P-47 Maneuverability or Lack Thereof

[CountZero]

Engine timers play big in comparing 47 to tempest, tempest can run its combat 1h and its fast using it, compare that to 47 that have to fly on continuous as his combat is 15min, and on top using boost eats that 15min, and if you use that 15min you have to wait 30 to recharg it full, you be fast in tempest whole flight while in 47 your slow as snail from the start as your stuck using continuous speed. Its 100kmh faster from start.

 

left blue line is 47 on continous and left red line is tempest on combat, one is mutch mutch faster whole flight, brits just knew how to build engines for video games. And guns lol 

[Cpt_Siddy]

If i ever manage to build or get my hands on time machine, i will travel back to 1944, and convince Germans to print few manuals that states "sticking a brick up your arse will gain you  100km/h more speed for 1h, use the butt brick only for emergencies". Make sure few end up in museums and when i come back i am sure ill  find "brick" mod for 109 K-4. And huge forum fights where people post official manual data defending this....

Edited November 15, 2021 by Cpt_Siddy

[CountZero]

How game make it be with all other problems game have with ammo and engines that dont benefit him, he will be only good for scenarious where hes fighting early 109Gs and not early 190As. And thats only if you dont have 38 or 51 as an option at same time for american airplane to take. Its waist of slots that could go to more usefule airplanes, hope they dont make any more 47 types in this game.

[DSR_A-24]

10 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

I have flown a few aircraft with similar power to weight as a P-47.. They were great fun to operate but heavier than P-47 with more than 10000hp (although not a fighter) you simply cannot substitute weight with excess power and expect it to "feel" or behave the same as a lighter aircraft. 

 

It is a bit similar to a lot of the whole P-40 complaining while always conveniently ignoring the fact that it weighed a full ton more than its contemporaries 

 

Little point in continuing discussions when adding a few jumbled cAPiTaL letters is seen/thought as a trump card to win a discussion. 

 

Out. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

It quite literally is a full trump card as you've provided nothing to suggest the Tempest could compare to the Thunderbolts power to weight ratio. I'm not saying you can make a heavy aircraft feel like a light aircraft, but you sure as hell can add power and that's exactly what the Thunderbolt had over the Tempest.

I wasn't complaining for the P-40 a couple of years ago but I believe the complaints were more related to engine durability. Given the P-40's performance was competitive when going over the "American conservative engine limits" A testament to this is looking at the RAF's P-51 and the American's P-51 usage with 150 octane.

Just goes to show your lack of attentiveness on the "discussion" at hand.

You'll love this one Dakpilot! Here is the AFDU Tactical trials of the infamously heavy Thunderbolt.

"30.     Manoeuvrability – The P-47C was considered far superior in rate of roll to the Typhoon, and at 20,000 feet in turning circles proved itself slightly better."

Yes, that's a P-47C producing only 2000hp being able to slightly out turn a Typhoon. Now slap another 600-800hp, AAAND your answer doesn't change as the Thunderbolt is just a heavy aircraft.

And for comparative sake.

Turning Circle
"18. Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics." -AFDU Tactical trials of the Tempest

You know what's funny? Is your parroting of the Thunderbolt being a heavy aircraft and therefore performance is justified, is some how seen as an discussion.
 

6 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

Tempest

 

Empty weight: 4354 kg
Minimum weight (no ammo, 10% fuel): 4585 kg
Standard weight: 5221 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 6190 kg
Fuel load: 516 kg / 718 l / 158 gallons
Maximum useful load: 1836 kg

 

P-47D-28

Empty weight: 4755 kg (10483 lb)
Minimum weight (no ammo, 10% fuel, 4 MG removed): 5163.9 kg (11385 lb)
Standard weight: 6503 kg (14337 lb)
Maximum takeoff weight: 8163.1 kg (17996 lb)
Fuel load: 1006 kg (3095 lb) / 1404 l (370 gal)
Useful load: 3408.1 kg (7514 lb)

 

 

Add 2 x 1000lb gp bombs to the Tempest and you are about the same standard  weight

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Holy crap the empty weight of the Thunderbolt is a whopping 1000lbs heavier than the Tempest? Surely the Thunderbolt would not even come close to the Tempest as a fighter aircraft. Its a good thing a Bf-109K4 was heavier than Tempest because boy oh boy the Bf-109K4 would be turning inside the light weight Tempest.

By the way good to see your setting up that Thunderbolt to escort B-17s into Berlin. ? Its a good comparison because it shows the Tempest's range superiority over the Thunderbolt. Dakpilot, you're just making a fool of yourself now.
 

12 hours ago, JtD said:

 

Official British data cards of the aircraft dated 2/2/45 give 2300hp@56" for the P-47 and 2420/2050hp@11lb for the Tempest. Interesting because the data sets are contemporary. Not what we have in game, but what real life impressions may come from.

 

This is because the P-38 is much easier to handle, so the P-38 pilots could pull high angles of attack, and quite suddenly, too. Something like a cobra-light manoeuvre. The P-47 can't do this.

In a sustained turn, the P-38 does have some advantages, coming from the larger span and the higher power, and some disadvantages, coming from the higher weight. It's a different story than forcing an overshoot.

Maybe you're looking at Thunderbolt Mk.1 data cards. The American P-47D was cleared for 2600hp@64" in early-mid 1944 on 130 octane. I was comparing 100/130 octane for a benchmark. You could throw in the 11lbs of boost but you're only adding a minor low altitude boost in performance for the Tempest while the Thunderbolt now carries 2800hp up to 20000ft vs the Tempest's 1750hp. That's not even a comparison, one would clearly smoke the other in the vertical. The situation really only gets worse for the Tempest, but I'm not a fan of comparing best case scenario aircraft so I just went with the standard.

I may have not been clear JtD. I'm saying the Thunderbolt in game burns more energy in a turn than the P-38. When the case was the opposite in real life.

"40.     Manoeuvrability – In turning circles the P-38 was slightly better and was certainly able to turn so slowly in a climbing turn, especially to the right, that the P-47 was unable to follow. When 'bounced' by the P-47, the P-38 was able to turn very sharply and decelerate much more quickly than the P-47." - ADFU Tactical trials of the P-47C

This statement holds true in game with the exception of the P-38 not decelerating much more quickly than the P-47. You can black out in a P-38 with ease with turn after turn. But you cannot do this in a P-47 as you'd burn through all your energy within the first turn.

I don't know for sure that the Thunderbolt is underperforming in this dynamic or the P-38 is over performing, but my eyes goes to the P-47 as its in a league of its own when it comes to shedding speed.

Edited November 15, 2021 by DSR_A-24

[ACG_Cass]

6 hours ago, Pict said:

The biggest problem the P-47 suffers from, I think™, is an over active media appraisal from the start. Far too many people take this over glowing appraisal and apply it like a one size fits all for all P-47 operations, regardless of how much thay differed from the intended purpose of the design.

56th Fighter Group had the most air to air kills of any fighter group in the 8th air force. They kept thunderbolts all the way through.

 

Of the Top 10 aces of the 8th Air Force, 7 are from P47 pilots. 11 of the top 20.

 

It's not a crap plane that has "mythical status" as a fighter and was only good for ground attack.

[Pict]

55 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

56th Fighter Group had the most air to air kills of any fighter group in the 8th air force

 

So what?, in your mind does that make the P-47 a better aircraft? What about the B-17, plenty of them in the 8th Airforce and they claimed lots of air kills too. Doesn't make the B-17 a good turn fighter does it?

 

Air kills are no benchmark for a types ability to turn tight or climb etc. ie., it is not a direct reflection of an aircrafts maneuverability performance. which is the whole point of this thread.

 

55 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

It's not a crap plane that has "mythical status" as a fighter and was only good for ground attack.

 

At no point did I say that the P-47 was a "crap plane that has "mythical status" as a fighter and was only good for ground attack." Nor did I intend to come close to saying such like.

 

==================

 

I do think that the P-47 wasover rated and for the most part still is.  I think that was largely due to is huge cost and the need to justify it. It cost almost twice as much as a P-51 !!! and it was almost half as effective.

 

I also think that the Spifire was over rated and the Hurricane under rated, yet it did the heavy lifting during the BoB. Doesn't mean that any of them were useless.

 

However, had it been left to the P-47 to face the Luftwaffe in 1940, I think it would have struggled to say the least.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Pict

[HR_Zunzun]

5 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

So what?, in your mind does that make the P-47 a better aircraft? What about the B-17, plenty of them in the 8th Airforce and they claimed lots of air kills too. Doesn't make the B-17 a good turn fighter does it?

 

Air kills are no benchmark for a types ability to turn tight or climb etc. ie., it is not a direct reflection of an aircrafts maneuverability performance. which is the whole point of this thread.

 

Of course is not proof but it raises the flag of the sniff test. If the plane was so sluggish as it has been depicted in this sim, I really have a hard time thinking he could have achieved such achievements in the fighter role.

Interestingly, in another three letter combat sim out there, this plane is depicted in a much more agile version. Mucho more close to what those real tests indicate. Even if these other three letter combat sim is not free of errors.

[Pict]

Just now, HR_Zunzun said:

Of course is not proof but it raises the flag of the sniff test.

 

Any mention of 8th Airforce air kills / claims is an ideal place to start a sniff test fest, as it should 

 

But you can sniffle all you like about P-47 air kills, they are just not a bench mark for aircraft maneuerabiltiy period(.)

 

6 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Interestingly, in another three letter combat sim out there, this plane is depicted in a much more agile version.

 

Last time I checked, this was the IL2 BOX forum, if you want to go down the compare it with DCS rabbit hole you're on your own Alice 

[ACG_Cass]

25 minutes ago, Pict said:

However, had it been left to the P-47 to face the Luftwaffe in 1940, I think it would have struggled to say the least.

 

I'm really gonna need you to quantify why you think the P47 would struggle against the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940. Be specific on the attributes of the plane. 

[HR_Zunzun]

8 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

Any mention of 8th Airforce air kills / claims is an ideal place to start a sniff test fest, as it should 

 

But you can sniffle all you like about P-47 air kills, they are just not a bench mark for aircraft maneuerabiltiy period(.)

 

 

No is not. But for a fighter to be susccesful during ww2 needed speed, fire power and maneouvrability. Without any of the three it couldn´t. In real life the p-47 have three. In this sims is lacking two.

If you do not believe this you might go and sniff in the tests that yakpanther has posted in this same thread about p-47 maneuvrability and that are completely different from what this sim despicts. Whether you like it or not a brought the other sim comparison because the end result is more inline with those tests and because they happen to have a real example flying to compare with.

[[TWB]80hd]

15 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

 

I'm really gonna need you to quantify why you think the P47 would struggle against the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940. Be specific on the attributes of the plane. 

 

I think its first flight not occuring until mid-'41 would be the first struggle, right?  

[Pict]

55 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

 

I'm really gonna need you to quantify why you think the P47 would struggle against the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940. Be specific on the attributes of the plane. 

 

Purely hypothetical, as it wasn't there at the time, nor was it even available.

 

The historical manner in which the BoB was fought was and probably still is split into two camps, you can brush up on both here if you feel the need. I prefer the strategy of Keith Park, as I think it was proven to be more effective than the Leigh Mallory / Bader "Big Wing" and I would go as far as to say I think Bader was full of his own juice and his big idea had a detremental effect on the RAF's ability to fight the battle.

 

That said, putting the P-47 into the mix hypothetically it would fit more into the "Big Wing" theory than Park's strategy, even although the P-47's strong point was protecting bombers and this would be a bomber intecept role.

 

It's high altitude ability coupled with it's long endurance would lend itself to the Big Wing idea, being able to take it's time to get up on high and wait for the action...if it should happen to come that way. And there in lay the Big issue with the Big Wing, total inflexibilty.

 

The P-47 was no scrambler. A scrambler needs to have the ability to climb like a bat out of hell at the drop of a hat, or in the BoB case, the ring of a bell. So it would have failed miserably if deployed by Park as he relied on well drilled scramble technique to get the best out of aircraft that could do it.

 

===============

 

That's pretty much it. You are either an advocate of the Big Wing or not, I'm not and the P-47 would be.

 

I don't think that turn fighting was a significant factor although it was deemed important by many. I think that bomber destruction was the make or break of the battle. So the P-47 wouldn't have had much of an issue there at least in my mind...if it could get a bomber in it's sights.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Pict

[Dakpilot]

42 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Of course is not proof but it raises the flag of the sniff test. If the plane was so sluggish as it has been depicted in this sim, I really have a hard time thinking he could have achieved such achievements in the fighter role.

 

Not to take anything away from 8th airforce aces, but as an example of the 7 out of the top 10 being P-47 pilots of the 56th Fighter Group as an example, one of them is Dom Gentile 

 

He scored two kills with the RAF in the Spitfire, 4.33 kills in the P-47 Thunderbolt, and 15.5 kills in the P-51B Mustang. He made half of his claims in March 1944, flying over the skies of Germany.

 

Although he is credited as 4th highest ace with 56th Fighter Group with 22 kills only 4 are actually in the P-47.

 

Many of the top P-47 claims are 110's and include 6 Ju 52's in a single flight! The majority of 109 and 190 being shot down while attacking, bombers, again not taking anything away from what the P-47 and its pilots achieved, but the figures need a closer look before being used 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Pict]

35 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

If you do not believe this you might go and sniff in the tests that yakpanther has posted in this same thread

 

Thanks but for me it's not nessesary. There have already been a heap of these threads and they usualy revolve around the same arguments and graphs.

 

Not saying that anyone is right or wrong specifically, I have however already arrived at a conclusion about the whole affair and I got this by asking on another one of these threads for a simple clear and consise appraisal of how the P-47D-28 flight model is represented in game compared to the real world data.

 

The guy that answered was @JtDand off the top of the head he basically said that it was slightly out of whack and would need minor tweaking that in turn would make it feel much more responsive. Or words to that effect, but better put and in more detail.

 

That was good enough for me as I've known of him since he did our flight modelling at TD from very early on. He is a professional engineer and I find him to be totally impartial. He's not a part of the development team he nor a tester or whatever, so the input from a guy like this is, I feel, very valuable.

[HR_Zunzun]

12 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Not to take anything away from 8th airforce aces, but as an example of the 7 out of the top 10 being P-47 pilots of the 56th Fighter Group as an example, one of them is Dom Gentile 

 

He scored two kills with the RAF in the Spitfire, 4.33 kills in the P-47 Thunderbolt, and 15.5 kills in the P-51B Mustang. He made half of his claims in March 1944, flying over the skies of Germany.

 

Although he is credited as 4th highest ace with 56th Fighter Group with 22 kills only 4 are actually in the P-47.

 

Many of the top P-47 claims are 110's and include 6 Ju 52's in a single flight! The majority of 109 and 190 being shot down while attacking, bombers, again not taking anything away from what the P-47 and its pilots achieved, but the figures need a closer look before being used 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

And yet, you compare those figures with other pilots flying the p-51 that also fought 110s and 109 and 190 attacking bombers. That´s the key of that comparison, that both fought the same foes and the p-47 didn´t portraied bad in comparison.

[Pict]

4 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

And yet, you compare those figures with other pilots flying the p-51 that also fought 110s and 109 and 190 attacking bombers. That´s the key of that comparison, that both fought the same foes and the p-47 didn´t portraied bad in comparison.

 

This whole comparison does nothing towards the topic.

 

Other comparisons can be made, like the fact that the Typhoon & Tempest had about the same number of air kills, even though the Tempest was seen as the replacement for the Typhoon.

 

Like I said earlier as a benchmark for aircraft performance it adds up to zero at the end of the day.

[HR_Zunzun]

Not directly, but indirectly indicated that it was a good fighter and not just a ground pounder. I have already mentioned that there is a vast amount of data that support that the real p-47 is more maneovrable than the il2 one.

[Alexmarine]

8 hours ago, CountZero said:

brits just knew how to build engines for video games. And guns lol 

 

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills and, most importantly, in combat flight sims 80 years in the future"

 

Winston Churchill; 4 June 1940

[Cpt_Siddy]

Guys, the killcounts and other stuff is irrelevant and anecdotal. P-39 is also a lame duck, yet soviets made them work.

 

I want to know, from the first principles. What justifies the two, fairly identical airplanes when it comes to weight, hp, drag and wing area to preform worlds apart?

 

What magic makes plane without turbo perform so well up in the thin air, that a plane with turbo cant compete?  

 

What makes a plane so responsive on controls that it can snap it wing off, while the other cant even pull enough G's to black out? 

 

What technical properties of these two planes set them so far apart in performance despite being so much alike? 

[DSR_A-24]

2 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Guys, the killcounts and other stuff is irrelevant and anecdotal. P-39 is also a lame duck, yet soviets made them work.

 

I want to know, from the first principles. What justifies the two, fairly identical airplanes when it comes to weight, hp, drag and wing area to preform worlds apart?

 

What magic makes plane without turbo perform so well up in the thin air, that a plane with turbo cant compete?  

 

What makes a plane so responsive on controls that it can snap it wing off, while the other cant even pull enough G's to black out? 

 

What technical properties of these two planes set them so far apart in performance despite being so much alike? 

I think aerodynamics is your answer. The Tempest should be a superb diver and zoomer given its weight, power and clean airframe. The P-47 has the advantage in absolute dive limit, but I think it cannot be argued that the Tempest is not the fastest diver of the war.

The current P-47 is objectively underperforming above its critical altitude at the moment.

I don't have the knowledge base to answer the other questions.



 

[gimpy117]

5 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Guys, the killcounts and other stuff is irrelevant and anecdotal. P-39 is also a lame duck, yet soviets made them work.

not having an incorrectly simulated glass engine tends to do that IRL....

[Knarley-Bob]

Just took a P-47 up. Quick mission mode, 10000 meters 150 octane fuel. The P-47 could hardly fly, and a Bf 109 G ran rings around me. Does that sound about right? Both planes full of gas.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Knarley-Bob

[Pict]

2 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Just took a P-47 up. Quick mission mode, 10000 meters 150 octane fuel. The P-47 could hardly fly, and a Bf 109 G ran rings around me. Does that sound about right? Both planes full of gas.

 

P-47  ??? which model we have two.

 

Bf-109G which model, there are six represented here and some should offer a serious challenge to either of the P-47D's we have represented here.

 

Did you try doing the same test, but fly the Bf-109G? against the P-47? If not it's a one sided test. If you did / do, it'd be interesting to know the result.

 

Whatever you do it'd be prudent to record a track and provide it here in your post so that others can clearly see what you are trying to explain. This way your "test" will be wide open to critism from a wide range of the unforgiving "experten" who frequent the boards here.

 

Sounds daunting, but your information doesn't amount to much otherwise, as your own opinion of your own ability of flying unknown versus unknown is not a bedrock upon which to judge how these aircraft are represented here.

 

Tip; Try and think of it as guncamera footage and try to avoid huge tracks, hitting the record button just before and just after your test.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Pict

[Pict]

9 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

I want to know, from the first principles. What justifies the two, fairly identical airplanes when it comes to weight, hp, drag and wing area to preform worlds apart?

 

What magic makes plane without turbo perform so well up in the thin air, that a plane with turbo cant compete?  

 

What makes a plane so responsive on controls that it can snap it wing off, while the other cant even pull enough G's to black out? 

 

What technical properties of these two planes set them so far apart in performance despite being so much alike? 

 

If you are trying to suggest that the P-47D-28 and the Tempest are "fairly identical airplanes", then I think you are very mistaken.

 

Outside of how they may be represented in game, they were nothing like each other for real;

 

Not by the specs, not even close.

Certainly not by engine type, one being a radial the other a flat H.

Not by designation of type, during the same time period, one was a fighter-bomber (and more of a bomber strafer rocketeer than a fighter), the other a true air superiority fighter. Can you guess which was which and importantly, why?

 

Other than the fact that they both took their bubble canopies from the later Typhoon, they had zero in common.

 

It has already been noted above that the P-47 was significantly heavier that the Tempest, so why repeat this falsification of the facts?

Wing area is but one factor in wing design and it's pointlessly absurd to compare this one factor and assume both wings are "fairly identical".

HP is like wing area, pulled out of context it is meaningless. HP does not equal thrust, it is just one factor that makes it up. How many revs per minuite could a P-47 engine spin at? 2700 full tilt...compare that to the Tempest at 3700, that's a full 1000 RPM of a difference !!! Where does "fairly identical" fit in there?

 

The Tempest could catch a V1 on the level without the need to dive for added speed...the P-47D-28 could not do that. "fairly identical" eh?

 

The Tempest dive speed limit was 540 mph, a full 40 mph faster then the P-47D-28, again "fairly identical" 

 

And we could go on and on, but why bother. The idea that the Tempest and the P-47D-28 are "fairly identical", is just absurd and silly. Putting that idea forward in some way to suggest that the P-47D-28 flight model needs some tweaking is pointless as this is already fairly well established and gains nothing from pretending that it was anything like the Tempest.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Pict

[ACG_Cass]

43 minutes ago, Pict said:

How many revs per minuite could a P-47 engine spin at? 2700 full tilt...compare that to the Tempest at 3700, that's a full 1000 RPM of a difference !!! Where does "fairly identical" fit in there?

This is one of a series of clues that show you have a absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

I do agree that the Tempest is a bad example though. Not because of a lack of similarities, but because it's so obviously incorrect in the sim.

[Pict]

11 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

This is one of a series of clues that show you have a absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

So you pull one line out of what I'm saying and acuse me of being clueless. Good on you.

 

The whole point of that line was that it's pointless to pull lines like it and use them out of context, which is just what you did. Thanks for proving my point.

 

I reckon anyone who thinks that the real world P-47D-28 and the Hawker Tempest were "similar" is not willing to accept reality for some reason I don't clearly understand. Maybe you could provide some solid proof of your idea that they were "similar", instead of just being rude?

Edited November 16, 2021 by Pict

[Pict]

13 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Not directly, but indirectly indicated that it was a good fighter and not just a ground pounder.

 

Kill counts aside, we know from the historical record that the P-47 was deployed as both and with good effect both ways. Initially primarily as a fighter escort and latterly primariy as a ground pounder.

 

These are two distinctly different periods for the P-47 and need to be seen in the context of, range to bomber targets, upcoming contemporaries able to better fullfil the change in mission enviroment and possibly to a lesser degree, higher performing opposing designs.

 

Resulting in being relgated to operating as a bomb truck at low alltitude, where air superiority was almost assured. This didn't just happen to the P-47, it happened to just about every fighter produced during WWII at some point in the proceedings either due to being superceded by later types, lack of aerial opposition or often a combination of both. The average Jug fan seems to struggle to accept this for some reason.

 

People get it all mixed up and seem to think that the later model P-47D-28 should be able to mix it one on one with late war Luftwaffe types at low altitude. That's where they get it well wrong. At least if we assume that both pilots have a similar level of competence and are not total novices.

 

Sure in big formations flying high and boom n zooming in packs of two or four at individual heavily armed zerstrorer and therefore slow to manouver, they were sucssesful in the air to air game, why wouldn't they be? It was an ideal role for them.

 

That does not translate to a low altitude one on one with a late war air-superiority fighter, yet this is always what people who start these threads seem to expect of the P-47D and I think that's not reasonable.

 

13 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I have already mentioned that there is a vast amount of data that support that the real p-47 is more maneovrable than the il2 one.

 

You and so many others, however I already agree with that and feel that that argument was won and over with long before this and a few other threads like it popped up.

 

If someone did a poll asking did anyone think that the P-47 fight model needed some polishing?, I imagine the vast majority would agree.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Pict
Spelling

[HR_Zunzun]

1 hour ago, Pict said:

Resulting in being relgated to operating as a bomb truck at low alltitude, where air superiority was almost assured. This didn't just happen to the P-47, it happened to just about every fighter produced during WWII at some point in the proceedings either due to being superceded by later types, lack of aerial opposition or often a combination of both. The average Jug fan seems to struggle to accept this for some reason.

 

People get it all mixed up and seem to think that the later model P-47D-28 should be able to mix it one on one with late war Luftwaffe types at low altitude. That's where they get it well wrong. At least if we assume that both pilots have a similar level of competence and are not total novices.

 

Sure in big formations flying high and boom n zooming in packs of two or four at individual heavily armed zerstrorer and therefore slow to manouver, they were sucssesful in the air to air game, why wouldn't they be? It was an ideal role for them.

 

That does not translate to a low altitude one on one with a late war air-superiority fighter, yet this is always what people who start these threads seem to expect of the P-47D and I think that's not reasonable.

 

If you are all for changing the FM why then you produce this brain fart about that the P-47 is only good for chasing solitary Me110s under numerical superiority, and "people" should stop dreaming of dogfighting a 109k4 in 1vs1 at low altitude?

What "People" has only demanded, is a revision of the FM. More specifically elevator authority, Cl max and power curve at altitude.

[ACG_Cass]

2 hours ago, Pict said:

So you pull one line out of what I'm saying and acuse me of being clueless. Good on you.

You're right, apologies. Way too much sass. 

 

But, I still don't necessarily agree that the aircraft are worlds apart. 

 

- The D22 and Tempest share an almost identical power to weight ratio (based on 64" and +9 respectively). The D28 slightly behind with the extra 200kg of fuel and additional weight of the frame. 
- They have almost identical wing area. 

 

As far as I understand it, the P47s aerofoil should outperform the Tempest's so if you begin to match their weight, you should begin to see better turning performance from the Thunderbolt. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

 

 

These tests were apparently conducted with Thunderbolt IIs (D25/30/40) and with a full war load on all planes. So they would be carrying their full 1000kg of fuel on take off. The P47 was only running 58" as well. 

 

Again, the Tempest isn't a great example as it is over performing in the sim but there doesn't seem to be anything in that test that states the Jug is a hopeless turner. 

 

It makes me almost think as if the P47s performance has been implemented with the wrong weight, as it should be performing as it does when it is lighter. 

 

edit: and don't get me wrong, the P47 should be a pig as soon as the speed starts to really drop off. The problem lies in the fact it doesn't seem to have performance above that. 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by ACG_Cass

[Knarley-Bob]

5 hours ago, Pict said:

 

P-47  ??? which model we have two.

 

Bf-109G which model, there are six represented here and some should offer a serious challenge to either of the P-47D's we have represented here.

 

Did you try doing the same test, but fly the Bf-109G? against the P-47? If not it's a one sided test. If you did / do, it'd be interesting to know the result.

 

Whatever you do it'd be prudent to record a track and provide it here in your post so that others can clearly see what you are trying to explain. This way your "test" will be wide open to critism from a wide range of the unforgiving "experten" who frequent the boards here.

 

Sounds daunting, but your information doesn't amount to much otherwise, as your own opinion of your own ability of flying unknown versus unknown is not a bedrock upon which to judge how these aircraft are represented here.

 

Tip; Try and think of it as guncamera footage and try to avoid huge tracks, hitting the record button just before and just after your test.

Don't take my word for it, take one up yourself and do all the 'expert' stuff. Then you can answer the 1000 questions better than I can.

Perhaps these 'experts' should do this, I doubt they will. They just might prove themselves wrong.

[JtD]

I think the Typhoon is a better candidate for comparison with the P-47, aerodynamically the Tempest simply is in another league. It goes 10% faster at the same power and gets the same range for 75% the fuel. That accounts for a lot, even if both aircraft are flown at the same weight.

 

Also, maybe in game the Typhoon is more realistically modelled.

 

 

21 hours ago, DSR_A-24 said:

Maybe you're looking at Thunderbolt Mk.1 data cards.

 

Yes, I was. 2535 on MkII, same date.

Edited November 16, 2021 by JtD

[Holtzauge]

Interesting discussion.

 

I did a quick C++ simulation run (no flaps of course!) with my default settings for the P-47 D-30 at 65" boost at a weight of 6006 Kg and the Tempest Mk5 at +9 boost 5176 Kg and the results I get at 20,000ft is that for this particular combination of weight and power they are quite evenly matched:

 

In fact so evenly matched that any difference is solidly within the error margin in the simulations: The Thunderbolt requires 38.2 s while the Tempest 37.7 s to do a 360 so doing a full circle at this altitude requires a great deal of patience. In addition, since the difference is just a shade over 1% I would call it a draw since there is no way to simulate this without a few percent modeling error either way.

 

Would be interesting is someone could do a trial in-game to see how they do in BoX and what the results are there and as icing on the cake, if someone with access and the inclination could try out the turn time of P-47 at 20,000 ft in DCS as well.

[Bremspropeller]

On 11/15/2021 at 11:39 AM, Cpt_Siddy said:

And the empty weight of p-47 was around 4,500 kg

Empty weight of Tiffy was 4000kg and tempest was slightly more considering the fuselage was strengthened, but hovered in the same ballpark. 

 

The max take off weight was also was almost 1000kg higher on P-47, telling us that P-47 was a plane that could, where the inferior, crooked teethed, British "engineering" was only capable of so much with similar horsies...

 

Basic logic will cover this:

That's a 1000lb empty weight difference right there.

So you'd have to hang 3x 1000lb bombs onto the Tiffie to even up with the Jug. That's more than a Jug could carry.

 

There's only so many bombs you can hang onto an aircraft.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[DSR_A-24]

52 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

Interesting discussion.

 

I did a quick C++ simulation run (no flaps of course!) with my default settings for the P-47 D-30 at 65" boost at a weight of 6006 Kg and the Tempest Mk5 at +9 boost 5176 Kg and the results I get at 20,000ft is that for this particular combination of weight and power they are quite evenly matched:

 

In fact so evenly matched that any difference is solidly within the error margin in the simulations: The Thunderbolt requires 38.2 s while the Tempest 37.7 s to do a 360 so doing a full circle at this altitude requires a great deal of patience. In addition, since the difference is just a shade over 1% I would call it a draw since there is no way to simulate this without a few percent modeling error either way.

 

Would be interesting is someone could do a trial in-game to see how they do in BoX and what the results are there and as icing on the cake, if someone with access and the inclination could try out the turn time of P-47 at 20,000 ft in DCS as well.

By the way, incredibly difficult to pull off while maintaining altitude.

DCS P-47 +/- 20lbs to your standard 20,600ft = 35.9s

Holtzauge, could you create EM diagrams for the P-47 and Tempest :D?

[ACG_Cass]

12 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Basic logic will cover this:

That's a 1000lb empty weight difference right there.

So you'd have to hang 3x 1000lb bombs onto the Tiffie to even up with the Jug. That's more than a Jug could carry.

 

There's only so many bombs you can hang onto an aircraft.

 

But the Jug has ~8% more wing area. It isn't all just about weight. An E-7 is 500kg lighter than a Hurricane empty, doesn't mean it's living with it in the turn. The main issue here is whether performance of its wing and controls are correct for the P47. 

 

I do wonder if the FM has been based on an incorrect weight somewhere and a fully loaded test has been misinterpreted for a lighter load. There is a lot of data around on the P47 as @Yak_Panther has shown. 

[Holtzauge]

5 minutes ago, DSR_A-24 said:

By the way, incredibly difficult to pull off while maintaining altitude.

DCS P-47 +/- 20lbs to your standard 20,600ft = 35.9s

Holtzauge, could you create EM diagrams for the P-47 and Tempest :D?

 

Maybe I can do it (the EM Diagrams) at a later time but right now I'm prioritizing WW1 stuff.

 

Nice to have the 35.9 s figure from DCS to compare with so thanks for that. What about BoX? What's the turn time there?

[DSR_A-24]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Maybe I can do it (the EM Diagrams) at a later time but right now I'm prioritizing WW1 stuff.

 

Nice to have the 35.9 s figure from DCS to compare with so thanks for that. What about BoX? What's the turn time there?

No problem.

P-47 
38.4s 160mph

The Yelling Plane(I'm assuming 85% fuel for the Tempest V)
44.3s 130mph
41.0s 150mph

56% Fuel
36.8smph 130mph
43.3s 150mph

I found the flying characteristics of the Tempest V very strange but admirable. BoX P-47 was much harder to maintain altitude for whatever reason. The Tempest feels a good 40-50% lighter as an airframe, they are worlds apart.

Maybe someone else wants to retest these planes.

Edited November 16, 2021 by DSR_A-24

[Raven109]

4 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Don't take my word for it, take one up yourself and do all the 'expert' stuff. Then you can answer the 1000 questions better than I can.

Perhaps these 'experts' should do this, I doubt they will. They just might prove themselves wrong.

 

Yes, it is difficult to fly the P-47D-28 at 10km against the ACE G-2/-4/-6, in a co-alt, head-on setup. You really need to be patient and stay into lag pursuit for a long time, until you reel him in. It seems that the 109 can do a tighter turn circle at that alt. Also, low Yo-Yos seem to help if you're in a turning fight and can't get guns on. Reducing the fuel load and adding 150 fuel to the P-47 helps by a small margin.

 

The opposite is not true though. Get in any of the 109s and it's really easy to take the P-47 down at 10km.

 

I'm not saying that this is correct or not at this point, just sharing my experience regarding fights against the AI. I also have the feeling that the AI, even if set on ACE is not able to handle piloting the P-47 at 10km. 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Raven109

[Knarley-Bob]

So, is there a plane in this sim that CAN'T out fly the P-47?      I've seen the "Tiger Tank" mentioned, but they never mention the altitude.

I did see how ever mention of a 109 taking out a T-34 on a documentory.

[Holtzauge]

1 hour ago, DSR_A-24 said:

No problem.

P-47 
38.4s 160mph

The Yelling Plane(I'm assuming 85% fuel for the Tempest V)
44.3s 130mph
41.0s 150mph

56% Fuel
36.8smph 130mph
43.3s 150mph

I found the flying characteristics of the Tempest V very strange but admirable. BoX P-47 was much harder to maintain altitude for whatever reason. The Tempest feels a good 40-50% lighter as an airframe, they are worlds apart.

Maybe someone else wants to retest these planes.

 

Thanks and interesting to see that my Thunderbolt simulation which is 38.2 s is so close to BoX then! However, if you get turn times of 41 s for the Tempest in-game then that does sound a bit on the high side given I get 37.7 s . Here I'm assuming you reduced the fuel for the in-game Tempest to match my 5176 Kg (11400 lb) then?