P-47 Maneuverability or Lack Thereof

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

But the Jug has ~8% more wing area.

 

And the Tiffie has a fatter wing.

 

This is not what this is about. This is about weight and the Jug's wing supposedly being able to "support" more.

[DSR_A-24]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

 

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?

If you could just run through the math with me.

Your standard weight is for the Tempest V is 11,400lb.
The in game Standard Weight(Tempest V Data card Maximum weight) is 11,510lbs

I subtract 110lbs of fuel from the total capacity of 1138lbs = 1028lbs which is roughly 90% fuel or 646/718 Liters

Results 

35.3s 130mph
41.3s 150mph

[Pict]

9 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

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.

 

I have made it clear that I think the P-47D-28 flight model needs tweaking, this much you got right, but that doesn't mean that I think it's way of as it is and would need a massive rework. Far from it.

 

At no point did I suggest that the P-47 was only good for anything in particular, nor did I mention Me-110's, or Bf-109K-4's. So if you're going to be  cheeky and accuse me of "produce this brain fart" , (whatever that means, sound pretty cheeky to me), you might want to get your facts straight about what I actually did say. As it is you haven't.

 

I mentioned the two very different primary roles that the P-47 was given, that of bomber escort fighter early on and fighter bomber later. That doesn't mean to say they didn't have other roles assigned to them, it literally meant that those were it's primary roles.

 

Anyone can feel free to dispute that, but that's how I understand it. I'm happy to listen to your opinion, but just keep the rude stuff to yourself, ok.

 

Zerstrorer does not nessesarily mean Bf-110, I really just meant the heavily armed fighters whose task it was to intercept the bombers. Could just as easily be an Fw-190, Bf-109 or Bf-110 even, just whatever they sent up. It was the P-47's task to protect the bombers, so these heavily armed interceptors were the P-47's primary targets.

 

I didn't mention the Bf-109K-4 for the simple reason it was rare as hens teeth. But I don't think for a second I was wrong in saying that plenty of people want to go head to head with late war Luftwaffe fighters at low altitude in a one on one scenario. And I still think the P-47D-28 would be the wrong tool for that job, tweaked flight model or otherwise.

 

I just don't overestimate the P-47 and that means I'm not disappointed by it. If it gets better and I expect it will down the track, then for me it will be a bonus.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Pict

[Holtzauge]

53 minutes ago, DSR_A-24 said:

If you could just run through the math with me.

Your standard weight is for the Tempest V is 11,400lb.
The in game Standard Weight(Tempest V Data card Maximum weight) is 11,510lbs

I subtract 110lbs of fuel from the total capacity of 1138lbs = 1028lbs which is roughly 90% fuel or 646/718 Liters

Results 

35.3s 130mph
41.3s 150mph

 

Now you got me confused: Before you posted this:

 

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

 

So is it a typo in the new data for 90% fuel? Should the 35.3 s instead be 45.3 s at 130 mph IAS?

[ACG_Cass]

@DSR_A-24

How are you turning the plane at 130mph without losing any altitude at 20,000 feet? I can't really dip below 170 without dropping a wing.

 

@Holtzaugeare we looking to do a max sustained turn?

 

Tried the 47 and the Tempest. Unable to get times just yet, but both were between 1.9 and 2.1g at 175 - 185mph. The Tempest definitely did seem to perform worse but will need to get an estimation of times first.

 

The key takeaway though is that even at that altitude, at 220 IAS the Tempest can comfortably pull over 4g.

 

The P47 can't even get over 3.5 without stalling.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@Holtzauge which max lift coefficients are you using for the P-47 and Tempest, with both engine at idle and at full power?

Edited November 17, 2021 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Holtzauge]

9 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

@DSR_A-24

How are you turning the plane at 130mph without losing any altitude at 20,000 feet? I can't really dip below 170 without dropping a wing.

 

@Holtzaugeare we looking to do a max sustained turn?

 

Tried the 47 and the Tempest. Unable to get times just yet, but both were between 1.9 and 2.1g at 175 - 185mph. The Tempest definitely did seem to perform worse but will need to get an estimation of times first.

 

The key takeaway though is that even at that altitude, at 220 IAS the Tempest can comfortably pull over 4g.

 

The P47 can't even get over 3.5 without stalling.

 

Yes, this is also was what I was asking @DSR_A-24: 130 mph IAS is well "behind the curve" so it should be worse not better at this speed.

 

Best turn time time for me in the C++ simulation is 37.7 s for the Tempest at 157 mph IAS.

 

And yes, this is about best sustained turn rate, i.e. the shortest time possible to make a complete 360 deg turn at 20,000 ft.

 

PS: If you do any new tests, g-load can vary a bit during the turn so not the best metric to use while taking the turn time sort of evens out minor deviations so when I have time to do this, I usually try to do several turns and try to come up with some sort of average in the turn time.

 

2 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@Holtzauge which max lift coefficients are you using for the P-47 and Tempest, with both engine at idle and at full power?

 

Don't have any numbers for power-on since this is "taken care of" by the simulation. Power-off Clmax used on aircraft level, i.e. NOT the profile Clmax which is much higher, is 1.35 for the Thunderbolt and 1.13 for the Tempest.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Holtzauge

[Yak_Panther]

For propeller aircraft, Max sustained load factor and therefor turn rate is.

 

Nz Sustained = (Thrust Horsepower Available / Weight) * (Lift/ minimum THP required)

 

Sustained turn rates for propeller driven aircraft are constrained by ratio THP available / the minimum required horse power for level flight.

Power required increases with the cube of the weight change.

 

 

Power Required for weight increase = Sqrt ( New weight / Base Weight)^3.

 

The min weight in game of the P-47 11385lbs, The 190 is 7341 lbs. All things being equal, for the P-47 to have a sustained turn rate similar to the 190 The P-47 needs 93% more power at min weight.  At the listed standard weights, for the P-47 to sustain a similar turn rate as 190; The power has to increase 120%. Increasing the Cl max of the aircraft really won't improve the sustained turn rate of P-47, because it's weight is much more of a limiting factor then lift.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Yak_Panther

[Holtzauge]

Yes, even at 20,000 ft the P-47 cannot utilize Clmax in my simulation and the engine power and propeller efficiency can only manage to balance out a Cl of 1.23 so the max sustained turn rate at this altitude is power, not lift limited.

[Stig]

On 11/16/2021 at 5:25 AM, 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.

 

So how did you get up to 10000 meters with full gas?

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 hour ago, Stig said:

 

So how did you get up to 10000 meters with full gas?

droptonks

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

10 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

Don't have any numbers for power-on since this is "taken care of" by the simulation. Power-off Clmax used on aircraft level, i.e. NOT the profile Clmax which is much higher, is 1.35 for the Thunderbolt and 1.13 for the Tempest.

Ah I see. What would be the best turn rates for these planes at sea level with the simulation?

Edited November 17, 2021 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Knarley-Bob]

12 hours ago, Stig said:

 

So how did you get up to 10000 meters with full gas?

I was using 'Quick mission' mode. I started at that altitude, same as the 109. If not, I'd still be 'getting there'?

[Stig]

Yeah I know, it's just that starting in the air, no matter what altitude, with 100% fuel was probably not possible in the real war, even with droptanks. 

[Cpt_Siddy]

On 11/17/2021 at 11:21 AM, Yak_Panther said:

For propeller aircraft, Max sustained load factor and therefor turn rate is.

 

Nz Sustained = (Thrust Horsepower Available / Weight) * (Lift/ minimum THP required)

 

Sustained turn rates for propeller driven aircraft are constrained by ratio THP available / the minimum required horse power for level flight.

Power required increases with the cube of the weight change.

 

 

Power Required for weight increase = Sqrt ( New weight / Base Weight)^3.

 

The min weight in game of the P-47 11385lbs, The 190 is 7341 lbs. All things being equal, for the P-47 to have a sustained turn rate similar to the 190 The P-47 needs 93% more power at min weight.  At the listed standard weights, for the P-47 to sustain a similar turn rate as 190; The power has to increase 120%. Increasing the Cl max of the aircraft really won't improve the sustained turn rate of P-47, because it's weight is much more of a limiting factor then lift.

 

 

 

 

 

This ties down neatly at low alt. Where P-47 is preforming meh. 

 

But at P-47's critical alt, where it can still generate its full hp, vs planes that can no do that, does it still mean that it gets clobberd because how fat it is? 

[ACG_Cass]

On 10/4/2021 at 4:08 AM, Yak_Panther said:

The airplane weighed 11,900 lbs ti 12,000 lbs, The test were conducted at 6000 feet.

The stall was 4.5 G at 212 mph. Which yields a Cl max of 1.58 to 1.49 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930091869/downloads/19930091869.pdf

 

Took the time to test this to see what we have in comparison in game. 

 

This is pretty crucial data point as we have the weight, speed, altitude, engine setting AND the exact G load we should be expecting for the plane. 

 

 

 

 

Results:

 

 

 

These are something we can easily test in game:

 

 

The picture states a 12' 2" propeller meaning this is a Curtiss equipped Razorback P-47. As far as I am aware, there was no significant redesign for the Razorbacks so our Hamilton equipped D22 at the right weight should perform the same. 

 

The standard weight according to the stat page is 13697 lb, which includes 2551 lb of fuel. That means running at 340 litres will give us ~11,900 lb.

Test on Kuban Autumn with 340 litres of fuel at 27", 2450 rpm, 6000 feet, ~213 IAS:

 

https://gfycat.com/delightfulunfinishedcanary

 

Conducted a few times and got 3.5-3.6g peak. 

 

Same test conditions but at 190 IAS:

 

https://gfycat.com/smoothshadowyequestrian

 

Conducted a few times and got 2.7-2.8g peak.

 

More than happy for someone to find something in the test that can discredit it, but currently it shows that the P47 is massively under-performing from a lift perspective. 

[Mtnbiker1998]

2 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

Took the time to test this to see what we have in comparison in game. 

 

This is pretty crucial data point as we have the weight, speed, altitude, engine setting AND the exact G load we should be expecting for the plane. 

 

 

 

 

Results:

 

 

 

These are something we can easily test in game:

 

 

The picture states a 12' 2" propeller meaning this is a Curtiss equipped Razorback P-47. As far as I am aware, there was no significant redesign for the Razorbacks so our Hamilton equipped D22 at the right weight should perform the same. 

 

The standard weight according to the stat page is 13697 lb, which includes 2551 lb of fuel. That means running at 340 litres will give us ~11,900 lb.

Test on Kuban Autumn with 340 litres of fuel at 27", 2450 rpm, 6000 feet, ~213 IAS:

 

https://gfycat.com/delightfulunfinishedcanary

 

Conducted a few times and got 3.5-3.6g peak. 

 

Same test conditions but at 190 IAS:

 

https://gfycat.com/smoothshadowyequestrian

 

Conducted a few times and got 2.7-2.8g peak.

 

More than happy for someone to find something in the test that can discredit it, but currently it shows that the P47 is massively under-performing from a lift perspective. 

Solid data. This should be posted in the FM bug reports section, along with all the other real data from this thread. hopefully then it will actually get looked at and maybe fixed.

 

In the meantime I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell you why this is "Anecdotal" and wrong, because the Thunderbolt is "Just too heavy" to be able to maneuver like that.

[Denum]

I think part of the issue is what you are fighting is over modeled and what you're flying is under modeled.

 

There's definitely some discrepancies on the P47s FM that makes you go what. 

 

At 10,000m a 109 should be food for the P47. It was built around being a high altitude aircraft. Down on the deck I'd expect the 109s to easily win outside of pilot skill. But I often find the Jug is fighting just to stay airborne after a few turns. It bleeds speed very quickly. Where the 109 I can yank and spank it all over the sky with little risk. The D28 is especially frustrating as even if you go straight, the 109 can turn after your head on and catch you in some instances. 

 

In some ways the FM is far to forgiving in alot of the aircraft also as you can lose control below 1000ft and recover. 

 

Just my 2c.

 

I'd love to see some of this addressed on all aircraft but I just don't see it happening.

 

 

[JtD]

Service ceiling of an average Bf109G: 12km.

Service ceiling of an average P-47D: 11km.

 

I don't know what makes people think the P-47 should easily outperform a Bf109 at 10km. It sure is faster, but it certainly can't climb with it up there. Stay fast, don't mix it. Then you're pretty save, at least until the AS or D engines arrive.

[Denum]

27 minutes ago, JtD said:

Service ceiling of an average Bf109G: 12km.

Service ceiling of an average P-47D: 11km.

 

I don't know what makes people think the P-47 should easily outperform a Bf109 at 10km. It sure is faster, but it certainly can't climb with it up there. Stay fast, don't mix it. Then you're pretty save, at least until the AS or D engines arrive.

 

That's the point. In game the G6 is still fairly easy to control. 

 

The P47 flies like a pile of smashed anuses at 10k. 

 

Also maximum ceiling isn't an indication of performance at altitude. 

 

Just because it can fly that high doesn't mean it did it well.

 

 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

Service ceiling of an average Bf109G: 12km.

Service ceiling of an average P-47D: 11km.

 

I don't know what makes people think the P-47 should easily outperform a Bf109 at 10km. It sure is faster, but it certainly can't climb with it up there. Stay fast, don't mix it. Then you're pretty save, at least until the AS or D engines arrive.

I don't think it would easily outperform 109s but it certainly should hold the edge in a fight at those altitudes. It has over 2600HP up to 7.3km and still has at least 2000HP at 10km. It has more than enough power to handle maneuvering at those altitudes yet in-game it's a different story.

[JtD]

It would have 2000hp with ram when going fast, but closer to 1900hp at slower/climbing speeds. Of which about 1400hp go into just maintaining altitude. Leaves you about 500hp for anything else. In a 6 ton plane. The Bf109 doesn't have a better excess power loading up there, but a more efficient prop, a better span loading and a better wing loading, which means that it can do lower speed stuff better, while the P-47 can do high speed stuff better. It's essentially the same thing as at lower altitudes, just more pronounced.

 

(I'm far from saying that in game all things are OK, but the ever repeated expectation of the P-47 basically flying rings around the opposition at high altitude is historically and technically wrong.)

[Legioneod]

43 minutes ago, JtD said:

It would have 2000hp with ram when going fast, but closer to 1900hp at slower/climbing speeds. Of which about 1400hp go into just maintaining altitude. ...

You sure it really needs 1400HP to maintain altitude? I'm curious to know how you figure this. I thought it'd be lower.

[Knarley-Bob]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

It would have 2000hp with ram when going fast, but closer to 1900hp at slower/climbing speeds. Of which about 1400hp go into just maintaining altitude. Leaves you about 500hp for anything else. In a 6 ton plane. The Bf109 doesn't have a better excess power loading up there, but a more efficient prop, a better span loading and a better wing loading, which means that it can do lower speed stuff better, while the P-47 can do high speed stuff better. It's essentially the same thing as at lower altitudes, just more pronounced.

 

(I'm far from saying that in game all things are OK, but the ever repeated expectation of the P-47 basically flying rings around the opposition at high altitude is historically and technically wrong.)

Who wants it to be flying rings around it's opponents? Just being able to fly would be nice. I'm surprised the P-47 can even get off the runway in this sim.............

[DBFlyguy]

 

 

[Denum]

I'd also like to point out I don't want the P47 to over perform like some other aircraft in the game. 

But sometimes it feels like you're playing a different game while flying it. It punishes you so hard. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Denum

[Ace_Pilto]

Greg's Law:
In any thread about the P-47, the probability of someone posting videos from Greg's youtube channel continually approaches one.

[JtD]

9 hours ago, Legioneod said:

You sure it really needs 1400HP to maintain altitude? I'm curious to know how you figure this. I thought it'd be lower.

 

Basically climb rate is the excess power. Depending on what altitude the ceiling of a P-47 you set (depends on weight, turbo & prop, at least), you'll find the engine still produces somewhere around 1400hp. All going into just flying straight and level, as climb rate there is 0. It can easily be calculated for all altitudes, you just have to pick a data set with climb rate, weight and available engine power. If you were to argue it is 1200 or 1500, I wouldn't disagree. My point would still be that while 2000hp sounds like there's massive power available, most of it goes into just keeping the Jug where it is.

[DBFlyguy]

15 hours ago, JtD said:

It would have 2000hp with ram when going fast, but closer to 1900hp at slower/climbing speeds. Of which about 1400hp go into just maintaining altitude. Leaves you about 500hp for anything else. In a 6 ton plane. The Bf109 doesn't have a better excess power loading up there, but a more efficient prop, a better span loading and a better wing loading, which means that it can do lower speed stuff better, while the P-47 can do high speed stuff better. It's essentially the same thing as at lower altitudes, just more pronounced.

 

(I'm far from saying that in game all things are OK, but the ever repeated expectation of the P-47 basically flying rings around the opposition at high altitude is historically and technically wrong.)

What Bf109 model are you referring to, that is still "out performing" at P-47 (also what model) at altitude? I'd love to see your data and charts on this? Especially that "essentially the same as at lower altitudes" bit.

 

Also, no one has stated that it (any model of the P-47) should be "flying rings" around the opposition. A bit hyperbolic.... I think folks just want the IL-2 P-47s to more aligned with its actual documented performance, especially at altitude. The DM is a completely different topic.

11 hours ago, Ace_Pilto said:

Greg's Law:
In any thread about the P-47, the probability of someone posting videos from Greg's youtube channel continually approaches one.

Until someone posts some actual data refuting his research, I don't see the issue.

Edited December 11, 2021 by DBFlyguy

[Ace_Pilto]

Oh it's not an issue, I just like his videos.

[Legioneod]

9 hours ago, JtD said:

 

Basically climb rate is the excess power. Depending on what altitude the ceiling of a P-47 you set (depends on weight, turbo & prop, at least), you'll find the engine still produces somewhere around 1400hp. All going into just flying straight and level, as climb rate there is 0. It can easily be calculated for all altitudes, you just have to pick a data set with climb rate, weight and available engine power. If you were to argue it is 1200 or 1500, I wouldn't disagree. My point would still be that while 2000hp sounds like there's massive power available, most of it goes into just keeping the Jug where it is.

Interesting. I was just going off this chart so that's why I was curious. It's starting to make sense, as speed increases power required increases as well, altitude plays an effect as well I'm sure.

 

To stay above stall speed though (an therefor level flight I'm assuming) it doesn't seem to need much power (only around 400HP) I'm guessing power needs would increase a bit the higher you go , and also the faster you go? Still seems 1400HP is an awful lot just to maintain level flight though, but I have no way of proving it wrong.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Legioneod

[Knarley-Bob]

Seeing as how the 47 is heavier, it will take longer to get going, but it will also take longer for it to slow down. It should carry more speed through turns.

Try stopping a semi tractor trailor compared to a car......

Edited December 11, 2021 by Knarley-Bob

[ACG_Cass]

It's clear now that the 47 is missing a significant amount of lift.

 

I tested the above parameters in the DCS P47 (27", 6000 ft, 214 IAS & 11,900 lb) and the G peaks at about 4.5g just as in the test above.

 

Whats interesting is the stall speed in DCS is pretty much exactly the same as the one we have in IL2 (175 km/h), so why is there such a massive discrepancy in the lift performance?

 

[JtD]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

To stay above stall speed though (an therefor level flight I'm assuming) it doesn't seem to need much power (only around 400HP) I'm guessing power needs would increase a bit the higher you go , and also the faster you go? Still seems 1400HP is an awful lot just to maintain level flight though, but I have no way of proving it wrong.

 

Technically, the 400hp figure is much more correct than my figure. The difference comes from the fact that I included any other losses into the power-to-maintain-level-flight figure, while in the chart losses such as prop efficiency are included in the power available. You can see that the chart is for military power (of 2000hp), yet only 1200-1600 are available at low speeds. Subtract the 400hp required, and you have 800-1200 left of the originally 2000hp. You can also see a trend that the (minimum) required power goes up with altitude, while available power goes down. I'd guesstimate this from the chart as maybe +30 and -20 hp for 5000' - a net loss of 50. Extrapolate it up to 33k (10km), and you've lost around another 300. With 1500-1100hp total losses you're somewhere in the ballpark of what I stated.

 

I also think that I've looked at test data of a poorly performing P-47 yesterday, so I'd say my figures were rather on the low side of P-47 altitude performance. I blame it on the prop.

[ACG_Cass]

 

This is pretty valuable data set that shows what the plane should be capable of. As you can see from the test at 108 mph, that it is pretty much at it's stall speed and can't pull.

[ACG_Cass]

Full shot of the page. Some of these are unstalled turns so they aren't representative.

[ACG_Cass]

I'm really trying to get my head around Clmax calculations but I'm coming up some very weird numbers. 

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930091869/downloads/19930091869.pdf

 

@ZachariasX @unreasonable @FTC_Cule - are you chaps able to help work this out?

 

So we've got 

Weight: 11,900 lbs

Altitude 6000 feet - can make some assumptions on air density

Engine Settings: 27" MAP, 2450 RPM

 

Speed and peak G force should be below. 

 

There's an anomalous test in there somewhere that the document mentions was different. 

 

 

 

 

The below equipment was used to measure IAS:

 

That sounds a lot like the standard position for the P47, but the normal position is on the left wing, so potentially they are using more accurate equipment (but not in a very accurate place) I'm not sure what they mean with the airspeed boom. 

 

Interestingly, the DCS P47 matches the 214 IAS 4.5g pull almost spot on in the same conditions. I'll need to test other speeds to see if they are the same. 

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

11 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

Interestingly, the DCS P47 matches the 214 IAS 4.5g pull almost spot on in the same conditions. I'll need to test other speeds to see if they are the same.

I ran the numbers again for stated conditions and they indicate a Clmax of about up to ~1.35. As we said. And it is the number @Holtzauge used (for good reason) for his simulations.

[ACG_Cass]

1.35 as in power off Clmax? That does make sense and lines up with what @Holtzauge said. I'm really struggling to work out how to correct for the power on aspect without having to resort to horrendous maths. 

 

As far as I can calculate from the stats page the current power off clmax is 1.22 at Standard Take Off Weight for the D28. Do the below stall speeds make sense as a correction? The D22s Max Take Off Weight seems to be a bit of an anomaly. 

 

 

 

 

Now based off the above corrections from the Pilot Operations Model, and making some assumptions that these corrections continue along the same line, you can just about get those to line up with the manual stall speeds (113mph for D22, 114mph for D28).

 

One thing I still don't understand is as far as I've seen calculated by @Yak_Panther, the Clmax needed for the P47 to only to be able to pull 3.6g in the conditions of the test is.... 1.22. Which is the power off Clmax we have in IL2 for the P47 and the load factor I reached during my testing. 

 

So is this the case that the P47's power off Clmax is too low in IL2 + the fact that the increase in Clmax due to power isn't being modelled?

 

I'm away but can do some more testing to see if there are any discrepancies. 

 

disclaimer - I am dirty, pathetic fan boy for the P47 but if someone told me everything was correct in IL2, I'd accept it. What we have with this test is incredibly unique in the detail we have around the conditions the test was undertaken. With the DCS P47 matching the conditions in the test it appears to be the more accurate model. I'd like to understand why that's the case so the IL2 version can get closer to the lift capabilities we can now provably see the P47 had. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by ACG_Cass

[Yak_Panther]

Here's a Lift Coefficient Calculator I made in Desmos. The inputs are weight, load factor, wing area and air speed in CAS mph. It computes TAS fps and computes Cl Max. All The work is shown.  

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/crfnxpthkz

 

The standard atmosphere modeled in chart is based off.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/~andrisan/Courses/AAE490A_S2002/Atmosphere.pdf

 

For a 11,900 Lb P-47, with a wing area of 300 feet, stalling at 6,000ft doing 214 IAS while pulling 4.5g. I compute a Cl max of 1.523.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Yak_Panther