Jump to content

P-47 Maneuverability or Lack Thereof


MrRistro
 Share

Recommended Posts

I understand that the P-47 flight model had an overhaul when the D-22 came out, but I still feel the plane that produced the top U.S. aces in Europe has not been done justice. 

 

In this post I will testing using a P-47D-28 with 50% fuel and the only modification being 150 octane.

 

Overall, going from games such as DCS to IL-2, I notice a substantial drop in maneuverability.
Flight characteristics I feel are incorrect include elevator authority at high speeds, dive characteristics, and stall characteristics. Watching Greg's 1 hour and 15-minute video on the P-47's maneuverability leads me to feel DCS is far more in the right.

 



Elevator Authority at High Speeds: In my opinion this is the primary factor leading to the lack of effectiveness of the P-47. Even with the stick all the way back and at ample speeds (315 mph+ IAS), I could not get the aircraft to the turn rate I wanted.

During testing, at no point was I able to reach 7 Gs. I was either being affected by compression (will be touched on), going too slow to reach 7 Gs without stalling, or simply not being able to get the desired rate of turn.

With other aircraft such as the Fw 190A-8 and even the P-40E-1, I had no issue reaching 8 Gs. Yet the P-47 seems incapable of using its speed.
As a result of its limited elevator authority, the P-47 is unable to reach its best instantaneous turn rate and severely hampers one of its best aspects of its maneuverability.

I couldn’t find any documentation stating the P-47 lacked elevator authority. The British testing a P-47C with 2000 hp stated “elevator control is good and always positive” when the fuel in the rear auxiliary tank had been used.
elevator.PNG.0774880056f9930f48766ee251f06fdb.PNG
This link which copied an article written by the Chief Technical Publications of Republic Aviation Corporation states its elevators had a max deflection of + 30° to - 20° which seems to be inline with  a lot of aircraft designs and considering their size, I don’t understand why I run out of elevator.

I found this 1953 NACA report detailing the flight characteristics of a F-47D-30 
(post 1947 designation of the P-47D-30) but it is written in a way that I have trouble understanding it. If you understand the technical jargon in this report, feel free to chime in.
 

 

Dive Characteristics: There are a few issues I’ve noticed with the P-47s dive characteristics.
The main one being, it seems the P-47 hits compressibility at noticeably lower speeds than it should. At 20,000 ft the number where I lose complete elevator control is ~400 mph IAS and at 10,000 it is ~475 mph IAS.

 

In that same report from the British testing the P-47C, they noted they hit its limit at 450 mph at 20,000 and 520 mph at 10,000. divespeeds.PNG.9372c5046b2200041369db1443babd15.PNG

In the P-47’s pilot manual it lists the do not exceed speed of 500 mph IAS, but I imagine this is due to the designers not wanting pilots to get close to two things, the compressibility and at 545 mph IAS, aileron reversal where flexing of the wings caused the ailerons swap directions. In IL-2, all they do is rip off if you use them past that speed.

For a more detailed explanation, I feel Greg does a much better job researching and explaining it.


This lower dive performance combined with the reduced elevator authority makes doing boom and zoom attacks substantially more difficult.

 

 

Stall Characteristics: There is a notable lack of buffeting when nearing a stall. This was a positive aspect about the P-47 noted in the British report.stallbuffeting.PNG.5af26217d273d39ee9fffb9f630a1afc.PNG

I don’t believe this modeled on any aircraft in IL-2. This small detail would aid a lot in aircraft that tend to get into accelerated stalls such as the P-47, P-51, and the various Fokker-Wulfs.



In terms of gameplay, the P-47 underperforming is neither fun nor fair. It seems like a pointless option when compared to taking a Tempest Mk.V for dogfighting or P-38J for ground attack. With the recent improvements to .50 cals, an overhaul to the P-47 flight model would make flying in Battle of Bodenplatte more varied and interesting for people flying Allied or Axis.

Edited by MrRistro
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1PL-Husar-1Esk
7 hours ago, MrRistro said:

I don’t believe this modeled on any aircraft in IL-2.

This is not true there is buffeting modeled. Other stuff,  hard to tell you have to compare real life data charts with in  the  game  p47 turn performance to make the point. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed

Well, the P-47 was never known for its maneuverability. Dogfighting at treetop level, I can almost-but-not-quite turn with a Fw-190 at equal energy, and outturn it if I have the energy advantage. To me, that feels about right.

 

Now, I won't say anything about high-speed characteristics (since I tend to stay low) or pre-stall buffeting, but close to the ground IMHO the maneuverability seems OK as long as you watch your speed (you *really* don't want to drop below 200MPH) and use your WEP.

 

10 hours ago, MrRistro said:

It seems like a pointless option when compared to taking a Tempest Mk.V for dogfighting or P-38J for ground attack.

There's a reason the P-47 was mostly relegated to ground attack. Dedicated dogfighters like the Mustang (or, for the Brits, the Tempest or Spit) were more suitable for dogfighting against the German fighters, and they should be in-game. Regarding ground attack, the P-38 has more payload, but I dislike its tendency to lawndart. Something the P-47 doesn't have at all; you can pull up pretty hard without losing elevator authority or stalling.

 

And there are many, many "pointless options". Why take an I-16 if you've got a Mig? Why take a Mig if you've got a Yak? Why take a Stuka for ground attack if you've got a Bf-110 or Hs-129? The fact that some aircraft are outclassed, doesn't make them less charming or valid options. Yes, a Tempest is better in a dogfight than the P-47, as it should, but that doesn't stop me from liking the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LR.TheRedPanda
23 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

It's stick forces were increased to give a better perception of inertia a while back. It does seem that's been overdone as the P47 should have lighter stick forces than a P51 up until the point it locks up.

 

It also should handily out turn a 190 at speed according to this: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_versus_FW-190.pdf

 

Screenshot_20210925-143901_Drive.jpg.f3a5daf7c0c36c36b85807f4bde2ba4e.jpg

Additionally there is also this source with the stick forces of a p47 D40 in comparison to a P51, F6F, and FG-1D Corsair. Also includes conclusions on the way the aircraft handle in various situations. Please note p47 used here has CG close to the forward limit. The one in war time very likely has it further back

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://forums.eagle.ru/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php%3Fid%3D63496&ved=2ahUKEwiAxNe3oZrzAhUPZcAKHUx3BJoQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1mkkNri0gzboEuRubzDDy0

Screenshot_20210925-145903~2.png

Edited by LR.TheRedPanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

P-47 seems to be about right, generally. She is a little piggish on the deck and improves dramatically as you add speed and more importantly, altitude. I don't see anything in game that is dramatically different than the two snippets/articles indicate. I'm sure there are tweaks that could be had and it's unlikely she's perfect. DCS is great for systems. I'm pretty sceptical, however, of a number of their FM's. As usual, things in game get improved constantly with time. To effect change, however, you will have to PM Han with detailed original documentation.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

P-47 seems to be about right, generally.

It's most of the way there, but unfortunately there a few small changes that lead to it being pretty lackluster.

 

The fact that you aren't actually able to reach 7g in the aircraft show that something is amiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
11 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

It's most of the way there, but unfortunately there a few small changes that lead to it being pretty lackluster.

 

The fact that you aren't actually able to reach 7g in the aircraft show that something is amiss.

 

We don't significantly disagree overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
33 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

It also should handily out turn a 190 at speed according to this: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_versus_FW-190.pdf

 

This is easily my favourite report on the P-47 vs Fw 190.

 

The 47 turned tighter than the 190, while the 190 tended to blackout it's pilot.

The 47 having a better "angle of pull out".

The 190 pilot having difficulties with rear vision (compared to a 47D-4!) and having difficulties with getting out of an airplane with an explosive canopy charge.

 

Must have been written by the squadron comedian.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's something to keep in mind as well. The non-150 P47 should be able to hold its own and yet it doesn't perform well against the earlier 190s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

There's a reason the P-47 was mostly relegated to ground attack. Dedicated dogfighters like the Mustang (or, for the Brits, the Tempest or Spit) were more suitable for dogfighting against the German fighters, and they should be in-game. Regarding ground attack, the P-38 has more payload, but I dislike its tendency to lawndart. Something the P-47 doesn't have at all; you can pull up pretty hard without losing elevator authority or stalling.

 

And there are many, many "pointless options". Why take an I-16 if you've got a Mig? Why take a Mig if you've got a Yak? Why take a Stuka for ground attack if you've got a Bf-110 or Hs-129? The fact that some aircraft are outclassed, doesn't make them less charming or valid options. Yes, a Tempest is better in a dogfight than the P-47, as it should, but that doesn't stop me from liking the latter.

Fun historical fact: When the P-47 was introduced, it didn't have a bomb rack.bombs.thumb.PNG.11219b42d04438fe3e72ff66fdc354aa.PNG
The reason is the P-47 was a built as a dedicated fighter.
The P-51 on the other hand was initially a ground attack aircraft (A-36). 

The reason the P-47 was relegated to ground attack (as well as every other US fighter at this time in the war) was due to multiple reasons.
-It could take more of a beating with it airframe and air-cooled radial.
-The near absence of the Luftwaffe on the Western front.

-And its extra payload capability
In summary, it was better than all the others and there was little else to do.
Despite this, the P-47 continued to get updated for dogfighting and pushed into air superiority roles (P-47M & N)
The main reason the P-47 (and the P-38) got replaced by the P-51 in the USAAF, was due to how much cheaper the P-51 was both to manufacture and operate. The P-51 was a substantially more cost effective aircraft with similar performance.

One of the biggest things the P-47 doesn't typically get credit for was the fact it was around when the Luftwaffe was a major threat and played a large role in its destruction. By the time the P-51B/C/D and Tempests showed up in substantial numbers, the tide in the air war had already been turned. 

As I hope you noticed, I didn't include complaints about sustained turn rates/radius as in testing I found it good enough. 
My main complaints are the aspects where the P-47 excelled at. High speed maneuverability and dive characteristics. The tactics real life pilots used over the skies of Europe have limited capability in the sim as a result. 

My last paragraph was more of an after thought to address people complaining that it was still a game and weren't too concerned about the historical aspect. 
That being said, all these aircraft with maybe the exception of the I-16 in Moscow have their unique role in the game. The MiG is faster than the LaGG (you said Yak but since it was part of Stalingrad, I swapped it with the LaGG) but the LaGG maneuvers better. 
The I-16 was state of the art in the 30's but by 1941 was and outdated platform, and issue that can not be said about the P-47.
The Stuka is the best dive bomber in the game, can carry gun pods, and has a rear gunner but is slow. The Bf 110 can carry an impressive payload, can fight back if it gets attacked, and has a rear gunner, but due to its relatively high stall speed can only make short quick passes. The Hs 129 has tremendous anti tank capabilities and is stable, but is effectively a sitting duck if it gets attacked.

You mention the P-38 lawn darting, something the P-47 doesn't do. I address this in the diving characteristics paragraph. 

And yes, while the P-47 has more breathing room in terms of compressibility in the game, the fact that the P-38J has compressibility flaps and the variants of the P-47 we have in game do not, in my opinion the P-38 is better in that regard. 
But diving away from enemies at high altitude, I have definitely lawn darted in the P-47.

Edited by MrRistro
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

This is not true there is buffeting modeled. Other stuff,  hard to tell you have to compare real life data charts with in  the  game  p47 turn performance to make the point. 

 

Which aircraft have it?
Also I wanted to but I lack the knowledge of how to go into the files and not only get the data but also be able to interpret it in a way that I could compare information. If someone has that capability, I would not be opposed to them adding to the conversation.

8 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I‘d much rather have the devs make the Spit XIV a Spitfire.

That's great dude.
Feel free to submit your own post but your comment is irrelevant to this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Do you have camera shaking enabled ?

Yes I notice a lot of shaking when I have the cowl shutters open when going too fast but I am not familiar with any planes buffeting when about to stall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JV69badatflyski
5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

This is easily my favourite report on the P-47 vs Fw 190.

 

The 47 turned tighter than the 190, while the 190 tended to blackout it's pilot.

The 47 having a better "angle of pull out".

The 190 pilot having difficulties with rear vision (compared to a 47D-4!) and having difficulties with getting out of an airplane with an explosive canopy charge.

 

Must have been written by the squadron comedian.


Certainly the same guy that wrote the "ennemy's  airplane's" evaluations for the russians:biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The 190 pilot having difficulties with rear vision (compared to a 47D-4!) and having difficulties with getting out of an airplane with an explosive canopy charge.

IRL visibility is not the same as IL2. Anyone broad and tall simply wouldn't have the space to turn around properly in the 190s cockpit. They don't have magic heads like we do and are strapped in.

 

But you're right, you do have to take that report with a grain of salt. Our P47 should actually out turn a 190 in a sustained turn at 3000m what's lacking is its instantaneous turn.

 

Inside IL2 modelling I only think it's the stick forces that need to be altered to give the P47 back its proper high speed handling. It was pretty well known for being responsive to controls.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
24 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

RL visibility is not the same as IL2. Anyone broad and tall simply wouldn't have the space to turn around properly in the 190s cockpit. They don't have magic heads like we do and are strapped in.

 

The headroom in the actual 190 is kind of sh1tty. The canopy is very narrow at the head-level. Especially, since it's tapering to the aft.

However, it's all perspex and there is no visibility-restriction. Turning around can be helped a lot by moving your upper body forward.

 

Until the Jug got the bubble-canopy with the -25, there's just no way that the 190 has a worse rear view, or even a noticably bad rear view to be mentioned.

 

27 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

Our P47 should actually out turn a 190 in a sustained turn at 3000m what's lacking is its instantaneous turn.

 

Not sure if that's correct. If anything, they're supposed to be rather close in both sustained and instantaneous turns. It depends a lot on props and boost.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
6 hours ago, MrRistro said:

Which aircraft have it?


Spitfire, MC 202 and Hurricane have it quite apparent. You get vibrations if you have the head shake option enabled and also an audio cue that's most noticeable in the Spitfires. The P-47 does have some shaking but little audio feedback, the stall happens soon after getting the buffeting effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LR.TheRedPanda
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

Not sure if that's correct. If anything, they're supposed to be rather close in both sustained and instantaneous turns. It depends a lot on props and boost.

 

 

Me and Cass have tested the two planes in sustained turning a while back and found what you said to be true in game. Where it falls flat is in the instantaneous turns which is a night and day difference between the two. The 190 has a huge edge over the 47 in this regard. The sources above highlight the aircraft having quite a few instabilities and being very responsive to pitch with light stick forces. With the second FM revision came a change where they wanted to make the plane "feel" heavy with a sense of weight/ rotational inertia making it feel sluggish like a small bomber. Perhaps another inspection could be done to rectify this issue.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MrRistro said:

My main complaints are the aspects where the P-47 excelled at. High speed maneuverability and dive characteristics. The tactics real life pilots used over the skies of Europe have limited capability in the sim as a result. 

 

Agree completely.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin

A P-47 warbird pilot has “flown“ the BoX P-47.  He says it is “spot on”.  The problem is that he, and many of the people who play this game, don’t fly it at the altitude where most of the P-47 aces were created.  It’s a pig down low, as it should be.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

A P-47 warbird pilot has “flown“ the BoX P-47.  He says it is “spot on”.  The problem is that he, and many of the people who play this game, don’t fly it at the altitude where most of the P-47 aces were created.  It’s a pig down low, as it should be.

I don't want to discount the experience of this P-47 pilot, but naturally after 70 years no one will remember every single aspect of something. I'm sure the game recreates certain aspects of the aircraft that this pilot remembered be it the P-factor, taxiing around but him saying the P-47 is "spot on" doesn't mean the P-47 is entirely accurately portrayed in the game. 
Not only that but this is anecdotal evidence. I chose to not include the various anecdotes of the various P-47 aces in this post (and there are a lot of anecdotes) because they are effectively meaningless. 

Going to you saying the problem is just that people fly it down low shows you didn't read the post. Diving characteristics are not accurate and regardless of altitude, P-47 maneuvered well at high speeds which it does not in game. 
Also, I did not include this in the original post, but even at high altitude the P-47 does not maneuver better than its competition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin
15 minutes ago, MrRistro said:

I don't want to discount the experience of this P-47 pilot, but naturally after 70 years no one will remember every single aspect of something. I'm sure the game recreates certain aspects of the aircraft that this pilot remembered be it the P-factor, taxiing around but him saying the P-47 is "spot on" doesn't mean the P-47 is entirely accurately portrayed in the game. 
Not only that but this is anecdotal evidence. I chose to not include the various anecdotes of the various P-47 aces in this post (and there are a lot of anecdotes) because they are effectively meaningless. 

Going to you saying the problem is just that people fly it down low shows you didn't read the post. Diving characteristics are not accurate and regardless of altitude, P-47 maneuvered well at high speeds which it does not in game. 
Also, I did not include this in the original post, but even at high altitude the P-47 does not maneuver better than its competition. 


If you’ve got data that shows that the FM is wrong, by all means, let the devs know about it.  But most of the complaints are basically “the P-47 is a pig”.  Which actually just confirms that they got the FM right.


By the way, the 190 was a pig in game until someone found data that showed that the devs got it wrong.  So they fixed it.  Someone needs to do the same thing for the P-47.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:


If you’ve got data that shows that the FM is wrong, by all means, let the devs know about it.  But most of the complaints are basically “the P-47 is a pig”.  Which actually just confirms that they got the FM right.


By the way, the 190 was a pig in game until someone found data that showed that the devs got it wrong.  So they fixed it.  Someone needs to do the same thing for the P-47.

Please just read the post or don't bother commenting.

Edited by MrRistro
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin
Just now, MrRistro said:

 

Please just read the post.


I read it.  ‘The elevator control is good”.  ‘The stall characteristics are good”.  I’m sure the devs will jump right on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZachariasX
13 hours ago, MrRistro said:

Yes I notice a lot of shaking when I have the cowl shutters open when going too fast but I am not familiar with any planes buffeting when about to stall. 

The P-47 in this game has a lot of buffeting when you pull AoA. It is very obvious when you ride her at max. AoA.

 

Before the FM revision of the P47, it was a helicopter, especially with flaps deployed. The revision of its FM mended that at the price of losing instantaneous manevrability at higher speeds.

 

That said, it is a general issue in modern sims (all of them!) that planes like to „rubber band“ when you give control inputs, while in real aircraft they (especially maneuvrable aircraft) just exactly follow stick input and never lag it, or after coarse inputs, overshoot the input. The infamous wobble (still present here and there to some degree, but not so much as before) was a manifestation of that latter issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LR.TheRedPanda
6 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

A P-47 warbird pilot has “flown“ the BoX P-47.  He says it is “spot on”.  The problem is that he, and many of the people who play this game, don’t fly it at the altitude where most of the P-47 aces were created.  It’s a pig down low, as it should be.

Except this was before the FM revision before they added in the Weighty inertia feeling and it was a lot more responsive (however turned worse and was easy to put into a spin). About a year later they changed it.

 

Screenshot_20210926-084204~2.png

Edited by LR.TheRedPanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And 90% of those corrections are absolutely spot, especially the flaps update. It really was a UFO.

 

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Not sure if that's correct. If anything, they're supposed to be rather close in both sustained and instantaneous turns. It depends a lot on props and boost.

 

I'm talking about the literal stats for the game.

 

D22

Screenshot_20210926-090156_Firefox.jpg.3d0c671ca2d880616219a544d54a5ffe.jpg

A5&A6

Screenshot_20210926-090227_Firefox.jpg.013970efaf5d3de67a48bb4eba5441b5.jpg

A3

Screenshot_20210926-090256_Firefox.jpg.c88dee131e63519990931d9562557b5a.jpg

A8

Screenshot_20210926-090653_Firefox.jpg.249211ecb9e31a8c487961ba1d59ca33.jpg

 

The D28 is a second on top and with 150 juice, these stats become even better for the P47 and get better and better with altitude. That's not a problem and a P47 can eat a 190 alive in a sustained fight. The problem is the instantaneous turn is very poor currently in the P47 due to it's overmodelled stick forces.

 

In IL2 by moving your stick you are telling the game how much force to apply, not how much movement to put in. As we can see from @LR.TheRedPanda source, stick forces in the P47 should be much much lower than a P51 up until the point it locks.

 

The P47 should absolutely be able to pull with most of the other planes at higher speed, yet our testing have shown it really can't.

Edited by ACG_Cass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LR.TheRedPanda

@ACG_CassIt is possible the stick forces are modelled to be light but the distance of mass(and the amount of it) from the CoG results in poor rotational acceleration in game. Perhaps one of the Devs could communicate to us if it's the case and really working as intended. 

 

Edited by LR.TheRedPanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
55 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

And 90% of those corrections are absolutely spot, especially the flaps update. It really was a UFO.

 

 

I'm talking about the literal stats for the game.

 

D22

Screenshot_20210926-090156_Firefox.jpg.3d0c671ca2d880616219a544d54a5ffe.jpg

A5

Screenshot_20210926-090227_Firefox.jpg.013970efaf5d3de67a48bb4eba5441b5.jpg

A3

Screenshot_20210926-090256_Firefox.jpg.c88dee131e63519990931d9562557b5a.jpg

A8

Screenshot_20210926-090653_Firefox.jpg.249211ecb9e31a8c487961ba1d59ca33.jpg

 

The D28 is a second on top and with 150 juice, these stats become even better for the P47 and get better and better with altitude. That's not a problem and a P47 can eat a 190 alive in a sustained fight. The problem is the instantaneous turn is very poor currently in the P47 due to it's overmodelled stick forces.

 

In IL2 by moving your stick you are telling the game how much force to apply, not how much movement to put in. As we can see from @LR.TheRedPanda source, stick forces in the P47 should be much much lower than a P51 up until the point it locks.

 

The P47 should absolutely be able to pull with most of the other planes at higher speed, yet our testing have shown it really can't.

 

 

The elephant in the room would be:

Why does the A-5 take 7.5s (!) more around the circle than the A-3 at 3000m?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The elephant in the room would be:

Why does the A-5 take 7.5s (!) more around the circle than the A-3 at 3000m?

The A3 is the outlier. Forgot to add that the A5&A6 are the same.

 

So all the other Antons perform with relative parity while the A3s performance is significantly better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
6 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

The A3 is the outlier. Forgot to add that the A5&A6 are the same.

 

So all the other Antons perform with relative parity while the A3s performance is significantly better.

 

Yeah, and they could just be equally wrong. I don't see why the A-8 should perform significantly better than an A-5/ A-6.

The A-3 to A-8 difference seems overall in an expectable ballpark. Not so with the A-5/ A-6.

 

Especially when the sea-level performance seems pretty reasonable and is in tune to what would be expected.

Edited by Bremspropeller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

No references available. In the truck, on the phone, caveats apply:

 

The A3 has a different CoG and is lighter, no? That should explain it being the outlier.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
38 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

The A3 has a different CoG and is lighter, no? That should explain it being the outlier.

 

The A-3 makes sense.

What doesn't is the A-5/ A-6 being worste than the A-8 at 3000m, despite being better on the deck..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:


I read it.  ‘The elevator control is good”.  ‘The stall characteristics are good”.  I’m sure the devs will jump right on that.

If that is genuinely all you got from it, I am getting the impression you are not here to add to the discussion but to argue in which you are wasting both yours and my time.

6 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

And 90% of those corrections are absolutely spot, especially the flaps update. It really was a UFO.

 

 

I'm talking about the literal stats for the game.

 

D22

Screenshot_20210926-090156_Firefox.jpg.3d0c671ca2d880616219a544d54a5ffe.jpg

A5&A6

Screenshot_20210926-090227_Firefox.jpg.013970efaf5d3de67a48bb4eba5441b5.jpg

A3

Screenshot_20210926-090256_Firefox.jpg.c88dee131e63519990931d9562557b5a.jpg

A8

Screenshot_20210926-090653_Firefox.jpg.249211ecb9e31a8c487961ba1d59ca33.jpg

 

The D28 is a second on top and with 150 juice, these stats become even better for the P47 and get better and better with altitude. That's not a problem and a P47 can eat a 190 alive in a sustained fight. The problem is the instantaneous turn is very poor currently in the P47 due to it's overmodelled stick forces.

 

In IL2 by moving your stick you are telling the game how much force to apply, not how much movement to put in. As we can see from @LR.TheRedPanda source, stick forces in the P47 should be much much lower than a P51 up until the point it locks.

 

The P47 should absolutely be able to pull with most of the other planes at higher speed, yet our testing have shown it really can't.

Very interesting. While I didn't talk about sustained turn rates in the original post, it's something I wondered how it really was considering how it is in DCS. 
I'm assuming maximum performance turn is how they describe sustained turn rates. I'm doubtful a P-47 could pull more than 3 G's at 200 mph with a 115 mph stall speed.

Edited by MrRistro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The A-3 makes sense.

What doesn't is the A-5/ A-6 being worste than the A-8 at 3000m, despite being better on the deck..

I'm not so sure. Don't forget the A8 has the go go button so it's sustained turn it going to be better. 

 

Do you think the A3 should should be able to out sustain a 109 that's ~25% lighter, has slats and a better lift coefficient?

G4

Screenshot_20210926-160854_Firefox.jpg.d18ed0955867866030c7954db9c843ef.jpg

 

Granted the G4 doesn't get emergency power, but the A3 is closer to the F4 than it is to the A5

F4

Screenshot_20210926-161823_Firefox.jpg.d685e9a8e9e84bb3dd150187faf4ec46.jpg

 

In fact, judging off the game info, the A3 is the 5th best luftwaffe sustained turner at 3000m of the whole roster and is only beaten by the E7, F2, F4 and G2. It beats all other 109s we have in game despite being much heavier, having less power than the later entrants and a lower lift wing profile.

 

That's points to something being amiss.

 

 

Anyway, miles off topic now. P47 needs it's stick controls lightened or something else changed to give it the high speed response.

 

It shouldn't be miles away from the P38 at high speed but lags sorely behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
14 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I read it.  ‘The elevator control is good”.  ‘The stall characteristics are good”.  I’m sure the devs will jump right on that.

2 hours ago, MrRistro said:

If that is genuinely all you got from it, I am getting the impression you are not here to add to the discussion but to argue in which you are wasting both yours and my time.

Well, "The elevator controls are good and always positive" is the only primary source you posted about elevator authority. I hope we can agree that that's a very vague description, and by itself not nearly enough to draw any conclusions. BraveSirRobin is right that the Devs will require much more than that before they will (or should) take action. If you have any exact data that shows what elevator authority it should have (preferably with graphs), please post it as the Devs have an excellent track record (albeit a bit slow) of improving things once good evidence has been given.

 

On 9/25/2021 at 2:34 AM, MrRistro said:

During testing, at no point was I able to reach 7 Gs. I was either being affected by compression (will be touched on), going too slow to reach 7 Gs without stalling, or simply not being able to get the desired rate of turn.

Just did two small tests when flying the P-47 anyway. Both times, I was able to reach 7G without too much trouble. I needed to pull back my stick all the way, and of course I wasn't able to hold it for very long, but both are to be expected. Not sure about my speed, since I didn't do any structured testing, but I think the second time the speed dial was horizontal, which I think makes it 400mph or so? I think I was going a bit slower the first time, perhaps 350, but I'm not sure.

 

If you aren't able to reach 7G yourself, are you sure your joystick is setup correctly? That'd be my first thought.

Edited by AEthelraedUnraed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Well, "The elevator controls are good and always positive" is the only primary source you posted about elevator authority. I hope we can agree that that's a very vague description, and by itself not nearly enough to draw any conclusions. BraveSirRobin is right that the Devs will require much more than that before they will (or should) take action. If you have any exact data that shows what elevator authority it should have (preferably with graphs), please post it as the Devs have an excellent track record (albeit a bit slow) of improving things once good evidence has been given.

 

Just did two small tests when flying the P-47 anyway. Both times, I was able to reach 7G without too much trouble. I needed to pull back my stick all the way, and of course I wasn't able to hold it for very long, but both are to be expected. Not sure about my speed, since I didn't do any structured testing, but I think the second time the speed dial was horizontal, which I think makes it 400mph or so? I think I was going a bit slower the first time, perhaps 350, but I'm not sure.

 

If you aren't able to reach 7G yourself, are you sure your joystick is setup correctly? That'd be my first thought.

The first point of this post was to open up discussion about the maneuverability of the P-47 and potentially get more information regarding it. I was also hoping someone had the knowledge to interpret the NACA report I was able to find. If I can get that information, I will happily take it to the devs but for now I am content with constructive discussion. I do want to be clear, I'm not trying to blame the developers or imply any other negative thing about them. 
Fortunately as a result of this discussion, LR.TheRedPanda was able to provide this excellent source regarding stick forces. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://forums.eagle.ru/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php%3Fid%3D63496&ved=2ahUKEwiAxNe3oZrzAhUPZcAKHUx3BJoQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1mkkNri0gzboEuRubzDDy0

Regarding the 7 Gs, in my tests I was able to get real close ~6.8 Gs so I do not doubt you were able to actually hit the number but the overall point of it was to demonstrate that P-47 has substantially limited elevator forces when compared to its contemporaries. (The other aircraft I mention being the Fw 190A-8 & the P-40E-1)

The P-47 and most WW2 fighters for that matter should be able to pull decently past 7 Gs with the limiting factor outside of the actual pilot being the maximum load factor the structure can take. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...