P-47 is poorly represented

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

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”.

 

Well...that settles it!

If they had a term for it, then it's impossible that a pilot, or group of pilots felt differently.

It's funny that you somehow think that you (or Caldwell) have somehow refuted Heilmann's assertion that they were not scared of Mustangs, but rather Jugs. Seems to me you're just kicking and scratching to be seen as 'right'

 

There's a term called "acrophobia", that must mean that there's no such thing as rock climbers or sky divers.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

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.”

 

Again...you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of.

"A guy wrote something, so it's true" 

So once again, a narrow snapshot of German behavior/performance means it's true every time - not the case.

 

 

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

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] ….”

 

Inexperience pilots were afraid...wow...who knew?

You've got me...no place I can go from there.

 

 

 

Again...you're painting the entire Luftwaffe with an observation about 'some' pilots - silly.

 

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

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:

 

...and yet given a good enough pilot, German fighters often matched the performance of their American opponents...interesting eh?

Although all of the 352nd pilots I interviewed are passed away...Bud Anderson is still around...he's 99.

Maybe you can call him and tell him he's wrong. I have an email from him from years ago that refutes what you say.

 

 

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

 “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.”

 

 

 

Again...what exactly are you trying to prove here? A German guy on the front is stressed, he's losing inexperienced pilots by the score and wants better aircraft.

Well once again...you've got me. Case closed. 

 

 

You're trying to take a complex, rather fluid issue and make it binary...it's not, whatever your little quote says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Gambit21

[357th_KW]

12 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Again...what exactly are you trying to prove here? A German guy on the front is stressed, he's losing inexperienced pilots by the score and wants better aircraft.

Well once again...you've got me. Case closed. 

 

 

You're trying to take a complex, rather fluid issue and make it binary...it's not, whatever your little quote says.

Adolf Galland was the inspector of day fighters in 1944, a man who was in constant contact with all the fighter units and represented them within the RLM.  Not some guy on the front.  
 

What am I trying to prove here? I posted that the US fighters enjoyed “tactical advantages from having better performance than the interceptors they faced (particularly at the altitudes where these battles were fought)”, which you replied was “Not actually the case.”  Anyone who can read a performance chart can see that both the primary US fighters enjoyed a massive advantage in high altitude performance vis-a-vis their common opponents in 1944 over Western Europe.  You then replied with some anecdotes that the German fighters were at least as good as the Allies, and German pilots had no fear of them.  My last post demonstrated what a load of bollocks that is.  There’s nothing complex or subjective about a near 50mph speed advantage at the altitude where you are fighting.  That’s the kind of decisive edge that means you’re almost always going to be the ones doing the bouncing, rather than getting bounced - aka a tactical advantage.  Does that mean every fight occurred the same way or had the same outcome? Of course not, and as I said originally, the US enjoyed a number of strategic advantages as well.  But in terms of the actual battles, the P-47 acquitted itself quite well, in part due to it’s performance and not simply due to overwhelming numbers as some asserted earlier.

[Gambit21]

42 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

Adolf Galland was the inspector of day fighters in 1944, a man who was in constant contact with all the fighter units and represented them within the RLM.  Not some guy on the front.  

 

I'm aware of who Galland was thanks.

 

 

42 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

 

 

What am I trying to prove here? I posted that the US fighters enjoyed “tactical advantages from having better performance than the interceptors they faced (particularly at the altitudes where these battles were fought)”, which you replied was “Not actually the case.”  Anyone who can read a performance chart

 

Well...if you have chart...that's that. My stupid pilot accounts can’t stand up to that - you win. You should go in a speaking tour with your chart and Caldwell's book.

Also, I'm not having trouble tracking what I said and what you said...are you? See below.

 

42 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

can see that both the primary US fighters enjoyed a massive advantage in high altitude performance vis-a-vis their common opponents in 1944 over Western Europe.  You then replied with some anecdotes that the German fighters were at least as good as the Allies, and German pilots had no fear of them.

 

Wow

I said Heilmann, and his mates or some of them had no fear of Mustangs. I never said anything about the entire Luftwaffe. You’ve changed it in your head so that you can be ‘right’

You should look up the term "strawman"

 

 

You have yet to provide an actual proof that he didn't feel that way...by the way.

 

 

42 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

 My last post demonstrated what a load of bollocks that is.  There’s nothing complex or subjective about a near 50mph speed advantage at the altitude where you are fighting.  That’s the kind of decisive edge that means you’re almost always going to be the ones doing the bouncing, rather than getting bounced - aka a tactical advantage.  Does that mean every fight occurred the same way or had the same outcome? Of course not, and as I said originally, the US enjoyed a number of strategic advantages as well.  But in terms of the actual battles, the P-47 acquitted itself quite well, in part due to it’s performance and not simply due to overwhelming numbers as some asserted earlier.

 

I've already said that it was hard to beat a Jug up there. Remember?

God forbid though that a German pilot say that he was more afraid of them than a Mustang...noooo, that get's paragraphs of attempted refutal.

 

ciao

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Gambit21

[Gambit21]

That’s what thought.

 

When you find the info proving that Heilmann and his guys were lying about the Mustang and Jug, let us know.

[ACG_Cass]

12 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

16 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)

Expand  

 

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.

Where exactly in this post have you used language that limits your statements to just Heilmann and a few of his mates?

 

If you're going to say something like this and not mean is an all encompassing statement, then I'd recommend wording it in such a way.

 

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

 

You can't walk back statements like that now. There will always be generalistic view points and individual experiences in cases like this. You can't apply the same paint brush to everyone but neither can you take a single account and say that it refutes a generalistic opinion.

 

Would we ignore the 6th Armies diary from Stalingrad saying morale was low and point to someones memoirs where they said they were all chipper and happy?

 

Galland didn't get up and say that because he felt like it. He has a holistic view of everything that was happening across the Luftwaffe during that period and a war diary from the time is a much more reliable source than someone's memoirs. There are also a huge amount of memoirs from German pilots that state their fear of the US pilots and planes, which again, can't be taken in silo as evidence.

 

 

[Pict]

10 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Just took the DCS P-47 up the other day and it is a completely different beast compared to Il2

 

No small part of the reason behind that is that -DCS is a completely different beast compared to Il2- and it should also be noted that they are different blocks, one is a -30 while the other is a -28.

 

I also think that this is like walking into say a Nike store and comparing thier interpretation of a soccer boot with the one you have from Addidas...sort of and I'm not sure what sort of outcome you might expect from that approach in "complains" thread here on the IL2 boards.

 

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

 

That said, over the years manys a flight sim has offered a representation of the P-47 and they were all different, as should be expected as they are after all attempts to simuate the real thing. It's getting easier and easier to forget this simple aspect as the technology gets better and better. I remeber being delighted by MS CFS when it first came out in 1998, but I was under no illusion that it was anything close to the real thing. These days however it's getting so immersive that it's easy to forget that it's just a sim on a PC. And that's a real tribute to the people here at IL2 and their counterparts at DCS.

 

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

 

So it all comes down to preception unless we can have hard numbers to apply. The hard number many selling any product look at first is the bottom line and I'm immpressed by the way the team here are not swayed readily by peoples perception in order to take their money, long may that contiue.

 

One of my perceptions is that the people selling the P-47 had a real challenge on their hands when the Merlin engined P-51's appeared and that much of the reputation of the P-47 was taken from pure propaganda.

 

My other take on it is, that it is what it was, a 1930's designed high altitude interceptor, persuite no less, as in P- for persuite aircraft that fought in a 1940's war where the technology overtook it rapidly.

 

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

 

I still enjoy flying it, even if the flight model and damage model isn't spot on. As if it's not I have every confidence that they will iron it out and at that point somthing I'm already happy with will simply get better. Win - win.

[Bremspropeller]

5 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

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”.

 

Alfred Grislawski wasn't afraid of the allied fighters either. He thought he was always in control of any engagement. It all boils down to personality and the style of fighting.

And luck - first and foremost.

 

5 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

“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!”

 

Radio-transmissions are different to bouncing an opposing force of maybe 40 aircraft, when engaging a large bomber formation. That's quite an insight.

 

There's an underlying psychological aspect of attacking a bomber stream that keeps on coming every day and that keeps on growing in strength.

Hans Phillipp wrote about it:

 

Quote

Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down, or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But to curve in towards 40 Fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes. And when you yourself have reached this state of mind, it becomes that much more difficult to have to drive every pilot of the Geschwader, right down to the youngest and lowliest NCO, to do the same.^[45]

Hans Philipp in a letter to Hannes Trautloft,

4 October 1943

 

That's what he wrote before he was killed, four days later.

 

There was a condition that set itself in place after being on duty for several nonths/ years without much of a rest or vacation/ rotation to a rearward unit. It was called "abgeflogen" - it can't be translated literally, but it's a manifestation of being worn out mentally. Lack of concentration, absentness of mind and increased likelyhood of making mistakes. Both tactically but also during normal operations.

 

 

5 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

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.

 

Which is the prudent thing to do. Getting slaughtered by the escorts in turn would achieve which goal in contrast?

It's the exact opposite to brainfarts the RLM and Göring were issuing, like:

 

Quote

1. There are no meteorological conditions which would prevent fighters from taking off and engaging in combat.
2. Every fighter pilot returning in a machine not showing any sign of combat, or without having recorded a victory will be prosecuted by a court-martial.
3. In the case of where a pilot uses up his ammunition, or if his weapons are unusable, he should ram the enemy bomber.

 

5 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

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] ….”

 

I wouldn't rate his opinion too highly. After all, he was a buddy of Göring and likely to seek for scapegoats. Also, he's described as a "dangerous imbecile" in some memoir.

 

======

 

18 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

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.

 

That's true, but what needs to be considered is the following:

 

Under normal, clear conditions, you can see an airliner-sized target at about 40NM with good eyesight. It's just a pinprick in front of a contrail, but it's there.

Imagine 700+ bombers (all contrailing) coming your way and then on top (literally) hundreds of escort fighters.

What impression is that going to make on you?

 

18 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

The point still stands - US fighters didn’t have the massive numerical superiority that is often claimed in the actual fights that occurred.

 

This is a pure "on paper" consideration.

As I have pointed out earlier, the "german fighters" consist to 80-90% of bomber interceptors, that don't bother looking for other fighters, but who are setting up their run on the bombers. They're not supposed to tackle the escorts, nor are they seeking a fight with them.

 

There's only a fraction of german fighters actually seeking out the escorts and climbing the additional altitude to try and fight on even terms.

Those are the fighter-ratios that need ot be taken into account. Not the countless "fighters" flying in tight formations to head-butt the bombers, the Zerstörer or the Sturmböcke.

 

 

 

 

[Legioneod]

3 hours ago, Pict said:

 

No small part of the reason behind that is that -DCS is a completely different beast compared to Il2- and it should also be noted that they are different blocks, one is a -30 while the other is a -28.

 

I also think that this is like walking into say a Nike store and comparing thier interpretation of a soccer boot with the one you have from Addidas...sort of and I'm not sure what sort of outcome you might expect from that approach in "complains" thread here on the IL2 boards.

 

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

 

That said, over the years manys a flight sim has offered a representation of the P-47 and they were all different, as should be expected as they are after all attempts to simuate the real thing. It's getting easier and easier to forget this simple aspect as the technology gets better and better. I remeber being delighted by MS CFS when it first came out in 1998, but I was under no illusion that it was anything close to the real thing. These days however it's getting so immersive that it's easy to forget that it's just a sim on a PC. And that's a real tribute to the people here at IL2 and their counterparts at DCS.

 

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

 

If two products claim to represent the same aircraft accurately then there should not be such a drastic difference in how they perform. 

For all intents and purposes the D-28 and D-30 are identical aircraft.

 

Same Engine

Same Turbo

Same Power limits

Same aerodynamic/fuselage/wing profile

Only major change of the D-30 was the addition of dive brakes.

Performance wise the D-28 and D-30 were identical.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Pict said:

So it all comes down to preception unless we can have hard numbers to apply. The hard number many selling any product look at first is the bottom line and I'm immpressed by the way the team here are not swayed readily by peoples perception in order to take their money, long may that contiue.

 

I've already posted data showing the Il2 P-47 has errors in it's power vs altitude. Critical Altitude is too low for various power settings. Others have posted data suggesting errors in other areas of the FM. I'm not just going off of my own perception or bias, there are legitimate errors with Il2 P-47.

 

3 hours ago, Pict said:

One of my perceptions is that the people selling the P-47 had a real challenge on their hands when the Merlin engined P-51's appeared and that much of the reputation of the P-47 was taken from pure propaganda.

 

False. P-47 was more expensive and had less range(at the time) compared to the P-51s, that was the main reason they were mostly pulled from escort duty in Europe. In the Pacific they escorted bombers to the end of the war. Them being inferior or superior in combat performance has nothing to do with the change in their main role in Europe.

 

3 hours ago, Pict said:

My other take on it is, that it is what it was, a 1930's designed high altitude interceptor, persuite no less, as in P- for persuite aircraft that fought in a 1940's war where the technology overtook it rapidly.

 

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

 

I still enjoy flying it, even if the flight model and damage model isn't spot on. As if it's not I have every confidence that they will iron it out and at that point somthing I'm already happy with will simply get better. Win - win.

 

P-47 and P-51 design are nearly the same age. P-51 actually flew first with the P-47 making its first flight in 1941. Technology wise the P-47 was in no way inferior to the P-51.  

[Pict]

IL2 BOX & DCS are fundemanetaly different softwares and way they go about representing flight & damage models is therefore not the same. Taking that into account, it's unreasonable to expect the same results.

 

Your argument here would be different if it was about two similar aircraft represented in the same sim. Say the P-47D-22 and the P-47D-28 in IL2 BOX. That way any comparison would have a solid background as a bench mark in the same way comparing two real aircraft in the real world would be. Otherwise you have too many variables.

 

This is one reason why I don't think it's a good way to go with this debate. There's more, but I'm just not going any further down that road.

 

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

 

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

False.

 

 

 

Dear, dear...it's just my perception and as it's me who's telling you and I'm not just the best, but the only qualified person to know what I perceive, so it could only be false if I lied to you and I'm not doing that.

 

From what I understand, in 1945 a P-47 cost over 1.6 times the value of a P-51 and as we know it hadn't got the same range. So the buyer could equipe 3 squadrons with P-51's (plus a fair few spare aircraft) and have them escort bombers over Berlin, for the same cost of equiping just 2 squadrons with P-47's that would never see Berlin.

 

That's a hard sell if ever there was one, but they made the the sales as P-47 & P-51 production was almost equal. All documented facts.

 

My preception of how they then justified those sales by over-blowing the "other" abilities of the P-47 is open to debate. But for me they had to justify it one way or another and the people they needed to justify it to were the public and back then at any rate, the way they manipulated public opinion was with advertising and propaganda.

 

I may well be wrong, but for me there needs to be an explination why some people rate the P-47 so highly, when others just don't. We had them in the RAF and the Soviets had them too, but I don't remember them getting any special mention in the UK nor any that I'm aware of from the Soviets. We had the P-51 obviously and they had the P-39, both of which got and still get high praise in the relveant medias. So the hype for the P-47 was in the US, not over here.

 

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I've already posted data showing the Il2 P-47 has errors in it's power vs altitude. Critical Altitude is too low for various power settings. Others have posted data suggesting errors in other areas of the FM. I'm not just going off of my own perception or bias, there are legitimate errors with Il2 P-47.

 

And the devloper has done what with this watertight case that you have already provided them?

 

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

P-47 and P-51 design are nearly the same age. P-51 actually flew first with the P-47 making its first flight in 1941. Technology wise the P-47 was in no way inferior to the P-51. 

 

P-47 was a 1940 re-design of the P-35, which was a 1935 design. The wing and tail design was virtualy unchanged.

 

The P-51 was designed and developed with the input from the British Air Ministry (the client) who shared all their data gleened from the world most intense air battles of the day and included a Bf-109E caputred by the French during the Battle of France. It was modern right out of box and had a modern wing design massively different from that of the P-35 / P-47. One of the benifits that wing gave the P-51 was massive range.

 

I reckon there was a massive difference between the two designs and the inferiority of the P-47's older wing design was a large part of it.

 

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

 

Good luck with getting it changed...if it really needs it.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Pict

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Pict said:

 

I may well be wrong, but for me there needs to be an explination why some people rate the P-47 so highly...So the hype for the P-47 was in the US, not over here.

 

Exactly how many British P-47’s participated in the Normandy breakout, the Falaise Gap, the Battle of the Hurtgen etc?

 

Zero

 

As far as it’s operation in the Pacific - not even a remotely close comparison. Aside from that, you mean British media focuses on the Spit and other British designs and downplays the Jug?

 

Shocker

 

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

7 hours ago, Pict said:

My other take on it is, that it is what it was, a 1930's designed high altitude interceptor, persuite no less, as in P- for persuite aircraft that fought in a 1940's war where the technology overtook it rapidly.

 

 

Might want to do a re-take.  It was a second gen improvement on a cutting edge late 30's design, the P-43 Lancer.  Show us another radial engine class that's superior with a similar supercharger set up, you can't, it didn't exist.  And still doesn't.

[Pict]

15 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Aside from that, you mean British media focuses on the Spit and other British designs and downplays the Jug?

 

No I didn't say that, nor did I mean that. I've never seen the British, nor the Soviet media downplay the P-47. Nor do I downplay the P-47. They just didn't jazz it up like they did for the P-51 or P-39 respectively and they did regardless of them not being home brewed aircraft.

 

The Spitfire is another thing altogether and the British, I won't say media, I'll go for the jugular and call it what it is, propaganda, never shut up about the Spitfire. Which I always, that is when I was old enought to for some kind of balanced opinion of my own, found that to be wrong and largely unwarrented.

 

They hardly ever spoke of the Tempest for example and put the Hurricane squarely in the shadow of the Spitfire with regards to a time (BoB) that it deserver at least equal credit.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Pict

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Just some numbers to pop into the mix.

 

 

 

 

I couldn't find the numbers for  P-47 v Fw 190 

[Gambit21]

5 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

No I didn't say that, nor did I mean that. I've never seen the British, nor the Soviet media downplay the P-47. Nor do I downplay the P-47. They just didn't jazz it up like they did for the P-51 or P-39 respectively and they did regardless of them not being home brewed aircraft.

 

The Spitfire is another thing altogether and the British, I won't say media, I'll go for the jugular and call it what it is, propaganda, never shut up about the Spitfire. Which I always, that is when I was old enought to for some kind of balanced opinion of my own, found that to be wrong and largely unwarrented.

 

They hardly ever spoke of the Tempest for example and put the Hurricane squarely in the shadow of the Spitfire with regards to a time (BoB) that it deserver at least equal credit.

 

I see - thanks for the clarification.

[Pict]

16 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Might want to do a re-take.  It was a second gen improvement on a cutting edge late 30's design, the P-43 Lancer.  Show us another radial engine class that's superior with a similar supercharger set up, you can't, it didn't exist.  And still doesn't.

 

Yeah, yeah, while I'm open to new ideas I'm not intending any retake on what I said. The P-43 was developed from the P-35, so the P-43 was just a stepping stone in the development of the P-47 from the P-35. The engine matters not to me, my point was about the wing design and it was the wing design that was the fundemental difference between the P-47 & P-51.

 

Have a read of this if you want to understand my point better than I could explain it.

 

http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/lam-flow.htm

 

"The North American P-51 Mustang was the first aircraft intentionally designed to use laminar flow airfoils."

 

This makes the P-51 wing design radically different to the P-35 /  P-43 / P-47 wing design. There you go, I added the Lancer just for you

Edited October 7, 2021 by Pict

[BCI-Nazgul]

I don't think there can be much debate about the P-51 being a better escort fighter than the P-47.  Just the fuel comparative fuel consumption makes it worth looking at the 51 to replace the P-47.   I don't have the numbers, but I bet even if the 47 could be outfitted with enough tanks to reach Berlin it would take 3x the fuel of a P-51 on the same mission.   Also, everything I've read from pilot accounts say the P-51 was a better fighter at really high altitudes (like over 25K.)   That still doesn't mean that the 47 in IL2 is properly configured.  I hope the research that many of you have done will convince 1C to make some changes.   I was going to point out the difference between the -30 and -28 47 is minor, but someone already did that.

Edited October 7, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

[Gambit21]

11 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

I don't think there can be much debate about the P-51 being a better escort fighter than the P-47.  Just the fuel comparative fuel consumption makes it worth looking at the 51 to replace the P-47.   I don't have the numbers, but I bet even if the 47 could be outfitted with enough tanks to reach Berlin it would take 3x the fuel of a P-51 on the same mission.   Also, everything I've read from pilot accounts say the P-51 was a better fighter at really high altitudes (like over 25K.)   That still doesn't mean that the 47 in IL2 is properly configured.  I hope the research that many of you have done will convince 1C to make some changes.   I was going to point out the difference between the -30 and -28 47 is minor, but someone already did that.

 

The P-47’s only issue was range - other than that the pilots loved their Jugs. When it came time to start pounding France in preparation for D-day, the 352nd/P-51B pilots wanted their Jugs back - I heard this from Bob Powell, Don McKibben as well as Don Bryan. 

 

Further, going back to escort. The primary tactic was a head-on engagement with the Germans. 8x.50 cal is huge. That said, Powell said they always felt like they had the advantage even with 6. 

 

Were it not for range, the Jug would have been just fine to the end up there.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

I don't think there can be much debate about the P-51 being a better escort fighter than the P-47.  Just the fuel comparative fuel consumption makes it worth looking at the 51 to replace the P-47.   I don't have the numbers, but I bet even if the 47 could be outfitted with enough tanks to reach Berlin it would take 3x the fuel of a P-51 on the same mission.   Also, everything I've read from pilot accounts say the P-51 was a better fighter at really high altitudes (like over 25K.)   That still doesn't mean that the 47 in IL2 is properly configured.  I hope the research that many of you have done will convince 1C to make some changes.   I was going to point out the difference between the -30 and -28 47 is minor, but someone already did that.

I can't remember what it was but the did a comparison of the various US fighters after or during the war. The thought that the P-51 was the best all round fighter up to 25kft and above that the P-47 was deemed superior.

[BCI-Nazgul]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

The P-47’s only issue was range - other than that the pilots loved their Jugs. When it came time to start pounding France in preparation for D-day, the 352nd/P-51B pilots wanted their Jugs back - I heard this from Bob Powell, Don McKibben as well as Don Bryan. 

 

Further, going back to escort. The primary tactic was a head-on engagement with the Germans. 8x.50 cal is huge. That said, Powell said they always felt like they had the advantage even with 6. 

 

Were it not for range, the Jug would have been just fine to the end up there.

I remember an interview with Tuskegee a 47 pilot and he said (roughly), "We could go to 25,000 feet on escort duty, but the 51's would be up at 33,000 feet sometimes, so they had a big advantage.  We really loved our Mustangs when we got them."

 

Here is another couple:  https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/tuskegee-memories-19921119/

 

https://classicfighters.org/world-altitude-record/

 

So, maybe some pilots only wanted a 47, others thought the Mustang was better. 

 

From my own perspective when I want to get kills and live in IL2 I use the Mustang.  It's much less challenging job than doing the same in the 47.   But I enjoy flying the 47 more.

Edited October 7, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

[Gambit21]

53 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

I remember an interview with Tuskegee a 47 pilot and he said (roughly), "We could go to 25,000 feet on escort duty, but the 51's would be up at 33,000 feet sometimes, so they had a big advantage.  We really loved our Mustangs when we got them."

 

Here is another couple:  https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/tuskegee-memories-19921119/

 

https://classicfighters.org/world-altitude-record/

 

So, maybe some pilots only wanted a 47, others thought the Mustang was better. 

 

From my own perspective when I want to get kills and live in IL2 I use the Mustang.  It's much less challenging job than doing the same in the 47.   But I enjoy flying the 47 more.

 

Absoltely - those “I want my Jug back” thoughts/comments were strictly when they had to execute ground attack missions pre D-day from what I was told.

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Were it not for range, the Jug would have been just fine to the end up there.

 

I´m not so sure that Don Blakeslee felt the same. AFAIK he didn´t like the P47 very much. 

 

Big Week: The Biggest Air Battle of World War Two - James Holland - Google Books

 

 

Anyways that doesn´t matter. If there is hard evidence that technically the P47s in the game need finetuning then so be it if the Devs can be convinced by evidence.

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

Lol "hard evidence" in this forum is such a paradox.

[Gambit21]

34 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I´m not so sure that Don Blakeslee felt the same. AFAIK he didn´t like the P47 very much. 

 

Big Week: The Biggest Air Battle of World War Two - James Holland - Google Books

 

 

Anyways that doesn´t matter. If there is hard evidence that technically the P47s in the game need finetuning then so be it if the Devs can be convinced by evidence.

 

I just said they would have served well (if range wasn’t the issue) 

 

Ground attack preference was a different matter.

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

I´m not so sure that Don Blakeslee felt the same. AFAIK he didn´t like the P47 very much. 

 

Big Week: The Biggest Air Battle of World War Two - James Holland - Google Books

 

 

Anyways that doesn´t matter. If there is hard evidence that technically the P47s in the game need finetuning then so be it if the Devs can be convinced by evidence.

Iirc correctly he made that before the P-47 had the paddle blade and increased performance. Then again the 4th FG hated the P-47 overall, they were too used to flying things like the spitfire I guess.

56th FG loved the P-47 imo they were the best P-47 pilots in the war, I don't think anyone knew the P-47 better than the 56th. I guess it really just depends on what you're used too. 56th flew the P-47 throughout the entire war, they never flew anything else in combat.

[sevenless]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Iirc correctly he made that before the P-47 had the paddle blade and increased performance.

 

Yep, IIRC shortly after 4th FG switched from Spitfires to Thunderbolts around 03/43. He relates to the P47C. However, the P47 including the D never grew on him and if I´m not mistaken he was one of the driving forces (besides Doolittle) for getting the P51s from IX to VIII AF for escort duties beginning 11/43 with 354th FG and later 01/44 with 4th FG.

[HR_Zunzun]

Blakeslee never liked the p-47s. He was quite pleased to get the mustangs.

All considering, the mustang was better adapted for the escort job: Better range, Almost same performance up high and cheaper. That doesn't mean that the p-47 wasn't suitable for the job. It have the perfomance and the range problem was fixable (and was fixed) but not at the time when it was needed. Add to this that, at that point, the p-47 were needed to do the ground support missions and you end up with a no-brainer decision. 

[Legioneod]

41 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Blakeslee never liked the p-47s. He was quite pleased to get the mustangs.

All considering, the mustang was better adapted for the escort job: Better range, Almost same performance up high and cheaper. That doesn't mean that the p-47 wasn't suitable for the job. It have the perfomance and the range problem was fixable (and was fixed) but not at the time when it was needed. Add to this that, at that point, the p-47 were needed to do the ground support missions and you end up with a no-brainer decision. 

Probably why the P-47N was never used in Europe, by the time it came around its superior range wasn't needed, the P-51 filled the role just fine.

[Pict]

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Probably why the P-47N was never used in Europe, by the time it came around its superior range wasn't needed, the P-51 filled the role just fine.

 

Probably that, but more probably that it was too late for the war in the ETO and even more probably both, as they had no need to rush it into service, so they didn't.

 

If the source below can be confirmed, then I begin to understand why some people think the P-47 was slow  *

 

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_P-47N.html

 

Quote

Work on the prototype XP-47 took place over the summer of 1944. The first YP-47N was completed in September 1944. The first unit to receive the P-47N was the 56th Fighter Group, based in England, but the war in Europe ended before the aircraft became operational. In the spring of 1945 the 318th Fighter Group on Saipan received the type, which then played an important role in the final campaigns against Japan.

 

 

* That line was a joke for those that might have missed it.

 

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

 

I ran some tests of my own with the P-47's both D-22 & D-28 against Bf-109G-14's and Fw-190A8's and using the P-47 as a fighter, in the it way was inteded to be used when used in that role. I had little problem staying alive and even made the odd kill. It was good fun and I enjoyed flying it.

 

I'd like to know what people want from it more that it has now? But in a few clearly written lines, no ton of links and charts, just a simple assesment of what needs to be improved and why.

 

I would also like to see a track of anyone who has a gripe with the P-47 flying it. Not a video but an in game track where they demonstrate the gripe they have put in a few sentences.

 

That way we can all clearly understand what the complaint is and make our own minds up as to how justified it is.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Pict
Fighting a dyslexic keyboard ;)

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Blakeslee never liked the p-47s. He was quite pleased to get the mustangs.

All considering, the mustang was better adapted for the escort job: Better range, Almost same performance up high and cheaper. That doesn't mean that the p-47 wasn't suitable for the job. It have the perfomance and the range problem was fixable (and was fixed) but not at the time when it was needed. Add to this that, at that point, the p-47 were needed to do the ground support missions and you end up with a no-brainer decision. 

 

Hard to imagine (where escort/air to air is concerned) anyone not being thrilled to switch to the P-51D.

[JtD]

1 hour ago, Pict said:

I'd like to know what people want from it more that it has now? But in a few clearly written lines, no ton of links and charts, just a simple assesment of what needs to be improved and why.

 

Better high altitude performance, better handling (more forgiving yet more agile), worse slow speed turning. It would match tons of documents and charts better this way.

 

These changes wouldn't be huge, but together would make a big difference in the percieved overall flying qualities.

[Pict]

4 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

Better high altitude performance, better handling (more forgiving yet more agile), worse slow speed turning. It would match tons of documents and charts better this way.

 

These changes wouldn't be huge, but together would make a big difference in the percieved overall flying qualities.

 

Thanks JtD, this is exactly the kind of assesment I was looking for, I'd give you an upvote for that but I'm clean out of them. I assume this applies to both the -22 & the -28?

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

D28 should accelerate better as well.

 

[JtD]

6 hours ago, Pict said:

 

Thanks JtD, this is exactly the kind of assesment I was looking for, I'd give you an upvote for that but I'm clean out of them. I assume this applies to both the -22 & the -28?

 

I have flown the D-28 much more than the D-22 and tested only the D-28, so my opinion is limited to this one.

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

I haven't done side by side testing but I have the impression that the D-22 outperforms the D-28 in all aspects as far as air to air combat is concerned. Even taking similar fuel loads by liters.

[Knarley-Bob]

On 10/6/2021 at 4:17 PM, 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. 
 

 

The BOBP version HAS 'Easy's Angels' that will fly on quick missions as the second flight. Guess what, The 36th, was 'Easy's Angels'.

KB

 

.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Knarley-Bob

[Knarley-Bob]

 

 

.

[oc2209]

On 10/8/2021 at 7:41 AM, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

I haven't done side by side testing but I have the impression that the D-22 outperforms the D-28 in all aspects as far as air to air combat is concerned. Even taking similar fuel loads by liters.

 

The 22 should have slightly better performance, but I'm not seeing a huge disparity. The following sorties are all with regular, not 150 octane, fuel. 

 

This is a test where I try to get on the AI's tail before he gets out of range. I'm okay out to 700m, after which I can't reliably hit anything. He manages to get away from me, however incrementally, in a shallow climb. Which I believe was a historical method of escape for a '47 on the deck.

 

Spoiler

 

 

In this next clip, we started at 10,000m. The AI stall-flipped the 190 as he tried to pull up to fire as I passed over him shortly after our first merge. He was relatively easy to follow at all altitudes (much easier than a 109 at high altitudes, naturally). By the time the clip starts I've already hit him pretty hard, and his controls seem damaged, or something. Very jerky movement from him. Note: I fall behind after the barrel rolls because I was close to blacking out there. I had already followed him through 2 split-S escape attempts prior.

 

Spoiler

 

 

And finally, this last clip is from a 300m starting altitude. As you can see, I have, and maintain, a good bit of energy from my initial climbing turn to get on his tail.

 

Spoiler

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by oc2209

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

The D-28 should perform better than the D-22. The prop upgrade would be the equivalent of replacing the factory tires on your sports car with race tires.

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

19 minutes ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

The D-28 should perform better than the D-22. The prop upgrade would be the equivalent of replacing the factory tires on your sports car with race tires.

 

Both planes have paddle propellers, the D-22 has the Hamilton which offers the best performance compared to the Curtiss ones the D-28 has iirc. Then the razorback fuselage is more aerodynamic than the bubble canopy.

[HR_Zunzun]

9 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Both planes have paddle propellers, the D-22 has the Hamilton which offers the best performance compared to the Curtiss ones the D-28 has iirc. Then the razorback fuselage is more aerodynamic than the bubble canopy.

Exactly. And the D-22 is slightly lighter on top of that. The D-22 is better performer.

Different it would be with D-10 or anyone before the D-20 and the paddle prop. But then, they would have less HP available too.