P-47 Maneuverability or Lack Thereof

[Legioneod]

5 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

So this is the model specification for the P-47, from the 2nd August, 1944. 

 

 

 

 

It contains performance information from the P47D-1 to the D-30 (Design useful load). 

D22:

D:28

 

and also runs into detail for each plane on the design useful load

 

D22:

D30:

It also states a stall speed:

 

 

Big question: What weight are these for?

 

The Design Gross Weight is shown the page before, but it would be very odd to use this as this is an estimation and doesn't include the pilot and some equipment. Also the speed performance was given at Design Useful Load. 

 

At the Design Gross Weight, we are looking at a Clmax of 1.25, higher than we currently have in IL2.

 

The Useful loads don't fluctuate for 25 & Up, but do for the 1 Up to 25-RE. 10 Up to 25-RE is fairly static. At Useful loads, you are looking at a Clmax of 1.28. 

 

It would be odd for the model specification to give a stall speed for a plane without a pilot, so I'm almost certain it would be the latter that the stall speeds to relate. 

 

Also to factor in is the fact stalling speeds are specified with gear down. I'm unsure as to whether this increases or decreases the stall speed as IRL tests seem to be inconsistent on this. I think tweaking the IL2 P47 so it corresponds to those stalling speeds with the gear down and letting the current modelling do the rest would probably be best. 

The gross weight is what was used. Empty weight + useful load and you'll get the gross weight.

 

EDIT:

Also not sure if it would even matter but the D-22 in the model spec is using a lower power setting (2300HP vs in-game 2600/2800). Though it does point out the other problem I mentioned about the P-47s having lower performance at altitude than they should. The D-22 can't reach those speeds at 29,000ft with the same loadout as listed. (at least last time I checked)

Edited January 22, 2022 by Legioneod

[Rache-der-Boote]

This thread is almost a year old, has over 15,000 views, and 320 replies... not a single one of those replies is from the development team.

[JeanStravinsky]

On 9/25/2021 at 3:18 PM, 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.

 

  It is one of the better comparative report to ever come out of WWII.

 

 The "tendency to black out the pilot" is an oblique reference to the FW-190A's tendency to "sink" belly down, which was quite extraordinary and notable, even compared to the P-47's own tendency to mush and eat its speed with any rough stick pullback. (Which did not prevent it from turning very well if the pullback was smooth and continuous at lower speeds: Harsh gestures are what caused mushing in the P-47.)

 

  This sinking "blacked out" the FW-190A pilot because the aircraft continued to abruptly decelerate, nose up, while still going down at a steep angle.

 

  The translated Russian "Red Fleet" report on the FW-190A described this primary FW-190 characteristic as such: "after pulling out (nose level) from a 40 degree dive from 1400 m, the FW-190A will fall an extra 220 m." This means 660 feet of brutal downward deceleration while the nose is still up...

 

  In effect the aircraft is going down while acting like a giant airbrake at over 40 degrees of angle of attack, so blacking out the pilot while NOT pulling out... 

 

  This could in fact continue for thousands of feet if the pull-out speed and dive angle was steep enough. It was widely observed by US 8th AF pilots, FW-190s being described as "pancaking" themselves belly first, from failing to pull out.

 

  

[TacticalOni]

So, for what its worth, I was talking to a friend of mine who also flies IL-2 (though she prefers the titular aircraft) and she mentioned that I am playing on an extension, while this game/sim is built around the more typical tabletop sticks.
So, I introduced a very heavy (50%+) curve to my pitch response for the P-47 and suddenly it actually felt kind of useful. (The typical curve I use is about 10% and this hasn't been a problem with other planes)
I tested the P-47D-22 against handfuls of AI 190s (A-3s and A-5s, ((A-3s retain energy waaaay better than the A-5 and fighting them feels like fighting a UFO compared to the A-5)))

I can attest that the 47 feels better than it did with the curve added in, but I can say it still should be able to maneuver slightly better than it does, but how much of that was my impulsiveness to get into a turning fight against a lighter opponent that has an algorithm telling it how to retain max energy and turn rate and how much of it was the plane actually failing me where I think it shouldn't is another deal.   (EditingOni here, it doesn't maneuver)
Right now it feels like its missing a chunk of wing and about 16" of elevator width on both sides, but at least I can fight in it now with the curve.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm using a TM Warthog on a 20cm extension, center mounted and low, like a real stick would be. 
After many more dogfights and testing, I can say that with a 70%(!!!) curve, I can pull on this plane around the same as I can the P-38, P-40, and P-51 that are running my universal 20% curve. 
Though, I can also say that the P-47 wants so badly to fall out of the sky at the slightest inkling of anything more than the gentlest of pulls, especially at, around, or under 200mph, that its a joke to actually try to fight in it. It's like as soon as I deflect the stick the plane thinks it's pulling 90' of AOA.
I bought Normandy and Bodenplatte mostly for the P-47s and I can honestly say that I feel robbed in a strange kind of way.
How long are we going to let this plane sit around busted like this? Who thinks that this is correct and doesn't need refinement? There's 9 pages here that run the gamut between anecdotal evidence (from WWII Accounts and comparisons to the other three-letter sim) and collegiate-level dissections of data and just about everyone whose put hands on this plane and tried to fly it say something's definitely wrong with the flight model. I'm with the folks who say that this plane needs a good looking-over and more than a fair shake. 

EDIT AGAIN: trying to think through the red haze of frustration, is there any way to flag the devs to bring this issue to light? A petition? 

(I can't believe I'm suggesting a petition like tweaking the P-47s flight model is something like the need to put a stop sign somewhere)

Edited November 27, 2022 by TacticalOni
I keep finding typos

[Legioneod]

On 11/24/2022 at 11:09 AM, TacticalOni said:

So, for what its worth, I was talking to a friend of mine who also flies IL-2 (though she prefers the titular aircraft) and she mentioned that I am playing on an extension, while this game/sim is built around the more typical tabletop sticks.
So, I introduced a very heavy (50%+) curve to my pitch response for the P-47 and suddenly it actually felt kind of useful. (The typical curve I use is about 10% and this hasn't been a problem with other planes)
I tested the P-47D-22 against handfuls of AI 190s (A-3s and A-5s, ((A-3s retain energy waaaay better than the A-5 and fighting them feels like fighting a UFO compared to the A-5)))

I can attest that the 47 feels better than it did with the curve added in, but I can say it still should be able to maneuver slightly better than it does, but how much of that was my impulsiveness to get into a turning fight against a lighter opponent that has an algorithm telling it how to retain max energy and turn rate and how much of it was the plane actually failing me where I think it shouldn't is another deal.   (EditingOni here, it doesn't maneuver)
Right now it feels like its missing a chunk of wing and about 16" of elevator width on both sides, but at least I can fight in it now with the curve.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm using a TM Warthog on a 20cm extension, center mounted and low, like a real stick would be. 
After many more dogfights and testing, I can say that with a 70%(!!!) curve, I can pull on this plane around the same as I can the P-38, P-40, and P-51 that are running my universal 20% curve. 
Though, I can also say that the P-47 wants so badly to fall out of the sky at the slightest inkling of anything more than the gentlest of pulls, especially at, around, or under 200mph, that its a joke to actually try to fight in it. It's like as soon as I deflect the stick the plane thinks it's pulling 90' of AOA.
I bought Normandy and Bodenplatte mostly for the P-47s and I can honestly say that I feel robbed in a strange kind of way.
How long are we going to let this plane sit around busted like this? Who thinks that this is correct and doesn't need refinement? There's 9 pages here that run the gamut between anecdotal evidence (from WWII Accounts and comparisons to the other three-letter sim) and collegiate-level dissections of data and just about everyone whose put hands on this plane and tried to fly it say something's definitely wrong with the flight model. I'm with the folks who say that this plane needs a good looking-over and more than a fair shake. 

EDIT AGAIN: trying to think through the red haze of frustration, is there any way to flag the devs to bring this issue to light? A petition? 

(I can't believe I'm suggesting a petition like tweaking the P-47s flight model is something like the need to put a stop sign somewhere)

The main problem I have with using curves is that you lose some control in one area to increase it in another.

 

The P-47 in Il2 really is a struggle to fly, it loves to stall at the touch of the stick and any pull will just drop the wing (especially when it hits 200IAS and lower)

The Jug stalls more than any aircraft imo and can't pull any real aoa imo.

 

I don't really like to compare sims but this is one of the largest differences I've noticed when flying the DCS P-47 and coming back to Il2.

In DCS I can pull AOA and control the stall as long as I'm careful, the aircraft gives me plenty of warning and I can actually push the plane lower than 200IAS if needed which is something I can't do in Il2.

 

In DCS when I pull too much or get too slow in a turn the aircraft will become increasingly unstable but it wont outright depart like it does in Il2 unless I push it hard or am just hamfisted. In Il2 I can be as gentle as can be but it will stall if I try to pull any or get below or at 200IAS.

Even at higher speed the Il2 Jug struggles in maneuvers whereas in DCS if I stay fast I'm pretty capable.

 

Il2 just feels like a beached whale that can't really do anything.

DCS feels like a real aircraft with power that I can use and that I can maneuver if needed.

 

Side note: I'm not a fanboy of either product and I try to be as unbiased as possible but some things DCS just does better and the P-47 is one of them.

I like Il2 more but I think DCS captures the actual characteristics of an aircraft much better.

 

I hope the Il2 P-47 gets worked on some more, something just seems way off with the P-47 in this game. I fly other aircraft in Il2 and they seem reasonable based on the knowledge I have about them but then I hop in the P-47 and its just not what I expect.

 

It's definitely the hardest fighter to fly in Il2 bar none. Every other aircraft feels capable but the P-47 is just unusable for me.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Legioneod

[BraveSirRobin]

59 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Il2 just feels like a beached whale that can't really do anything.

DCS feels like a real aircraft with power that I can use and that I can maneuver if needed.

 

What altitude are you flying?  If it’s down low, then the DCS FM is not correct.  On the deck the P-47 is a pig.  I’ve talked to a warbird pilot who told me that the P-47 is the worst aircraft that he has flown.  He hates it.  Another P-47 warbird pilot has flown the GB 47 and says that it is “spot on”.  Maybe the GB 47 has issues at higher altitudes, but down low it’s probably pretty close to the real thing.

[Legioneod]

25 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

What altitude are you flying?  If it’s down low, then the DCS FM is not correct.  On the deck the P-47 is a pig.  I’ve talked to a warbird pilot who told me that the P-47 is the worst aircraft that he has flown.  He hates it.  Another P-47 warbird pilot has flown the GB 47 and says that it is “spot on”.  Maybe the GB 47 has issues at higher altitudes, but down low it’s probably pretty close to the real thing.

I'm not saying he's wrong but flying a warbird at full power vs flying at modern settings is very different. One pilot says DCS is spot on another says Il2 is spot on, who knows whats true. I tend to believe DCS is the more accurate model overall.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Legioneod

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I'm not saying he's wrong but flying a warbird at full power vs flying at modern settings is very different. 

‘This guy has flown many WW2 warbirds, not just the 47.  But the 47 is the worst of all of them.  Do you think it’s only the 47 that he isn’t allowed to fly at full power?
 

I’ve flown some of the DCS WW2 aircraft.  I have no idea why people think they’re better than GB versions.

[357th_KW]

I think the point still stands though, modern warbirds are often wildly different aircraft then they were during the war.  As an example, Sport Aviation did a comparison of four US warbirds back in 1990, with extensive flight testing.  They found the P-51D they had needed 90lbs of stick force to pull 5G’s, vastly higher then every other plane in their test.  Wartime tests of this showed sticks forces ranging from 20 lbs down to as low as 9 lbs to pull 5 G’s (varying with Cg)!  That’s  an enormous difference in a simple characteristic like stick force.  It’s impossible to know what impact 80 years of maintenance and modifications have had on any given airframe.

[Rei-sen]

43 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I have no idea why people think they’re better than GB versions.

Then probably you have no idea what you're talking about?

[BraveSirRobin]

10 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Then probably you have no idea what you're talking about?

How many hours do you have in the P-47?

[HR_Zunzun]

4 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

What altitude are you flying?  If it’s down low, then the DCS FM is not correct.  On the deck the P-47 is a pig.  I’ve talked to a warbird pilot who told me that the P-47 is the worst aircraft that he has flown.  He hates it.  Another P-47 warbird pilot has flown the GB 47 and says that it is “spot on”.  Maybe the GB 47 has issues at higher altitudes, but down low it’s probably pretty close to the real thing.

 

The elevator authority in GB doesn't agreed with NACA report about longitudinal stability. According to it, the p/47 has in many situations neutral stability. DCS does a better portrait of it.

Several naca and other reports also suggest that her lift coefficient should be higher. Yakpanther presented many of them.

The p/47 should be a pig on the deck when she runs out of energy, as his power to weight ratio is mediocre. But with energy should be more alive. DCS is more in line with this. On DCS, once you run out of energy she is a pig. In GB she is a pig no matter what.

[Wardog5711]

[TacticalOni]

15 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The main problem I have with using curves is that you lose some control in one area to increase it in another.

 

I don't disagree, My main remark was that when I am flying any other aircraft, there's a certain amount of pull I can get to make the aircraft bank at its finest and begin to shudder. In just about every other aircraft, lighter, heavier, its at about 80-90% of my stick's deflection, essentially, right when my hand touches my belly. It's a good tell that I have a little bit more to pull "if I need to" but really I'm already applying an incredible amount of pull in a situation. in any combat flight sim, that checks out. If my stick hand and wrist are resting on my gut, that's about as hard as I want to pull without breaking the airplane. 
But with that same setup on the P-47, I can only deflect the stick about 20-30%ish before the plane starts shuddering. This is what was making me go "whadaheck" and the first inkling there's something amiss with the FM. It's like there is a built-in negative curve on the 47 that amplifies smaller stick deflections in the pitch department. Once I introduced the (now 75%) curve, I was getting the appropriate shudder by the point my hand was touching my belly.

 

16 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Il2 just feels like a beached whale that can't really do anything.

DCS feels like a real aircraft with power that I can use and that I can maneuver if needed.

And that's just it, I was setting up multiple 2vs2 and 4vs4 dogfights against 190As in IL-2 and I got it kind of figured out, at least, how to best use the plane (It's a lot of yo-yos and vertical maneuvers since the AI will just yank inside your turn every time unless you try to oblige them and drop flaps, which I try not to do since every jug pilot I've read up to this point has never mentioned using flaps in a fight. Besides, going that slow on the razors edge of lift with 40-50% flaps is begging to be shot at by the other guy's wingman. 
So then I hop into DCS and I give the jug a whirl there. 4vs4 against the 190A8, and yeah, its a pig, but down low it's down to how you fly that influences the fight, having that much power in your left hand lets me drag the plane around on the edge of the envelope and get behind those 190s for the kill. Thats if I did a dumb and ran myself plumb out of energy at the start. But if I can keep it up higher where there's room to dive and maneuver, I'm unstoppable. And I never needed flaps.

The IL-2 47 is missing that key piece in the fact that you can't give it what I like to call "one good pull" Every plane I've ever flown in any sim can give you one good pull, basically, that instantaneous wrench back on the stick. In the F-14 it will rip your wings off, in the Viggen it will pull massive AOA and stall the compressor. In the P-51 it will pitch up quite a bit and then depart. In the DCS Jug it will pull up quite a bit and depart. In the IL-2 P-47, it just departs without doing much of anything. The ability to really pull for a snap-shot is not there. I think the high-alpha behavior is being cued too early in the vertical movement of the aircraft, if I was doing what was making it react that way, I'd be doing a WWII Pugachev's cobra.

 

I shouldn't be diving at 300mph strafing a train, get too fixated, and nearly depart giving the stick a generous pull trying to trade that speed for altitude. 
 

11 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

[.....]It’s impossible to know what impact 80 years of maintenance and modifications have had on any given airframe.

That and just about every warbird I know flies on 100LL. Tell me that isn't making a difference in power and maneuverability. 

 

11 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

The elevator authority in GB doesn't agreed with NACA report about longitudinal stability. According to it, the p/47 has in many situations neutral stability. DCS does a better portrait of it.

Several naca and other reports also suggest that her lift coefficient should be higher. Yakpanther presented many of them.

The p/47 should be a pig on the deck when she runs out of energy, as his power to weight ratio is mediocre. But with energy should be more alive. DCS is more in line with this. On DCS, once you run out of energy she is a pig. In GB she is a pig no matter what.

This, condense 9 pages of discussion into this.
 

 

4 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

[massive image here]

 Hey, if you're here does that mean the guys doing FM programming are getting notified? ?

[Wardog5711]

If they weren't before, they are now. I just sent a query to my ENG contact along with the link to this thread.

I can't speak to anything that happened before 10/1/22, but I can ask what's going on now.  

[Wardog5711]

OK, got this back a few minutes ago:

You can tell them that we probably will take another look at P-47 FM in light of the new documents that were provider recently by users, but no earlier than Spring of '23.

And even if there will be changes, they probably won't be radical. If they have any new documents, they could send it to us, but current available data clearly shows that if P-47 can be considered a fighter at all, it's a poor fighter.  They shouldn't expect more of it, than it really was.

 

 

[JtD]

30 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

... current available data clearly shows that if P-47 can be considered a fighter at all, it's a poor fighter...

 

 

 

Well, that's a different perspective on fighters and their required qualities.

[Wardog5711]

I just pass on the news as I get it. ?

[JtD]

And we appreciate it. Thanks.

[TacticalOni]

34 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

but no earlier than Spring of '23.

Better than "9 pages of discussion and dissection of official reports and nothing"! Seriously, thank you. 
 

34 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

And even if there will be changes, they probably won't be radical. If they have any new documents, they could send it to us, but current available data clearly shows that if P-47 can be considered a fighter at all, it's a poor fighter.  They shouldn't expect more of it, than it really was.

I don't think anyone would be expecting changes made to the P-47 to be anywhere near radical. Me especially. Honestly if you could boil down the term "almost there" to a flight model it would be what the 47's looks like now. There's not many complaints to be made on my end save for its eagerness to depart at speeds that don't make sense, its apparent lack of lift (I've nearly run out of runway on a clean aircraft with 60% fuel and 10' of flaps indicated) and pitch response that doesn't line up with any other aircraft in the game. Using the pendulum theory of balance adjustments, if the P-47's FM was way too far one way at the start (helicopter with full flaps) it has been adjusted too far the other now (flies like it has bombs under the wings when it's clean) I think if we aim for the middle of these two extremes the P-47 will be in a much better place, personally. 

[=621=Samikatz]

21 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

I just pass on the news as I get it. ?

 

Are there any other aircraft families they are looking at revisiting in the near future?

[357th_KW]

52 minutes ago, TacticalOni said:

Better than "9 pages of discussion and dissection of official reports and nothing"! Seriously, thank you. 
 

I don't think anyone would be expecting changes made to the P-47 to be anywhere near radical. Me especially. Honestly if you could boil down the term "almost there" to a flight model it would be what the 47's looks like now. There's not many complaints to be made on my end save for its eagerness to depart at speeds that don't make sense, its apparent lack of lift (I've nearly run out of runway on a clean aircraft with 60% fuel and 10' of flaps indicated) and pitch response that doesn't line up with any other aircraft in the game. Using the pendulum theory of balance adjustments, if the P-47's FM was way too far one way at the start (helicopter with full flaps) it has been adjusted too far the other now (flies like it has bombs under the wings when it's clean) I think if we aim for the middle of these two extremes the P-47 will be in a much better place, personally. 

100%. One of the most noticeable things is when you drag it up to high altitude, even at a high speed cruise, a slight bank to scan for targets sends you into a 1-2k ft/minute descent.

[Rei-sen]

14 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

How many hours do you have in the P-47?

Can't tell the exact number, but let's say X hours in DCS, about the same in 1946 and ~0.5X in BoX and it tends to zero rapidly, since I ditched BoX long time ago, lol.

Oh and 0 hours in a real P-47, but I assume that makes two of us.

13 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

On DCS, once you run out of energy she is a pig.

But you can easily regain it in DCS. I mentioned it couple of times before, I have 0 issues dogfighting against AI 109s and 190s on the deck in P-47 in DCS and 1946. And it's impossible for me in BoX.

In BoX, I have much more success fighting against 109s and 190s in a f***ing A-20 than in P-47! Then I ran several 1 on 1s in a Ju-88 against the jug and I absolutely mopped the floor with the Jug EVERY SINGLE TIME! That doesn't make any sense, lol. But fanboys will continue drinking the kool-aid I guess, no matter what.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Arthur-A

[Wardog5711]

OK, the thread has been passed to engineering and they have it on their radar to be looked at.

But not until spring '23.

I have no interest in sorting through more pages of internet based peter-bumping based on time spent in imaginary cockpits. So it will end here. 

Everybody take a deep breath and go fly something. Preferably something that you like and works the way you want it to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[354thFG_Panda_]

23 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

OK, got this back a few minutes ago:

You can tell them that we probably will take another look at P-47 FM in light of the new documents that were provider recently by users, but no earlier than Spring of '23.

And even if there will be changes, they probably won't be radical. If they have any new documents, they could send it to us, but current available data clearly shows that if P-47 can be considered a fighter at all, it's a poor fighter.  They shouldn't expect more of it, than it really was.

 

 

Thank you so much for checking this! 

[unreasonable]

"Peter bumping" - well, at last I have learned something new in a P47 thread.

[DBFlyguy]

On 11/28/2022 at 11:11 AM, Wardog5711 said:

 

but current available data clearly shows that if P-47 can be considered a fighter at all, it's a poor fighter. 

 

 

?

 

I'm really genuinely curious to see the "current available data" that they are using that clearly shows the P-47 was a "poor" fighter outside of it didn't fit the conditions of the eastern front air war ...

[TacticalOni]

17 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

?

 

I'm really genuinely curious to see the "current available data" that they are using that clearly shows the P-47 was a "poor" fighter outside of it didn't fit the conditions of the eastern front air war ...

Second. The P-47 wasn't the greatest fighter by any stretch of imagination, but with proper energy management and pilot technique, it should be able to hold its own. Only in IL-2 GB have I felt completely helpless trying to turn inside an Me-110 with a speed and energy advantage. 

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

"Peter bumping" - well, at last I have learned something new in a P47 thread.

I don't know who this peter guy is but I think he should calm down before he gets us all in trouble  

[LukeFF]

If I had to make a guess, possibly the conclusion that the P-47 was a poor fighter was that, at low altitudes, that turbosupercharger and great diving ability wasn't really much of an advantage. 

[TacticalOni]

52 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

If I had to make a guess, possibly the conclusion that the P-47 was a poor fighter was that, at low altitudes, that turbosupercharger and great diving ability wasn't really much of an advantage. 

Wouldn't be surprising. It also tracks that the VVS would carry that opinion since they weren't escorting bombers at 30,000 feet. If you're constantly fighting down in the mud you would form a vastly different opinion of a high-altitude interceptor. 
Also, perchance, are you the same LukeFF of Real Fleet Boat fame on Subsim? 

[Rei-sen]

Yeah, it appears that Ju-88 is a much better fighter, totally makes sense?

[LukeFF]

9 minutes ago, TacticalOni said:

Also, perchance, are you the same LukeFF of Real Fleet Boat fame on Subsim? 

 

Yes ??

[Cpt_Siddy]

On 11/29/2022 at 8:26 PM, LukeFF said:

great diving ability wasn't really much of an advantage. 

Luke, what is this diving advantage?

 

How i could, say, test it? Independently of any other factors? 

Maybe i am testing it wrong or something, but as far as dive acceleration, from 20 000 feet to 120000 feet at 45 degree dive results are one of the worst diver this game has. 

Maybe i am doing something wrong? I have tested it with WEP, nominal power and power off, each time fuel load at 500 liters and 45 degree dive angle (+- few degrees). So far i do not see the stellar diving results the literature so much gush about. I reach 12000 feet about same time or slower than in many many other planes. The trend is, the lighter the plane, the better it dives. But how can this be? Obviously i am doing something wrong! 

Help a homie, please! You are, after all one of the greatest testers there is, it is known!  

[ZachariasX]

41 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

The trend is, the lighter the plane, the better it dives. But how can this be? Obviously i am doing something wrong! 

Peter bump!

 

Initially in the dive, power to weight ratio matters. Weight comes into play once you are really fast during the dive. Things are in principle as they should be.

 

The thing is, when talking to pilots who fly the P47, they say on the deck, the P47 (in airshow configuration) tends to outaccellerate the Mustang (equally in airshow configuration). Only at higher speeds, the Mustang shows its true colors and also accellerates much faster than the Spit9 (that in turn is much faster from 0 to 200 mph) at similarish power settings.

 

On the whole, I feel the plane should handle more direct, but the penalty from flying slow should be higher. There should be no „helicoptering“ around, but you go the way of the brick instead if you did try to torque the aircraft. No amount of power can save you past coffin corner.

 

You notice weigh in tight turns as it bleeds your speed. Generally, the higher the weight, the faster you have to fly to not excessively bleed speed in turns. While the Mustang flies happily down to 110 mph IAS (just take care!), in tight turns below 200 mph it will bleed a lot of speed. The Spit, you can almost turn it on the wingtip at 160 mph and you‘ll keep plenty of energy. (Relatively speaking.) In the P47, you don‘t really turn it with more than 4g, otherwise it is like hitting the brakes. Or you are very fast, much faster than the ~250 mph they do at airshows.

[Cpt_Siddy]

Yeah, but you are talking about induced drag, i am talking about the weight to wetted area ratio. 

 

The Jug has much higher weight to wetted area number, thus should ignore drag to its hull and accelerate faster in dive... at least that is the theory behind it as far as i understand. A feather and a pebble of the same weight and all that. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Cpt_Siddy

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:31 PM, Wardog5711 said:

OK, the thread has been passed to engineering and they have it on their radar to be looked at.

But not until spring '23.

I have no interest in sorting through more pages of internet based peter-bumping based on time spent in imaginary cockpits. So it will end here. 

Everybody take a deep breath and go fly something. Preferably something that you like and works the way you want it to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spring 2023 it is .

I don't know what I'm doing wrong but can't escape in level flight  at 22k ft from 109 g14/K4 or A8/D9. I actually should look at speed charts maybe i shouldn't.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

The Jug has much higher weight to wetted area number, thus should ignore drag to its hull and accelerate faster in dive...

This only works when weight becomes your main source of free energy. This is the „second half“ of the dive.

 

My point was that I‘d expect the P47 to be relatively good in the first half of the dive due to its remarkable level flight accelleration, despite being heavy, which is a disadvantage at that stage. Thus, I‘d tend to agree with the notion that the P47 might be modelled somewhat conservatively in that regard.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

You probably are aware that in Greg YT channel he discuss extensively about all aspects of p47. He is doing good job and back up it by reliable data.

 

 

 

[354thFG_Rails]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

This only works when weight becomes your main source of free energy. This is the „second half“ of the dive.

 

My point was that I‘d expect the P47 to be relatively good in the first half of the dive due to its remarkable level flight accelleration, despite being heavy, which is a disadvantage at that stage. Thus, I‘d tend to agree with the notion that the P47 might be modelled somewhat conservatively in that regard.

I feel like this is probably true or that everything else is over performing to where it seems like it’s under performing. I’m still hoping the devs are looking at again and we’ll get an update soon. 

[TacticalOni]

Still watching the changelogs with bated breath. 

It boggles me to go from the P-51, to the P-38 and have them react in a believable manner only for the P-47 to fall so short. With half stick deflection it feels like I'm trying to hang the plane on its prop. 

Hopefully we will see some information soon!