddle-prop yet.

 

I get what you're saying, that the P-47 wouldn't magically shoot away from any plane in a dive like the Road Runner versus Wile E. Coyote. I get that some reputations can become exaggerated and make players' expectations unrealistic in a sim. I agree with all that. What I don't agree with, is trying to undercut the P-47's reputation to a ridiculous extent in the opposite direction to compensate. You're trying to make its diving ability look like a very marginal advantage. I don't think real life pilots would speak of mediocre benefits with reverence, and I don't think they build tactics and escape methods around such minimal gains over the enemy.

[ICDP]

46 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

As HR_Zunzun said, Schilling didn't say he rolled the whole time. He said he rolled as he entered the dive. Secondly, he gave his wingman the command to dive and roll after the wingman had been hit. Not during the dive.

 

I'd like to see one single anecdote where a German pilot said he caught and shot down/hit a P-47 in a dive. Early in the dive, late, whatever. I've yet to read one.

 

Here's some other anecdotes, though.

 

Hans-Werner Lerche 'extensively flew a captured P-47D-2 in late 1943,' and says the following:

 

"I was astonished to note how lively the Thunderbolt became at higher altitudes [...] climbed to 36,000ft with ease [...] The strength of the Thunderbolt in a dive was particularly impressive. This is just as well, since it was no great dogfighter, particularly at heights below 15,000ft. It was excellent at higher altitudes, in diving attacks and when flying with maximum boost. No wonder then that the P-47s were always the decisive factor as escort fighters for bomber attacks conducted at higher altitudes."

 

Hub Zemke:

 

"Strangely, the rate of roll and maneuverability were good at high speeds. Above 20,000ft, the P-47 was superior to German fighters. In the dive, my God, the P-47 could overtake anything. Therefore, I made it policy in my group that we used the tactic of 'dive and zoom'."

 

So we've got a German saying it dived well, and an American who went on to develop tactics that involved nothing but diving attacks. When Zemke says it 'can overtake anything', do you suppose he really meant to say it can gradually overtake some planes, when given at least 10,000 feet to work with, provided the dive is initiated from around 30,000 feet? I don't think that would impress anyone too much, including a German test pilot. Remember that Lerche probably wouldn't have even flown the paddle-prop yet.

 

I get what you're saying, that the P-47 wouldn't magically shoot away from any plane in a dive like the Road Runner versus Wile E. Coyote. I get that some reputations can become exaggerated and make players' expectations unrealistic in a sim. I agree with all that. What I don't agree with, is trying to undercut the P-47's reputation to a ridiculous extent in the opposite direction to compensate. You're trying to make its diving ability look like a very marginal advantage. I don't think real life pilots would speak of mediocre benefits with reverence, and I don't think they build tactics and escape methods around such minimal gains over the enemy.

 

At no point am I claiming the P47D would not be a better diver than a 190 (or 109) overall.  Just that there are plenty of tactical trials that show the P47D was not as markedly superior in a dive as many people assume.  Obvioulsy there would be some back and forth depending on model, prop and engine boost/power but as a general rule of thumb.

 

• RAF stated the P47C was equal to a Typhoon in a dive and worse than the Mustang P51A.
• RAF Tactical trials stated the Tempest was superior than a Thunderbolt II (P47D) in a dive.
• USAAF WWII tactical tests and trials among 8 USAAF and USN fighters ranked the P47D 4th a dive after the P38, P51 and F4U (ranked in order of best to worst).
• USAAF tactical trials show it was worse during the initial dive than an Fw190A.
• German tests concluded the Fw190D was superior in a dive to an Fw190A (so would be even closer to the P47D).

 

If a P47D already had a decent speed advantage against a 109 or 190 at the start of a dive it would keep it.  If a 109 or 190 tried to dive away it would eventually be caught, even if they had a speed advantage to start with.  But again context and the actual scenario matters, don't assume it was always superior in a dive under all circumstances and diving away was gauranteed to save your life.  Yet many virtual pilots read some pilot anecdotes, think they will always work in the sim and cry foul when it doesn't.

 

Hence the many mostly unsubsantiated "the P47 just feels wrong" posts.  Becuase there is not a chance in hell any dev will change an FM based on nothing but pilot anecdotes, or virtual pilots "feels".  I am not saying it is perfect or even correct, just that if you feel it is wrong prove it with more than anecdotes.

 

RAF tactical trials graphic showing various USAAF, RAF and captured LW aircraft.  It shows the P47D (thunderbolt II) as being ranked behind the Tempest in a dive and only marginally better than a P51D.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-dive.jpg

53 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

Actually you raise a really good point. 

 

When I compress in a dive, my ability to pull out is dictated by pilots strength isn't it? 

 

The argument could be made that the same limitations could be placed on a aircraft attempting to do multiple low speed maneuvers from one extreme to the next. 

 

I wonder if the pilot G and fatique modelling should be extended to rapid changes in direction having an effect.

Edited May 8, 2021 by ICDP

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, ICDP said:

 

It's all very speculative on yours as well and that's kinda the point about pilot accounts being dubious sources without context.

 

This is something that affects all aircraft and is an understandable limitation of the damge model.

The WEP part I'd agree with, they'd have to rework how the damage model behaves for engine limits.

As far as losing control surfaces I disagree, they could always make it to where the P-47 won't lose them in a dive.

[Denum]

45 minutes ago, ICDP said:

I wonder if the pilot G and fatique modelling should be extended to rapid changes in direction having an effect.

 

There's actually a ticket open as when you pull positive G then go negative it's actually showing to recharge the pilot G stamina. 

 

I would agree there should be some fatigue modeled in game, but some argue it's not quite enough now. 

 

So I'm sure how to approach that and keep everyone happy. 

 

Personally I feel that tackling the low speed handling would be the most effective. If I recall in 1946 if you pitched up at low speed you have very little if any control authority. Sometimes you got lucky and you lined up well, other times you slid off one wing and had to regain control. Which often if you were to low, was a death sentence. 

(This is a long time ago, so there might rode colored glasses at play here)

 

 

In most cases when people start flopping they are trying to make you overshoot. The 109s happen benefit the most from this maneuver as they have incredibly effective guns and low speed handling. I've shot by EA with 3Xs the speed, and taken a few MG hits at maximum range and it's enough to end the fight. It's really quite frustrating.

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Denum

[ICDP]

5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The WEP part I'd agree with, they'd have to rework how the damage model behaves for engine limits.

As far as losing control surfaces I disagree, they could always make it to where the P-47 won't lose them in a dive.

 

Apologies, I meant I would prefer if there was some proper critical speed damage modelling for all aircraft and not just the P47Ds.  By all means make the P47D more robust but do it right.  Same for all the very arbitrarary engine boost limitations.

Edited May 8, 2021 by ICDP

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, ICDP said:

 

Apologies, I meant I would prefer if there was some proper critical speed damage modelling for all aircraft and not just the P47Ds.  By all means make the P47D more robust but do it right.  Same for all the very arbitratrary engine boost limitations.

Thats the thing, you wouldn't have to do much for the P-47. It was structurally sound throughout its speed range, you can dive it to its maximum speed and it wouldn't lose any surfaces. It would stiffen up but wouldn't lose control surfaces.

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, ICDP said:

If a P47D already had a decent speed advantage against a 109 or 190 at the start of a dive it would keep it.  If a 109 or 190 tried to dive away it would eventually be caught, even if they had a speed advantage to start with.  But again context and the actual scenario matters, don't assume it was always superior in a dive under all circumstances and diving away was gauranteed to save your life.  Yet many virtual pilots read some pilot anecdotes, think they will always work in the sim and cry foul when it doesn't.

 

Hence the many mostly unsubsantiated "the P47 just feels wrong" posts.  Becuase there is not a chance in hell any dev will change an FM based on nothing but pilot anecdotes, or virtual pilots "feels".  I am not saying it is perfect or even correct, just that if you feel it is wrong prove it with more than anecdotes.

 

Well, the P-47 does feel worthless at high altitudes from my experiences with it. When you combine that with the totally unimpressive diving abilities as depicted in the sim, it does make you wonder two things, chiefly:

 

1) Was every WWII pilot who liked it and used it successfully, and claimed X feats were achieved in combat--were they delusional and/or prone to gross exaggeration?

 

and

 

2) If the sim's flight model makes the P-47 handle poorly at high altitude when absolutely no real life descriptions indicate this to be true, can we assume a discrepancy exists between reality and the sim?

 

Unfortunately I can't prove anything myself; but when I can't even turn at altitude without stalling, I wonder how it can be so vastly different from literally everything I've ever read. I have nothing else to go on but feeling.

 

As for controlled test comparisons between planes, I really don't know if I trust those to match perfectly with combat conditions. The P-51's roughly equal to a P-47 in a dive according to those tests. Why, then, does the P-51 have no reputation as a great diver? Why did a Japanese ace piloting the Ki-100 say that the P-51's sole defensive maneuver when attacked was to turn? Were the pilots too stupid to know they had the ability to dive as well?

 

I know, I know, another anecdote of mine. But should anecdotal testing totally override dozens of anecdotal combat accounts? To be perfectly valid, wouldn't the tests have to be performed by a minimum of 100 different planes (of the same production series), with 100 different pilots, on 100 different days, to be truly comprehensive studies of aircraft performance? Do we know how extensive these tests were?

Edited May 9, 2021 by oc2209

[Legioneod]

If anyone wants I'd be willing to hop online and do some mock dogfights just to get a better feel for it's high alt characteristic vs other aircraft.

 

In-game stats say it will turn with or better than nearly every 109/190 above 3000m and it will climb better above 3000 as well. In-game I've haven't really been able to do this to a large extent except for the climb (only above 6000m).

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

In-game stats say it will turn with or better than nearly every 109/190 above 3000m and it will climb better above 3000 as well. In-game I've haven't really been able to do this to a large extent except for the climb (only above 6000m).

 

Just for fun, I put myself in a D-22 at 9,000m against a Fw-190 A-8 (AI) at the same altitude, head on. The plane was virtually uncontrollable unless I lowered the nose to pick up speed as I turned. I wasn't able to out-turn the 190 until I'd dropped to 19,000 feet. (I'm converting to feet here because I play in imperial units; but the game uses metric units in setup). 

 

I then put myself in a 109G-6 Late against a D-22. In both cases (when I flew in the P-47 and as its opponent), the P-47 had 50% fuel load, 150 octane, no special modifications otherwise. In the 109 I could easily turn without stalling, and turn inside the P-47 at any altitude. I could not catch him with speed, however. I then switched to a 109K-4 with the modded engine. Turning was more difficult, but I was able to catch up to him at 23,000 feet. I next used a Spitfire XIV. I caught up with him at 26,000 feet.

 

All in all, the P-47 was by far the worst handling at all altitudes down to 20,000 feet.

 

Edit:

 

Just tried the P-47D-22 and the P-38 (half fuel) against 109K-4s. The P-38 was much easier to handle, so much so that I was able to shoot the 109 down just a bit under 25,000 feet.

 

In the P-47, I entered flat spins while trying to turn on two different occasions. At no point was I able to turn with the 109, all the way down to 16,000 feet, where I gave up by diving away. Lost an aileron at ~560 MPH before recovering from the dive.

 

Second Edit:

 

I finally caught up with a 109K-4 (no mods) with me in a P-47D-22 (no mods, half fuel) at 19,900 feet. Very shaky turns, constantly on the verge of stalling, but stable enough at that altitude to turn inside him if I was banked at a better angle than my above attempt. Trying to turn any higher is almost impossible for me.

Edited May 9, 2021 by oc2209

[ICDP]

The problem is using the AI as a gauge of relative performance.  The AI in energy fighters has always been suspect and not as good when they are in a more agile fighter.  That goes for when the AI has to use energy fighting and they end up wallowing around in their P47s at 30,000ft.

 

I tried a few 1v1 in a P47D28 vs a veteran K4 at 9,500 metres

 

When I took a P47D at default setting and 60% fuel I was able to outfly a K4 at 20,000 - 30,000ft as long as I kept my inputs smooth.  I was able to control the fight and refused to go below 20,000ft.  My only frustration was my shooting sucked because I had a number of good shots as he tried in vain to zoom after me at these higher altitudes.  When I switched to the K4 I found it a touch harder to control and quicker to stall at these altitudes, though when it did stall it was more benign.  The fight was eaiser in the K4 against the P47D because the AI in a P47D just isn't very good in any energy fighters and ended up at 17,000ft in very short order.

 

Don't get me wrong, all aircraft are going to feel slugish up there and won't be looping and rolling with ease, but the P47D always felt like it had the edge over the 109K4 by small but noticeable amount in both climbs and turns.

 

So when flying the P47D at 30,000ft your controls and inputs should be smoother and more controlled.  This is normal because it should be considered that in thinner air you have considerably less lift.

 

Climb rates at various altitudes (real life tests comparison)

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/bf-109-g-10-vs-k-4.35729/page-2

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by ICDP

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, ICDP said:

The problem is using the AI as a gauge of relative performance.  The AI in energy fighters has always been suspect and not as good when they are in a more agile fighter.  That goes for when the AI has to use energy fighting and they end up wallowing around in their P47s at 30,000ft.

 

I tried a few 1v1 in a P47D28 vs a veteran K4 at 9,500 metres

 

When I took a P47D at default setting and 60% fuel I was able to outfly a K4 at 20,000 - 30,000ft as long as I kept my inputs smooth.  I was able to control the fight and refused to go below 20,000ft.  My only frustration was my shooting sucked because I had a number of good shots as he tried in vain to zoom after me at these higher altitudes.  When I switched to the K4 I found it a touch harder to control and quicker to stall at these altitudes, though when it did stall it was more benign.  The fight was eaiser in the K4 against the P47D because the AI in a P47D just isn't very good in any energy fighters and ended up at 17,000ft in very short order.

 

Don't get me wrong, all aircraft are going to feel slugish up there and won't be looping and rolling with ease, but the P47D always felt like it had the edge over the 109K4 by small but noticeable amount in both climbs and turns.

 

So when flying the P47D at 30,000ft your controls and inputs should be smoother and more controlled.  This is normal because it should be considered that in thinner air you have considerably less lift.

 

Climb rates at various altitudes (real life tests comparison)

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/bf-109-g-10-vs-k-4.35729/page-2

 

I agree ai isn’t the best comparison that’s why I’m gonna try to get my friend to fly some tests and put it through it’s paces in a more realistic way.

 

The P47 will certainly “out-climb” all the 109s above 10,000ft and get increasingly superior the higher it goes but it’s marginal and the 109 can climb at a steeper angle compared to the P47, so it’s a bit tricky to really gain the advantage.

Maneuvering and stall is where most of the trouble lies imo. It gets into an accelerated stall very easily.

 

Nice charts. P47 though isn’t the same  as in-game though. The one in the charts is running at a lower power it seems.

[ICDP]

Yeah, I felt the P47 was a touch too low in climb but it gives a general idea of how much climbrate drops at altitude in these fighters.  So really the P47 isn't getting better at altitudes, it starts at mediocre and drops from there.  Just that the other fighters a getting worse by a larger margin as altitude increases, to the point the P47D becomes less bad. ?

[unreasonable]

On 5/8/2021 at 5:04 PM, ZachariasX said:

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.

 

Also females.

[ICDP]

12 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Well, the P-47 does feel worthless at high altitudes from my experiences with it. When you combine that with the totally unimpressive diving abilities as depicted in the sim, it does make you wonder two things, chiefly:

 

1) Was every WWII pilot who liked it and used it successfully, and claimed X feats were achieved in combat--were they delusional and/or prone to gross exaggeration?

 

and

 

2) If the sim's flight model makes the P-47 handle poorly at high altitude when absolutely no real life descriptions indicate this to be true, can we assume a discrepancy exists between reality and the sim?

 

Unfortunately I can't prove anything myself; but when I can't even turn at altitude without stalling, I wonder how it can be so vastly different from literally everything I've ever read. I have nothing else to go on but feeling.

 

As for controlled test comparisons between planes, I really don't know if I trust those to match perfectly with combat conditions. The P-51's roughly equal to a P-47 in a dive according to those tests. Why, then, does the P-51 have no reputation as a great diver? Why did a Japanese ace piloting the Ki-100 say that the P-51's sole defensive maneuver when attacked was to turn? Were the pilots too stupid to know they had the ability to dive as well?

 

I know, I know, another anecdote of mine. But should anecdotal testing totally override dozens of anecdotal combat accounts? To be perfectly valid, wouldn't the tests have to be performed by a minimum of 100 different planes (of the same production series), with 100 different pilots, on 100 different days, to be truly comprehensive studies of aircraft performance? Do we know how extensive these tests were?

 

1) Was every WWII pilot who liked it and used it successfully, and claimed X feats were achieved in combat--were they delusional and/or prone to gross exaggeration?

 

Pilot accounts of encounters are OK up to a point because they do not have all the variables.  I have read USN F2A pilot accounts who swore the A6M was capable of 400mph in level flight.  What we can deduce from pilots accounts is a general rule of thumb but not an absolute.  The problems arise when a pilot account says "the P47D was the best fighter at altitude I ever flew".  That vague statement is then taken to mean the P47D could fly rings around any other piston fighter at 25,000 -30,000 feet.  Yet reality is that while it is better, the margins are still thin and pilot skill is the deciding factor.

 

2) If the sim's flight model makes the P-47 handle poorly at high altitude when absolutely no real life descriptions indicate this to be true, can we assume a discrepancy exists between reality and the sim?

 

Define "handles poorly".  At ~200MPH IAS I find it handles better than a 109G and K up at 25,000 plus but I would never expect to be doing loops etc up there.  At best stats show a P47D might have about 300-500 FPM better climb over a late model Bf109 at ~30,000ft.  So gaining any advantage 1 on 1 vs a veteran enemy will be slow.

 

As for controlled test comparisons between planes, I really don't know if I trust those to match perfectly with combat conditions. The P-51's roughly equal to a P-47 in a dive according to those tests. Why, then, does the P-51 have no reputation as a great diver? Why did a Japanese ace piloting the Ki-100 say that the P-51's sole defensive maneuver when attacked was to turn? Were the pilots too stupid to know they had the ability to dive as well?

 

Controlled test comparisions are better beacuse we have much more variables such as pilot skill, plane conditions, power setting used etc.  This help eliminate any unseen or undisclosed advantages, such as one plane being 50MPH faster as they entered combat.  Also the P51D was widely regarded as an excellent diver and later models had metel elevators to reduce the porpoising at higher dive speeds.  Similarly the P38 was regarded as an excellent diver once the dive brakes were added.

 

Things changed as these fighters gained more power or other technical improvements, relative performance changed marginally from time to time and swung things slightly.  So a P47C will not dive as well as a P47D, or a Fw190D will dive better than an Fw190A, or a later model P38 with dive brakes and bosted ailerons was a much different beast than a P38G.

Edited May 9, 2021 by ICDP

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, ICDP said:

2) If the sim's flight model makes the P-47 handle poorly at high altitude when absolutely no real life descriptions indicate this to be true, can we assume a discrepancy exists between reality and the sim?

 

Define "handles poorly".  At ~200MPH IAS I find it handles better than a 109G and K up at 25,000 plus but I would never expect to be doing loops etc up there.  At best stats show a P47D might have about 300-500 FPM better climb over a late model Bf109 at ~30,000ft.  So gaining any advantage 1 on 1 vs a veteran enemy will be slow.

 

Chiefly I define the poor handling as the inability to turn at approximately 200 MPH without shaking and stalling. I realize all inputs are touchy at altitudes exceeding 20,000 feet, but I only had extreme difficulty handling the P-47.

 

The problem with historical accounts of its abilities at altitude is that I can't imagine how anyone would praise it if it handled as it does in this sim. Whatever tiny advantages it possesses in this sim are far too negligible to warrant fulsome praise.

 

When, for example, the Yak is widely acclaimed as having excellent characteristics at low altitude, and the sim reflects this accepted consensus, everything's fine. But if the Yak stalled out more easily than other planes at low altitude, it would certainly make people wonder.

 

Likewise, when we're told repeatedly, by a wide variety of sources, that the P-47 is in its element above 20,000 feet, we expect it to feel a lot better than it does. A lot more stable, for one thing. I flew 190A-8s, 109 G-6 Lates, 109K-4s, Spitfire XIVs, and P-38s all at the same altitude; and I only spun out the P-47.

 

Granted, my experiences aren't necessarily everyone else's. But there seems to be a lot of people here who've wondered why the P-47 can't live up to its historical hype. Every other plane here comes at least close to historical expectations. Sometimes a few planes exceed expectations; some are hampered by engine settings (like the P-40 and P-39). But the P-47 is the only plane I can think of that has a very large discrepancy between its described real-life qualities and the sim version.

[354thFG_Panda_]

One thing I am curious about is how they modelled its weight or inertia. For a plane that is suppose to be light on the stick it sure reacts differently. Its instantaneous performance in game is rather lacking and the old flight model was better in this regard(while being worse a lot of others). They did get the mush of controls right though. Just to be clear I am not talking about how well it turns in a circle. The plane feels heavier/slower to rotate than bigger planes to the point it is a bit off.

[ICDP]

16 minutes ago, theRedPanda said:

One thing I am curious about is how they modelled its weight or inertia. For a plane that is suppose to be light on the stick it sure reacts differently. Its instantaneous performance in game is rather lacking and the old flight model was better in this regard(while being worse a lot of others). They did get the mush of controls right though. Just to be clear I am not talking about how well it turns in a circle. The plane feels heavier/slower to rotate than bigger planes to the point it is a bit off.

 

Maybe it's just me but I find the roll respone and peak rollrate to be pretty good in the P47D, especially at higher speeds.  So what is written here does not seem off.

[354thFG_Panda_]

10 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

Maybe it's just me but I find the roll respone and peak rollrate to be pretty good in the P47D, especially at higher speeds.  So what is written here does not seem off.

I am sorry I forgot to add that I was more focusing on the elevator but in aileron control as you said they nailed it.

[ICDP]

5 minutes ago, theRedPanda said:

I am sorry I forgot to add that I was more focusing on the elevator but in aileron control as you said they nailed it.

 

One thing I usually do in a P47D is add a fair amount of nose up trim when I unpause.  For some reason the P47 has quite a bit of nose heavy trim set by default.

[ICDP]

I want to be clear, I am not posting this because I think it proves the P47D is perfectly modelled, I am doing it to show how different people interperet different meanings from anecdotes and even test reports.

 

I am using the default P47D with 64% fuel load and have now flown multiple 1v1 missions against the veteran AI late 109s from G14 to K4 and also the Fw190A.  I have yet to feel like I am in trouble at higher than 20,000ft as long as I use the P47D to it's strengths.  The Fw190A is just totally outclassed in the 1 v 1 AI fights and the 109s can be managed and you can get the advantage if you are patient.

 

Take it down below ~15,000 ft and the tables turn quite dramatically in favour of the late Bf109s but the Fw190A is still reasonably easy to manage.

 

I certianly don't think the P47D is a dog at altitudes over 20,000ft and or me this matches quite well with anecdotes and flight tests I have read.

 

So why the glaring disparity in how I feel this matches my expectations and what some others expect?  For me the answer is that any flight tests I have read indicate that any margins of superiority at higher altitudes, or in a dive are merely sufficient to gain and maintain eventual advantage rather than dominate.  So are my expectations more realistic or too low?  I find the P47D fast and powerful at higher altitudes but you still have to be measured with your control inputs.  Yet some people here seem to be describing an almost different plane that falls out of the sky at the merest touch on the controls.

 

It just all seems quite perplexing how polarising some peoples expecations when compared to actual flight test reports and performance charts.

Edited May 9, 2021 by ICDP

[palker4]

I tried 2v4 vs 190A-8 and they were complete pushovers, AI is just not that great they keep flying  in circles waiting to get shot. I did the same in 1946 and it was much more difficult. Nasty bandits were covering each other and getting shots in was real hard without turning with them.

Did not try fighting AI 109s but I assume the result would be same cause AIs can't really use their planes correctly.

And I forgot to add these were Ace skill pilots.

Edited May 9, 2021 by palker4

[oc2209]

8 hours ago, ICDP said:

I certianly don't think the P47D is a dog at altitudes over 20,000ft and or me this matches quite well with anecdotes and flight tests I have read.

 

So why the glaring disparity in how I feel this matches my expectations and what some others expect?  For me the answer is that any flight tests I have read indicate that any margins of superiority at higher altitudes, or in a dive are merely sufficient to gain and maintain eventual advantage rather than dominate.  So are my expectations more realistic or too low?  I find the P47D fast and powerful at higher altitudes but you still have to be measured with your control inputs.  Yet some people here seem to be describing an almost different plane that falls out of the sky at the merest touch on the controls.

 

It just all seems quite perplexing how polarising some peoples expecations when compared to actual flight test reports and performance charts.

 

An AI-controlled 109K-4 can't get on my tail in a P-47 (either type), but I still fail to see clear positives with the P-47. At best it's a draw. By contrast, the P-51 handles like a dream at the same altitudes. In the 47, I can stay on a 109's tail (not necessarily well enough to get off clean shots until lower alts), but it feels like a struggle.

 

When I switch places and put myself in a 109, it feels much more stable (at a starting alt. of around 29,000 feet, the same for all my recent tests). A G-6 Late can easily fly circles around the P-47 in terms of handling.

 

The Spitfire is twitchy at those alts, but at least it turns well when you're careful.

 

A P-38 is stable enough that you can get a little rough with it.

 

A P-47 is fast at high alts, but that's about all I can say in its favor.

 

The funny thing about how the P-47 dives in this sim, is that I can't foresee any situation where it would catch up to a diving 109. We can't safely exceed speeds of about 550 MPH (while keeping all control surfaces). At lower speeds (i.e, less time spent in a dive), we can't catch up to the 109; we can only stay roughly even with it in relatively short maneuvers like the split-S. Without the ability to sustain high dive speeds for prolonged periods, the P-47's historical diving exploits can't be recreated here at all.

 

I mean, you could use the 47 to dive at a lower target at around 400-500 MPH, yes. But you can do that with any other plane too.

[JtD]

The reputation of the P-47 being great at high altitude mainly comes from a time where the R-2800 delivered 2000hp and had a full throttle altitude of near 30000ft. At the time, the Bf109G achieved a FTA of around 23000ft, the Fw190 of around 20000ft and the A6M of 23000ft.

 

At low to medium altitudes, with just 2000hp on a 6ton plane, the P-47 was very much under powered compared to all three of the competition, and compared to the German counterparts it was fairly slow as well. The only region where it did enjoy a reasonable speed advantage was far above the full throttle altitudes of the competition, where it still produced 2000hp whereas the power of the other engines fell off. The A6M and Bf109G would still be able to climb with it, and in a turning fight outturn it - because it's just so friggin heavy.

 

But, as tactics for the USAAF at the time focussed a lot around flying high and fast, the P-47 did enjoy an advantage up high. And only up high. Now the pilots say the P-47 "shines at high altitude", but, much closer to the truth, it in fact was "competetive at high altitude, sub par below". It's a question of having the glass half full or half empty, and if I want my pilots to fly into a war, I'll sell them half full.

 

Now high altitude performance on the later models improved a bit by different props and better turbos, but got screwed by higher weight at the same time. Overall, not much change. What really improved was medium to low altitude, with use of water injection and higher boosts that gave 2300-2600hp. So late war P-47 are reasonably competetive at all altitudes, they definitely don't outfly everything at high altitude. In particular not enemy aircraft with upgraded superchargers, like a DB605D in the Bf109K.

 

That's me trying to put the reputation into the historical context, managing expectations. It doesn't explain the odd handling in game, though.

[ICDP]

Thanks JTD, you have done a good job of trying to explain what I have been saying for a few pages.  I mentioned exactly the same thing in just up the page.

 

 

To help illustrate this point here is an extract from the Join Fighter Conference in Oct 1944.

 

Best All-Around Fighter Above 25,000ft (82% return of questionnaires)

P-47 - 45%
P-51 - 39%
F4U-1 - 7%
F6F - 3%
F4U-4 - 3%
Seafire - 2%
P-38 - 1%

 

On the face of it that is a resounding victory for the P47 with the P51 a close second.  Yet when we look at it overall it means the majority of respondents picked sometheing other than a P47.  So why would some of these experienced pilots pick another plane?  Logically if the P47 was so superior above 25,000ft as expected by some here, then it would get 100% of the votes.

 

The answer is because as mentioned previously, the differences are marginal and while the P47D is arguably better, it is just not as clear cut as some here expect.

[JtD]

26 minutes ago, ICDP said:

Thanks JTD, you have done a good job of trying to explain what I have been saying for a few pages.  I mentioned exactly the same thing in just up the page.

 

Yes, I noticed this, and I think what you stated was spot on. I never get tired of adding actual figures of relative performance to "outstanding in  dives".

 

The results of the JFC are interesting, in that the human factor shows a lot in these polls. Piloting style, personal favourites, company orders...

Between the P-47D and the P-51D as tested (but not directly referred to in the JFC "best..." polls) I'd probably pick the P-47 as well, but give the P-51 the 1650-3 engine, and I change my mind. As you say, it's not as clear cut as some generalized statements make it appear to be.

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, ICDP said:

Yet when we look at it overall it means the majority of respondents picked sometheing other than a P47.  So why would some of these experienced pilots pick another plane?  Logically if the P47 was so superior above 25,000ft as expected by some here, then it would get 100% of the votes.

 

The guys who voted the F6F clearly were full of sheet.

 

Quoting another forum:

 

Quote

The division of votes were as follows: USAAF - 9 votes / USN - 15 votes / British - 7 votes / Contractors - 20 votes

 

I think the Jug getting almost half the votes is quite a statement, given the odds.

[unreasonable]

Does the report on the conference actually identify which voter (USAAF, USN, contractor etc) actually voted for which plane? Who did the contractors work for? (I do not have that book).

 

Mandy Rice-Davies' attributed words come to mind:  "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?".

 

 

[CountZero]

4 hours ago, ICDP said:

Thanks JTD, you have done a good job of trying to explain what I have been saying for a few pages.  I mentioned exactly the same thing in just up the page.

 

 

To help illustrate this point here is an extract from the Join Fighter Conference in Oct 1944.

 

Best All-Around Fighter Above 25,000ft (82% return of questionnaires)

P-47 - 45%
P-51 - 39%
F4U-1 - 7%
F6F - 3%
F4U-4 - 3%
Seafire - 2%
P-38 - 1%

 

On the face of it that is a resounding victory for the P47 with the P51 a close second.  Yet when we look at it overall it means the majority of respondents picked sometheing other than a P47.  So why would some of these experienced pilots pick another plane?  Logically if the P47 was so superior above 25,000ft as expected by some here, then it would get 100% of the votes.

 

The answer is because as mentioned previously, the differences are marginal and while the P47D is arguably better, it is just not as clear cut as some here expect.

They clearly didnt see La-5FUN, if they tryed that one they would know what is best high alt fighter if this sim got it correctly.

[ICDP]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

They clearly didnt see La-5FUN, if they tryed that one they would know what is best high alt fighter if this sim got it correctly.

 

If you have issues with the La5FN please post so in a constructive way and in a separate thread.  This thread is specific to the P47D in the hope of finding any issues that should be reported to the devs re the P47D performance.

Edited May 10, 2021 by ICDP

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Does the report on the conference actually identify which voter (USAAF, USN, contractor etc) actually voted for which plane? Who did the contractors work for? (I do not have that book).

 

Not sure, but it seems like it wasn't all that formal either, given the number of votes that weren't put forward (see linked thread for some excerpts):

 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/report-of-joint-fighter-conference.3466/

 

How the F4U-1 could come in before the P-47 in terms of "best fighter bomber" is beyond me. It could not have been linked to bomb-tonnage or else the P-38 wouldn't have come in last.

 

We'd best treat the whole JFC as a nicely wrapped, floating turd in the pool - see this:

 

Quote

Specific comments relative to the "Combat Qualities" of the P-38L
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combat Qualities - Answers included 1 from Army, 9 from Navy, 5 British and 13 Contractors

Good - 3
Fair - 0
Poor - 1
Other - 15
Blank - 9 (No comment)

Bad visibility to sides down. Would rather have F4U or F6F for Pacific -1. I would not consider this a modern fighting aircraft. Poor coordination of control forces and effectiveness, combined with very weak directional stability make it a poor gun platform, and its manueverability rating is so low as to preclude its use in modern combat - 1. As a fighter bomber - good; for fighter sweep-just fair; as escort - poor - 1.

Good due to 1) Twin engine reliability; 2) altitude performance; 3) good accelerated stall; 4) versatility; 5) dive recovery flaps which make prolonged zero lift possible - 1.

Apart from very queer aelerons, the aircraft is quite pleasant to fly, and would probably make a very good strike fighter. There is, however, an objectionable wobble in bumpy air- 1. An excellent escort fighter. Speed should be sufficient for most present day Jap fighters. View is poor - too many struts in the way. Rudder makes aircraft very hard to manuever on first flight - 1. Too complicated and full of gadgets - would make unserviceability rate very high - 1. Query on maintenance and operational problems with liquid cooled engines in hot climates - 1. Too much mechanical equipment for one man to operate in combat - 1. Record speaks for itself - 1.

 

[JtD]

Why would the F4U not come in before the P-47 in terms of best fighter bomber? It carried a bigger, more versatile load to start with, had some things speaking for it in between and was equipped with dive brakes to end with.

 

The P-38 had poor sideways ground vision and a pretty stiff elevator at higher speeds. Nothing you'd really want in a low level diving attack, not matter what load the aircraft carries (less than the F4U, anyway).