P-47 is poorly represented

[6./ZG26_Custard]

"Those Il2's are extremely difficult to bring down Wilhelm, what on earth can we do?"

 

 

 

[sevenless]

4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

This is pretty much what you said.

 

If this isn’t what you mean the how did you come to the conclusion that the P47 must not have been hard to bring down?

 

Exactly. And this is what you thought I said, which I didn´t:

 

Quote

This is exactly the same thing as saying just because the Il2 lost 100s -1000s of aircraft it means it was easy to bring down as well ,yet plenty of people say how difficult it was to bring down the Il2.

 

[Legioneod]

Just now, sevenless said:

 

Exactly. And this is what you thought I said, which I didn´t:

 

 

So explain to me how you can say the P-47 must not have been hard to kill since it took losses.

 

How is this different from saying the il2 is easy to kill because many were shot down.?

 

How do you come to the conclusion that the P-47 must not have been hard to kill just based off number of losses?

 

I’m honestly trying to understand your logic.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

All Joking aside, the top 5 German aces on the eastern front shot down a combined total of approximately 1500 aircraft. In comparison the top 5 aces in the west accounted for approximately 511 aircraft shot down. The hard graft for the Luftwaffe was done in the east. By late 43 they were more or less always on the back foot in the west. 

 

Edit: I'll go back to my original point of just how much of a difference would a numerical advantage make in inflating the legendary status of an aircraft?  

Edited October 6, 2021 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[sevenless]

Just now, Legioneod said:

I’m honestly trying to understand your logic.

 

If you read the original post I answered to and quoted above, you should be able to easily understand. Read again what Eisenfaustus said, read what I answered and quoted as a source. You might be interested to read the whole book btw. because it includes some interesting insights about the P47 performance by Hub Zemke and how he turned the limitations of the P47 into a tactical advantage for his men.

 

 

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Edit: I'll go back to my original point of just how much of a difference would a numerical advantage make in inflating the legendary status of an aircraft?  

I’d say it depends on when and how that aircraft got most of its victories.

 

Was it only when it had numerical superiority?

Strategic superiority doesn’t necessarily mean numerical superiority in the tactical sense.

 

Just because an aircraft has more numbers in theater over the enemy doesn’t mean that they were numerically superior in Actual battles.

 

Truth is no one can say with certainty in one direction or the other. At the end of the day it’s down to speculation and personal bias.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Truth is no one can say with certainty in one direction or the other. At the end of the day it’s down to speculation and personal bias.

Agreed. 

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

If you read the original post I answered to and quoted above, you should be able to easily understand. Read again what Eisenfaustus said, read what I answered and quoted as a source. You might be interested to read the whole book btw. because it includes some interesting insights about the P47 performance by Hub Zemke and how he turned the limitations of the P47 into a tactical advantage for his men.

 

 

He’s saying that he’s never heard of a German saying it was difficult to bring down a P-47 but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t difficult. Just because it wasn’t talked about doesn’t mean it wasn’t true ( or false for that matter)

 

you posted a link with kill claims of German aces and said they must not have had a problem shooting down P-47. Yet you have nothing to back that claim up.

just because they shot down P-47s doesn’t mean it was a simple matter.

[Bremspropeller]

7 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

March 6th 1944 - target Berlin.  The USAAF put 672 bombers over the target along with 801 escort sorties (all 13 8th AF FGs plus 4 9th AF FGs).  Against this force, the Luftwaffe mounted 463 sorties.  Only 332 of those German sorties were credited as having made contact with the enemy.  If we do some similar math for the American fighters (looking at squadrons that made claims or suffered losses to get an estimate), only about 400 of the US fighters actually encountered the enemy that day.  400:332.

 

So from the Luftwaffe perspective, numbers are about 3+:1 (400+600 : 300, that's 1000 vs 300 give or take). Yes, I have dumbed down the numbers intentionally.

With 60% of the US force being heavy bombers with a dozen heavy MGs pointing in any concievable direction, flying a defensive formation that guaranteed maximal mutual support. The german fighters having enough gas for maybe 1-2 passes into the bomber-stream until their gas gauge says it's time to head home.

 

Of those 300 LW airplanes maybe 10%-20% tops are reserved for high-cover duties, engaging the escorts.

The rest would consist of a mix of regular and Sturmjäger 190s and maybe a couple of Zerstörers in between.

 

The numbers-game easily decieves the deeper story behind it. It also doesn't account for what's going on in the air apart from the strike.

 

8 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

March 23rd 1944 - targets in North Central Germany.  707 Bombers over the target, 841 escort sorties.  327 German fighter sorties, but only 173 made contact.  Again, doing the same math for the US fighters gets us roughly 140 fighters in contact.  140:173

 

707 + 140 vs 173 - with about the same breakdown of forces on the german side.

 

8 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

April 11th 1944 - targets Oschersleben, Rostock, Stettin.  828 Bombers over the target, 819 escort sorties.  428 German sorties, with 310 making contact.  US fighter sorties making contact, roughly 320.  320:310

 

You get the idea...

 

8 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

The 20:1 ratios you see from monthly or quarterly sortie totals don't take that into consideration.  In some cases the US managed almost 2:1, but often it was less than that, and in many cases the Luftwaffe managed local superiority.

 

That's certainly true, but it doesn't really change the big picture, as the Luftwaffe had to assemble a large percentage of their available fighters in theater to counter a bomber-stream that was 100 miles in length. Building focal-points was a neccessity to breach the defensive fire and having enough time to actually shoot down a bomber, before one would be shot to pieces by the gunners.

Also, the Luftwaffe while focussing on a certain part of the bomber-stream had few chances to engage other parts of that stream, where bombers were flying almost unscathed (disregarding flak) and where escorts never saw a german airplane at all, greatly improving their relative safety.

[sevenless]

 

3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

He’s saying that he’s never heard of a German saying it was difficult to bring down a P-47 but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t difficult. Just because it wasn’t talked about doesn’t mean it wasn’t true ( or false for that matter)

 

you posted a link with kill claims of German aces and said they must not have had a problem shooting down P-47. Yet you have nothing to back that claim up.

just because they shot down P-47s doesn’t mean it was a simple matter.

 

You really need to stop interpreting things into words of others. You really seem to have a problem with that.

 

Quote

He’s saying that he’s never heard of a German saying it was difficult to bring down a P-47

 

That is what he said and that is what I answerd to.

 

Quote

but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t difficult. Just because it wasn’t talked about doesn’t mean it wasn’t true ( or false for that matter)

 

That is your interpretation, which neither was said by him, nor was it answerd to by me.

 

Quote

you posted a link with kill claims of German aces and said they must not have had a problem shooting down P-47.

 

Exactly
 

Quote

 

Yet you have nothing to back that claim up.

 

 

If the published source which I provided isn´t sufficient, then so be it...

 

Quote

just because they shot down P-47s doesn’t mean it was a simple matter.

 

Again your Interpretation. I never said that. All that I said was that they obviously had no problem shooting them down.

 

Case closed.

[Legioneod]

12 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

 

You really need to stop interpreting things into words of others. You really seem to have a problem with that.

 

 

That is what he said and that is what I answerd to.

 

 

That is your interpretation, which neither was said by him, nor was it answerd to by me.

 

 

Exactly
 

 

If the published source which I provided isn´t sufficient, then so be it...

 

 

Again your Interpretation. I never said that. All that I said was that they obviously had no problem shooting them down.

 

Case closed.

It’s seems that is what was implied.

Doesnt seem they had problems shooting down il2s either.

 

Either way this discussion is pointless.

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/4/2021 at 2:36 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Will we see the day, when the P-47 can be looked at objectively? It's just another airplane with strengths and weaknesses.

 

Remember when I wrote that and everybody was raising their eyebrow? ?

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Remember when I wrote that and everybody was raising their eyebrow? ?

I don’t really see anyone arguing otherwise.

Objectively it was a decent plane, superior in some ways inferior in others.

[357th_KW]

4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

So from the Luftwaffe perspective, numbers are about 3+:1 (400+600 : 300, that's 1000 vs 300 give or take). Yes, I have dumbed down the numbers intentionally.

With 60% of the US force being heavy bombers with a dozen heavy MGs pointing in any concievable direction, flying a defensive formation that guaranteed maximal mutual support. The german fighters having enough gas for maybe 1-2 passes into the bomber-stream until their gas gauge says it's time to head home.

 

Of those 300 LW airplanes maybe 10%-20% tops are reserved for high-cover duties, engaging the escorts.

The rest would consist of a mix of regular and Sturmjäger 190s and maybe a couple of Zerstörers in between.

 

The numbers-game easily decieves the deeper story behind it. It also doesn't account for what's going on in the air apart from the strike.

 

 

707 + 140 vs 173 - with about the same breakdown of forces on the german side.

 

 

You get the idea...

 

 

That's certainly true, but it doesn't really change the big picture, as the Luftwaffe had to assemble a large percentage of their available fighters in theater to counter a bomber-stream that was 100 miles in length. Building focal-points was a neccessity to breach the defensive fire and having enough time to actually shoot down a bomber, before one would be shot to pieces by the gunners.

Also, the Luftwaffe while focussing on a certain part of the bomber-stream had few chances to engage other parts of that stream, where bombers were flying almost unscathed (disregarding flak) and where escorts never saw a german airplane at all, greatly improving their relative safety.

 

As you point out though, the Luftwaffe wasn’t engaging every bomber on any given sortie.  Generally just a fraction of them would see any interceptors - the side effect of focusing on a few small parts of multiple bomber streams that could stretch 50+ miles.  And of course the bomber gunners are only a threat during your attack, and won’t pursue you afterwards.  
 

The point still stands - US fighters didn’t have the massive numerical superiority that is often claimed in the actual fights that occurred.  They did enjoy strategic advantages from having a larger force, as well as tactical advantages from having better performance than the interceptors they faced (particularly at the altitudes where these battles were fought).  If you compare the US daylight bombing campaign with the Battle of Britain or the RAF daylight attacks on France in 41/42 or the German/Italian effort against Malta, the big differences are that the US bombers posed an existential threat to German war industry while being very difficult targets themselves, the escort fighters had sufficient range from 1944 onwards along with superior performance to the interceptors, and the US recognized that this would be a battle of attrition.  The only other campaign where you see a similar performance advantage for the escorts was over Malta after the arrival of the 109s and before the appearance of the Spitfire, and RAF defenses were quickly ground away to nothing - fortunately for the Allies in that case, the Axis forces didn’t show the necessary level of continued focus to achieve a decisive result.

[Pict]

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Objectively it was a decent plane, superior in some ways inferior in others.

 

That I think is true and applies to eveything in the hangar.

 

I enjoy the P-47 as much as any of the aircraft we have. I don't expect too much from it due to how I perceive it. In this way I'm able to work with it to get the most out of it without any frustration.

 

Some people on the other hand expect a lot from it for some reason, I guess the percive it in a totaly different way to me. Anyhow it matters not what it is, be it a P-47 or a cup of coffee, if you have great expectations of it before you try it then you are more likely to be dissapointed than you are to be pleasantly surprised.

[Billsponge1972]

So...the P47 FM is in need of some alterations?

[sevenless]

8 minutes ago, Billsponge1972 said:

So...the P47 FM is in need of some alterations?

 

There is a good chance some aspects need finetuning. Here:

 

 

[Pict]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

There is a good chance some aspects need finetuning

 

Finetuning sounds about right as the AI said it's close  

[ACG_Cass]

8 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Edit: I'll go back to my original point of just how much of a difference would a numerical advantage make in inflating the legendary status of an aircraft?  

 

Would be very dependant on the situation and if it was the case that the aircraft had only performed well due to a numerical advantage then this would be easy to seen in engagements where that wasn't the case. This isn't true of the P47.

[BCI-Nazgul]

On 10/2/2021 at 10:02 PM, Legioneod said:

Considering that it had one of the most dangerous missions a fighter could have (ground attack) I’m not surprised that many got shot up, but relatively few were ever shot down.

 

P-47s flew over twice as many sorties as the P-51 and lost fewer aircraft. It lost fewer aircraft per sortie than any other American fighter iirc.

It's very resistent to flak sharpnel in DCS.

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

...as well as tactical advantages from having better performance than the interceptors they faced (particularly at the altitudes where these battles were fought)

 

Not actually the case - as any 190 pilot and many Mustang pilots (and have) attested. 

 

Willie Heilmann (190 pilot) starts in his book “I Fought You From the Skies” that they (meaning not just him, but his fellow pilots as well) were not scared a bit by the Mustang.

 

Don Bryan also recounted a tail of a “special” 109 that performed beyond what he was used to and he was lucky to survive the encounter. This “special” 109 was simply a better pilot.

 

Apropos to this thread, the only thing that really scared them according to Heilmann was the P-47, because they would rip through their formations from above with 8 .50 cals blazing away on each aircraft.

 

Incidentally he also stated that British pilots on the whole were more dangerous/respected. This because they had a “bulldogish” nature that made them particularly dangerous.

 

 

 

 

[357th_KW]

31 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Not actually the case - as any 190 pilot and many Mustang pilots (and have) attested. 

 

Willie Heilmann (190 pilot) starts in his book “I Fought You From the Skies” that they (meaning not just him, but his fellow pilots as well) were not scared a bit by the Mustang.

 

Don Bryan also recounted a tail of a “special” 109 that performed beyond what he was used to and he was lucky to survive the encounter. This “special” 109 was simply a better pilot.

 

Apropos to this thread, the only thing that really scared them according to Heilmann was the P-47, because they would rip through their formations from above with 8 .50 cals blazing away on each aircraft.

 

Incidentally he also stated that British pilots on the whole were more dangerous/respected. This because they had a “bulldogish” nature that made them particularly dangerous.

 

 

 

 

Your insinuation here being that the Bf109G-6 and Fw190A weren’t at a significant disadvantage in top speed, ceiling and climb rate at high altitude as compared to the P-47D and P-51B?  Luftwaffe loss rates were in the 20-30% range per sortie in these battles.  Overall pilot casualties for the campaign are stated to be in the 90% range.  
 

With regard to Heilmann, his book is basically fiction in many parts, as discussed by Donald Caldwell in his JG26 war diary.  

[Gambit21]

Above 15k; and especially higher it’s hard to beat a Jug - no doubt.

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

No one is advocating that the P-47 be indestructible but the game situation doesn't add up when one of the most rugged if not the most rugged fighter historically is the mot delicate in the game. It is also under performing in several regards.

 

[Knarley-Bob]

11 minutes ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

No one is advocating that the P-47 be indestructible but the game situation doesn't add up when one of the most rugged if not the most rugged fighter historically is the mot delicate in the game. It is also under performing in several regards.

 

They can't understand you are talking about a specific aircraft, just one.

On that note: You folks have forgotten to factor in the contributions of the P-40, flown by the 'Flying Tigers'. That has nothing to do with this conversation either, but so what? Right??

Edited October 6, 2021 by Knarley-Bob

[Pict]

33 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

You folks

 

Oh no, looks like we're folked 

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

With regard to Heilmann, his book is basically fiction in many parts, as discussed by Donald Caldwell in his JG26 war diary.  

 

Interesting.

Does he refute Heilmann’s assertion that they feared the Jug over the Mustang? As that’s basically all that I used Heilmann as a reference for (as well as the comments on the Brits)

2 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

Your insinuation here being that the Bf109G-6 and Fw190A weren’t at a significant disadvantage in top speed, ceiling and climb rate at high altitude as compared to the P-47D and P-51B?  Luftwaffe loss rates were in the 20-30% range per sortie in these battles.  Overall pilot casualties for the campaign are stated to be in the 90% range.  

 

German aircraft inferiority wasn’t the problem. Even Anderson said that the 190 was the equal of the Mustang. Mustang pilots I’ve interviewed mostly say the same - although they don’t always agree with each other (on a number of things)

 

 

[Knarley-Bob]

Ok, got a question.

I took to the sky on this sim in a P-47. I believe I had 11% fuel load, trimmed as best I could flying as level as I could. I got the plane up to 324 mph and with boost 347mph.

I then put in the 150 av gas and pushed the plane doing the same thing up to 345 mph, and 355mph with boost.

 

According to American Aircraft of WW2 by David Mondey 1982; Top speed of the P-47.....429 mph.

According to US Fighters, by Lloyd Jones, 1975; Top Speed of the P-47.....467 mph

According to America in The Air War WW2, Time Life Books, 1982, The top speed of the P-47....428mph

The model in this sim seems to me to be a tad bit slow. It's cruising speed was at 300 mph, which is about as fast as this sim lets it go. Not to mention where ever else it's being misrepresented.....

Hop in one, see how fast you can get it going, then look up what it's published speed is, then come back and tell us what you find.

My question: Will you take that challenge?

KB

[357th_Dog]

The 467mph figure is more than likely for the P-47M, which used a much more powerful (and less reliable) version of the R2800. 
 

[oc2209]

33 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Ok, got a question.

I took to the sky on this sim in a P-47. I believe I had 11% fuel load, trimmed as best I could flying as level as I could. I got the plane up to 324 mph and with boost 347mph.

I then put in the 150 av gas and pushed the plane doing the same thing up to 345 mph, and 355mph with boost.

 

What was your altitude for all these speed measurements?

 

These sound like close to the deck performance levels.

 

16 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

The 467mph figure is more than likely for the P-47M, which used a much more powerful (and less reliable) version of the R2800. 
 

 

I wouldn't say 'more than likely' but instead 100% likely. There's no way a D could go that fast.

Edited October 6, 2021 by oc2209

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

The 467mph figure is more than likely for the P-47M, which used a much more powerful (and less reliable) version of the R2800. 

 

Could be but I highly doubt the P-47M numbers would be used to describe "the P-47". The M had a more powerful engine (which suffered issues mainly because of improper storage while being transported over the Atlantic which caused corrosion. This was later fixed and the engine worked fine.) and was also lighter than the D series. It was fielded in significant numbers but was relatively an outlier.

 

Wait now I know what you mean. Yes in that instance it may be referencing the M. Would have to see the actual text.

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138

[oc2209]

13 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

So you're still preoccupied with western allied kill-claims.

Do you want the numbers for daytime klims or for the night?

13 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

So now you're putting in the constraint of "fastest". How do you measure that and how do you separate it from the fact that the killing of the Luftwaffe had been an ongoing process for the last 2-3 years? You can't.

22 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Even though the Luftwaffe was doing fine to pretty good in the East, they were having losses nonetheless (and not too few of those either!). I think the idea of "breaking the LW's back" came from the fact that a lof of super-aces came from the East to command units in the West, where they'd quickly be shot down and couldn't be replaced.

 

I didn't reply to this last quote before, but I got to thinking about the absurdity of it today. Which leads me to my next point, and the more recent posts of yours I'm quoting.

 

You're saying that the frequent deaths of Luftwaffe experten in 1944 wouldn't utterly demoralize the rank and file? Pilots who'd gained legendary status and survived hundreds of combats, suddenly dropping off like flies. And why are they suddenly dying off so quickly when they didn't before? I'unno, maybe because there's swarms of American planes flying deeper into German territory each day, while before air combat took place along a defined and often static front (like the Channel front prior to D-Day, and the Eastern front) where even a numerically inferior Luftwaffe could pick where it would engage and how.

 

What the Americans did, was take the initiative completely out of the Luftwaffe's hands. And only long ranged, fast fighters could do this. The British didn't have long range fighters in great numbers, and neither did the Russians.

 

Why do you adamantly refuse to acknowledge this very simple, self-evident fact? And why do you further conflate the acknowledgement of this fact as an automatic insult to the RAF?

 

I don't care why the RAF didn't have or need long range fighters. I don't care what they did in other theaters. All of that is beside the point.

 

This is the scenario: when the Luftwaffe went from losing 1,000 pilots a year from 1940-43 (I'm not saying that's an actual figure, just the roughest guess for the sake of simplicity) prior to the culmination of the American air offensive, to losing 5,000 pilots in 1944 (again, not an actual figure), then yes, I define that as the death of the Luftwaffe. Beyond the actual body count, there is the concomitant loss of aggression--an absolute requisite for success in combat--in the rank and file pilots, which is a direct result of shattered morale above and beyond the lack of experience. This loss of aggression is noted by the Allies against both late war Japanese and German pilots.

 

To summarize with a crude analogy: if a person is slowly bleeding to death from a dozen cuts and stab wounds, but then someone walks up to them and blows out their ribcage with a shotgun; yes, that does count as the deathblow regardless of how close to dying the person was prior.

 

This is really not a complicated argument. At all. You're making it complicated because you're imbuing my statements with emotional entanglements and biases that I do not possess.

 

If my logic is wrong, then it's just that: an impersonal error of calculation. But I have no affinity one way or the other, nor do I desire to slight one group to the benefit of another. That seems to be what you're accusing me of, however, which is why this needless back and forth goes on. That said, I'll say no more on the subject.

[Legioneod]

7 hours ago, Pict said:

 

That I think is true and applies to eveything in the hangar.

 

I enjoy the P-47 as much as any of the aircraft we have. I don't expect too much from it due to how I perceive it. In this way I'm able to work with it to get the most out of it without any frustration.

 

Some people on the other hand expect a lot from it for some reason, I guess the percive it in a totaly different way to me. Anyhow it matters not what it is, be it a P-47 or a cup of coffee, if you have great expectations of it before you try it then you are more likely to be dissapointed than you are to be pleasantly surprised.

 

I have high expectations just because of the research I have done on the P-47. I don't expect it to do good in every situation or be some uber prop, but I do expect it to excel in areas that it historically did. (BnZ and high altitude maneuvers.)

 

Just took the DCS P-47 up the other day and it is a completely different beast compared to Il2. It has power and feels even more powerful than the 150 fuel in Il2, even DCS doesn't model it.

It can hold it's speed/energy and it can dive and zoom far better than Il2 P-47. It can also do instantaneous maneuvers much better and its controls don't feel heavy at all. It actually feels very lightweight. It's elevator authority is much better and it doesn't stiffen up nearly as much as Il2 does. It also doesn't stall nearly as much imo compared to Il2. I know in Il2 I can hardly do any real maneuvers at high alt without going into an accelerated stall.

 

Also I haven't tested it fully but it looks like the DCS P-47 actually gets it's proper power at altitudes which Il2 does not. Il2 power drops too quickly and you end up being 15-20 mph slower than what you should be at certain altitudes.

Overall DCS is a far better representation and more inline with what I expected a P-47 to be.

 

 

1 hour ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Ok, got a question.

I took to the sky on this sim in a P-47. I believe I had 11% fuel load, trimmed as best I could flying as level as I could. I got the plane up to 324 mph and with boost 347mph.

I then put in the 150 av gas and pushed the plane doing the same thing up to 345 mph, and 355mph with boost.

 

According to American Aircraft of WW2 by David Mondey 1982; Top speed of the P-47.....429 mph.

According to US Fighters, by Lloyd Jones, 1975; Top Speed of the P-47.....467 mph

According to America in The Air War WW2, Time Life Books, 1982, The top speed of the P-47....428mph

The model in this sim seems to me to be a tad bit slow. It's cruising speed was at 300 mph, which is about as fast as this sim lets it go. Not to mention where ever else it's being misrepresented.....

Hop in one, see how fast you can get it going, then look up what it's published speed is, then come back and tell us what you find.

My question: Will you take that challenge?

KB

Was this IAS or did you convert it to TAS? Fastest I've ever gone in game was in a D-22 at around 21-22k ft. Reached about 450mph give or take.

Also what altitude? That's very important. The speed you got are accurate when on the deck but you should be faster higher up.

That 467 figure is likely a P-47N, it had a different engine and turbosupercharger than the D and could therefore achieve better speed and power higher up.

The P-47M had the same engine/turbo as the N and could achieve 473mph.

 

The P-47M/N roughly(not exact) produced the same amount of power as the P-47D models (2800HP), the main difference was that they had better turbos than the D and ran at a higher rpm and manifold (2800 vs 2700 and 72" vs 64-70")

The better Turbo allowed them to maintain higher power at higher altitude than the D so they could go faster overall but mostly up high.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[Knarley-Bob]

6 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I have high expectations just because of the research I have done on the P-47. I don't expect it to do good in every situation or be some uber prop, but I do expect it to excel in areas that it historically did. (BnZ and high altitude maneuvers.)

 

Just took the DCS P-47 up the other day and it is a completely different beast compared to Il2. It has power and feels even more powerful than the 150 fuel in Il2, even DCS doesn't model it.

It can hold it's speed/energy and it can dive and zoom far better than Il2 P-47. It can also do instantaneous maneuvers much better and its controls don't feel heavy at all. It actually feels very lightweight. It's elevator authority is much better and it doesn't stiffen up nearly as much as Il2 does. It also doesn't stall nearly as much imo compared to Il2. I know in Il2 I can hardly do any real maneuvers at high alt without going into an accelerated stall.

 

Also I haven't tested it fully but it looks like the DCS P-47 actually gets it's proper power at altitudes which Il2 does not. Il2 power drops too quickly and you end up being 15-20 mph slower than what you should be at certain altitudes.

Overall DCS is a far better representation and more inline with what I expected a P-47 to be.

 

 

Was this IAS or did you convert it to TAS? Fastest I've ever gone in game was in a D-22 at around 21-22k ft. Reached about 450mph give or take.

Also what altitude? That's very important. The speed you got are accurate when on the deck but you should be faster higher up.

That 467 figure is likely a P-47N, it had a different engine and turbosupercharger than the D and could therefore achieve better speed and power higher up.

The P-47M had the same engine/turbo as the N and could achieve 473mph.

 

The P-47M/N roughly(not exact) produced the same amount of power as the P-47D models (2800HP), the main difference was that they had better turbos than the D and ran at a higher rpm and manifold (2800 vs 2700 and 72" vs 64-70")

The better Turbo allowed them to maintain higher power at higher altitude than the D so they could go faster overall but mostly up high.

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

That engine and power are for earlier P-47D. The P-47Ds we have in game use a R2800-59 engine with water injection for power up to 2600HP (no 150 fuel) and 2800HP (with 150)

[MiloMorai]

14 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Actual recorded numbers from testing WWII Aircraft Performance (spitfireperformance.com)

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

16 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

 

Well looks like it's 60kmh too fast on the deck. Can't believe the devs got it that wrong...

If you follow the same conditions you get close to the reference below critical altitude, the extra speed comes from not taking wing racks,  reducing RPM, going full rich mixture and overboosting to 72"


 

Edited October 6, 2021 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Knarley-Bob]

55 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I have high expectations just because of the research I have done on the P-47. I don't expect it to do good in every situation or be some uber prop, but I do expect it to excel in areas that it historically did. (BnZ and high altitude maneuvers.)

 

Just took the DCS P-47 up the other day and it is a completely different beast compared to Il2. It has power and feels even more powerful than the 150 fuel in Il2, even DCS doesn't model it.

It can hold it's speed/energy and it can dive and zoom far better than Il2 P-47. It can also do instantaneous maneuvers much better and its controls don't feel heavy at all. It actually feels very lightweight. It's elevator authority is much better and it doesn't stiffen up nearly as much as Il2 does. It also doesn't stall nearly as much imo compared to Il2. I know in Il2 I can hardly do any real maneuvers at high alt without going into an accelerated stall.

 

Also I haven't tested it fully but it looks like the DCS P-47 actually gets it's proper power at altitudes which Il2 does not. Il2 power drops too quickly and you end up being 15-20 mph slower than what you should be at certain altitudes.

Overall DCS is a far better representation and more inline with what I expected a P-47 to be.

 

 

 

Maybe a guy should start spending money there?

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Maybe a guy should start spending money there?

DCS P-47 is well worth it imo. To me it represents a P-47 better than Il2 does. It has so much character and the sound effects are so good, you can hear the creaks and groans and shudders of the aircraft as you put it through maneuvers. It feels like it has so much power even down low and it really seems to just jump to life the higher you go and the more power you give it. I haven't flown the DCS P-47 much so take what I say with a grain of salt, your experience may differ.

 

I'm not trying to bash Il2 in any way, I still prefer it to DCS and I'm not trying to steer customers away from Il2. Imo Il2 is still the better product overall. But when it comes to the P-47 DCS is the clear winner by a very large margin imo.

You won't regret it if you get the DCS P-47 imo.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Legioneod

[357th_KW]

5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Interesting.

Does he refute Heilmann’s assertion that they feared the Jug over the Mustang? As that’s basically all that I used Heilmann as a reference for (as well as the comments on the Brits)

 

German aircraft inferiority wasn’t the problem. Even Anderson said that the 190 was the equal of the Mustang. Mustang pilots I’ve interviewed mostly say the same - although they don’t always agree with each other (on a number of things)

 

 

It’s ironic you bring up the idea of German pilots having no fear of American fighters, given that someone in the Luftwaffe command coined a term for the exact opposite - Jaegerschreck or “fear of fighters”.

 

From Caldwell’s JG26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe (the same account is also in his JG26 War Diary Vol 2) describing action on April 23rd 1944 :

 

 “Three staffeln of II/JG26 took to the air, under the command of the 7th Staffel’s Oblt. Waldi Radener, and joined two Staffeln of JG2 in an attack on the outbound bomber stream.  The Allied radio intercept service observed that Waldi’s transmissions to his men were filled with cautious instructions to “close up” and “look out.”  Noticeably absent were the Abbeville Kids’ usual shouts of “Sieg Heil!” and “Horrido!”  No second gruppe aircraft was lost in this encounter, but only one pilot, Radener himself, filed a victory claim, and it was rejected.  Late in the afternoon a small second gruppe formation was vectored towards the bombers’ return route, but the German pilots’ radio transmissions indicated that they were more interested in avoiding the escort fighters than in locating the bombers.  No contact was made with the American formations.  The lack of aggressiveness shown by the once-fearsome Kanalgeschwader was duly noted in the Eighth Air Force after-mission report.

The German fighter pilots’ failures were equally apparent in Berlin.  Someone in the RLM coined the word “Jaegerschreck,” meaning fear of fighters, to describe the pilots’ excessive caution.  Hermann Goering used the term to excoriate the Jagdwaffe in several speeches; the caustically outspoken Adolf Galland was known to use it himself.”

 

Josef Schmid wrote a history of the campaign “The GAF vs. the Allies in the West 1943-45” that used the term - “Inexperienced pilots suffered Jaegerschreck [fear of fighters] ….”

 

It was understood even at the highest levels of command that German fighters couldn’t match the performance of their American opponents.  Here it is spoken by Adolf Galland at the April 25th fighter conference:

 

 “The problem with which the Americans have confronted the fighter arm - and I am intentionally dealing only with the question of day fighters at this point - is quite simply the problem of air superiority.  The situation is already beginning to be characterized by enemy air supremacy …. The enemy’s standard of training is astonishingly high.  The technical capabilities of his aircraft are so manifest that we are obliged to say that something must be done immediately … In the last four months our day-fighter force has lost well over 1,000 pilots, including many of our best Geschwader, Gruppe and Staffel commanders …. the technical performance of aircraft must be improved.  I wish to emphasize that the improved performance which we require can be provided immediately by the AS engine or later by the jet engine … In each of the last ten daylight attacks we have lost on average over 50 aircraft and 40 pilots, that is 500 aircraft and 400 pilots in ten major operations.  In view of the present state of training and the rate of these losses, formations cannot be supplied with fresh pilots.  This is simply not possible.  Replacements can be found in a purely numerical sense, but this will not give us organized formations.  I again request that while the efforts to provide the required number of aircraft are extremely welcome, it must be made absolutely clear that performance is at least of equal importance.  Even if their number is limited, we need high-performance aircraft to restore the feeling of superiority in the Luftwaffe.”