Jump to content

P-47 is poorly represented


-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138
 Share

Recommended Posts

Legioneod
1 hour 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.

 

D-22 was the first production P-47 to come with the paddle props from the factory iirc. Performance wise it was superior to the D-28 (not by much though)

D-22 has Hamilton Standard D-28 has A.O. Smith prop in game not Curtis Electric.

 

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
15 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

D-28 has A.O. Smith prop in game not Curtis Electric.


At the end of the day looks like it is a Curtiss asymmetric prop, because it measures 13' while the AO Smith were 12' afaik.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents on the representation of the current P-47

 I think the matter lies on the ability of a Spitfire to keep pace in a dive with a Fw-190. There is just something modelled into this game where the aircraft weight has little to no effect on its ability to hold energy in a straight line or dive.

JG27PapaFly goes into detail on this issue here:
 

 

 

This is very simple testing and I don't know the math to prove how the added weight would increase dive speed, but it is clearly modelled in game, but maybe not enough.

The idea was to test a model from which the aerodynamics of the aircraft have no play on dive speed.

P-47 #1 Net 0kg

  • 11% Fuel

P-47 #2 Net +1432kg

  • 100% Fuel
  • K-14
  • Extra Ammo


I started the dive at 400kph IAS @ 9000m, pointed the nose down so that the top of the canopy framing is touching the horizon.

Results:
P-47 #1  High Speed: 800kph
P-47 #2 High Speed: 815kph

*Note the test was conducted on "Normal" settings

I don't know the math to create a model from which to test how the weight of an aircraft's has effect on its diving speed. We do know in this game, an aircraft that is 1432kg heavier for the same aerodynamics, outside of the range of significant initial acceleration bears a 15kph increase in dive speed. According to Eric Browns assessment, we'd expect the 473kg heavier Fw-190A to be significantly faster in a dive than the Spitfire IX.

Edited by DSR_A-24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[CPT]Crunch

Yeah, long time ago did vertical crash dive testing straight into the deck from maximum height in the QMB, lots of unexpected things such as a full weight P-47 with water injected max emergency power and full fuel load didn't hit the ground any faster than an empty I-16 with the engine shut off.  To put it bluntly nearly everything in game hits the ground in the same time window within a few seconds despite size, shape, power settings, or weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knarley-Bob

Nothing should be able to catch a P-47 in a dive. Granted enough altitude, one should nearly dive away to disengage an enemy fighter. No matter what material one quotes, or videos one shows, the howls and screams of the nay-sayers will out. One would think with as many 'Complaints' about the plane some one would look into it. Some one who can/will would be nice. And Kudos to that person IF it happens. We be going 10-10......out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
9 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Nothing should be able to catch a P-47 in a dive. Granted enough altitude, one should nearly dive away to disengage an enemy fighter. No matter what material one quotes, or videos one shows, the howls and screams of the nay-sayers will out.

 

I'm quite sure a 262 will catch a Jug.

  • Haha 7
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JV69badatflyski
14 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Nothing should be able to catch a P-47 in a dive. Granted enough altitude, one should nearly dive away to disengage an enemy fighter. No matter what material one quotes, or videos one shows, the howls and screams of the nay-sayers will out. One would think with as many 'Complaints' about the plane some one would look into it. Some one who can/will would be nice. And Kudos to that person IF it happens. We be going 10-10......out.


Cool, another history legend coming back....
Could you provide numbers? , the one thing i remember is the "stick in concrete" when reaching the compressibility at M0.79(+/-) and the impossibility to move the plane in any direction.
In a 190 you needed 27kg stick force to retreive from a 80° dive at M0.79  . If you can provide something like that, that would be great to continue the discussion.
thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

I'm quite sure a 262 will catch a Jug.


And I believe the Tempest II and Tempest V should out dive the Thunderbolt too. I suspect the Thunderbolt would be equal to or less than a Tempest in a dive or zoom at time relative power settings.

This is from the Tempest II tactical trials. These dive and zoom tests are always hard to get a definitive dive speed, but it at least gives us a ballpark estimate of where aircraft should be diving relative to each other. This specific Thunderbolt had no water injection, so it was boosted to 58"Hg.

'Zoom Climbs

58.            At low altitudes and equal power the Thunderbolt has a slight advantage, but at full power and at high altitudes the Tempest has a definite advantage.'

First of all, what does equal power mean? 2300hp @ +8 lbs for the Tempest and 2250 @ 58"Hg for the Thunderbolt? The Tempest could produce 2300hp up to 5000ft so this would possibly indicate around where their low altitude test took place. We don't know what speed this test started from, but its clear that the Tempest II would still be considerably faster and climb faster at equal power settings at this attitude. Clearly the weight of an aircraft has a play on its ability to retain speed even in a zoom climb. Generally zoom climb test are conducted from a high speed cruise then ended at or before optimal climbing speed.

"...but at full power and at high altitudes the Tempest has a definite advantage...."  What is high altitude? 30,000ft? 25,000ft? At full power we'd be looking at 12,000ft for the Tempest, so I guess this is high altitude. The Tempest is producing 400 more hp than the Thunderbolt. Which would explain the superior performance.  However, if we assume high altitude means 25,000ft. The Thunderbolt has a slight advantage in climb rate while no longer being 70-80mph slower, and just 20mph slower. Why here would the Tempest out zoom a Thunderbolt and not at low altitude? This is why my assumption is 12,000ft for high altitude.


'Dive

59.            The Tempest II always out-dives the Thunderbolt, the advantage being more marked at full throttle.'

Again we don't know the exact speed at which these test start. The Tempest always out accelerates the Thunderbolt regardless of the altitude, due to that turbo always having to spool up. This was also seen with the Fw-190A in a dive. The Thunderbolt is faster overall, but initially all aircraft seem to overtake the Thunderbolt in a dive. This is complementary to the Mustang X dive test where the Mustang takes the lead initially and retains it without further separation. However in later test where the Thunderbolt is producing 2600hp the Thunderbolt seems to out dive and zoom the P-51. This was shown in the A6M5 vs USAF Fighters and the "Ending The Argument" article.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-II-cfe.html

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul

Pretty sure a P-51 can out dive a P-47.  One of Brown's comments (I think it was him) about why the Mustang was a game changer was because the Mustang could dive with any German plane and maintain control while previous US fighters would lose maneuverability before German planes in a dive thus Luftwaffe fighters were able to escape US AC by diving away until the Mustang came along.   However, I think the 47 probably won't shed parts if you over speed it as easily as a Mustang.  Have to point out in Il-2 dive speed isn't nearly as important because no one fights at 25K very much.  In the real war in the West it was more useful.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Pretty sure a P-51 can out dive a P-47.  One of Brown's comments (I think it was him) about why the Mustang was a game changer was because the Mustang could dive with any German plane and maintain control while previous US fighters would lose maneuverability before German planes in a dive thus Luftwaffe fighters were able to escape US AC by diving away until the Mustang came along.   However, I think the 47 probably won't shed parts if you over speed it as easily as a Mustang.  Have to point out in Il-2 dive speed isn't nearly as important because no one fights at 25K very much.  In the real war in the West it was more useful.


I think first impression on an aircraft are the most important and in this case the P-47 is one of the few that are commonly mistreated perhaps.

The P-38 which had a greater range than the P-47(early), but did not have the suitable performance in a dive to compete with the Germans. The P-51, out of the gate was a superb aircraft no doubt, and when you compare it to an early P-47 or P-38 it looks substantially better. The Mustang didn't have significant issues with compressibility(P-38) nor was it subjected to poor range(P-47).


With the introduction of dive recovery flaps and hydraulically boosted ailerons the P-38 could now follow a Fw-190 or Bf-109 through a roll and into a dive. Given the much heavier airframe, I wouldn't be surprised if this caught a lot of Germans by surprise. I don't think it made the P-38 a game changer, but it certainly helped. Its hard to find particular pilot accounts on this, because by the time the P-38 really could compete, the Mustang had takin the spot light.

The later P-47s, even before the P-51 had really come into play in numbers before the summer of 1944, had the range to escort bombers. Not only that, but the weaknesses of poor rate of climb or acceleration was mitigated through new propeller(s) and higher boost settings. 52"Hg to 64"Hg actually giving it a higher power to weight ratio than the P-51. And going from the toothpick propeller to the Hamilton Standard or "Paddle Prop" by Curtis Electric also helped. All of these modifications were before the Mustangs reign.

I like to think of it as the Ta-152H-1's high altitude performance was a game changer, mean while there were already operations in 1943 with Bf-109s using GM-1(Shoot me down if I have the date completely wrong)

History likes to say it was an instant click of satisfaction that lead XYZ to victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo-Yo_Kirby
13 hours ago, DSR_A-24 said:

I like to think of it as the Ta-152H-1's high altitude performance was a game changer, mean while there were already operations in 1943 with Bf-109s using GM-1(Shoot me down if I have the date completely wrong)

History likes to say it was an instant click of satisfaction that lead XYZ to victory.


Historian Calum Douglas, expert on WW2-era aircraft engines, presented documentation in one of Military Aviation History’s videos showing that very small-scale usage of GM-1 began towards the end of the Battle of Britain. Very elite units had access to the GM-1.

 

A Bf 109E-7 with GM-1 crashed at Dorset, England on June 9, 1941. This gave the Allies their first look at the GM-1 system.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sevenless
15 hours ago, DSR_A-24 said:

 mean while there were already operations in 1943 with Bf-109s using GM-1(Shoot me down if I have the date completely wrong)

 

I´ll do that 🙃

 

GM-1 equipped fighter planes were deemed necessary to overcome the high altitude anemic behaviour of the Bf-109s above 10.000m. The first planes which went operational were Bf-109 G1/R2 machines of the Höhenstaffeln of 11./JG2, 11./JG26 and I/JG1 in june 1942. See Prien&Rodeike page 57/58/62.

 

image.png.49463ccb3553274bb40f3dff34153f13.pngimage.png.1274a99aef15b0552d5b1c18dccb5267.pngimage.png.608adf2acded0248e64fa7f63ffc9335.png

Edited by sevenless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
15 hours ago, DSR_A-24 said:

I like to think of it as the Ta-152H-1's high altitude performance was a game changer, mean while there were already operations in 1943 with Bf-109s using GM-1(Shoot me down if I have the date completely wrong)

 

"Game changer" is relative.

 

1) The prior used 109s didn't have enough wing to really benefit from the additional power at higher altitudes. Mtt had designed the 109H with additional wingspan (by introducing a plug between the inner wing and the fuselage), but this still didn't quite close the gap.

 

2) The prior 109, while having better high altitude performance than a stock 109, having a better altitude performance than a 190, wasn't quite up on par with the two-staged supercharged Spits. That was only achieved a little later with the larger superchagrgers (plus GM-1 if available).

 

3) The Ta 152H offered a second stage supercharger (with three gears, instead of the hydraulically coupled design of the DB engines). It also offered a significantly enlarged wing at a high aspect-ratio. And it offered GM-1 on top. Plus it offered more fuel and MW50 for low altitudes.

 

When late bomber and recce Mossies came up with NOx, they were virtually untouchable for any prop-interceptor and you'd need a jet to have a chance at intercepting them. That comes out of the required geometry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn shot down 3 times :(.

 

Definitely going to watch that video and read up on the Mossies with nitrous oxide Boost.

Thanks guys.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
23 hours ago, DSR_A-24 said:

I like to think of it as the Ta-152H-1's high altitude performance was a game changer, mean while there were already operations in 1943 with Bf-109s using GM-1(Shoot me down if I have the date completely wrong)

The 15 of them made a big difference.  🙂

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-[HRAF]BubiHUN
On 9/30/2021 at 6:33 PM, Knarley-Bob said:

IMHO the P-47 is depicted as a pick up with a full load of dirt and 1/2 way inflated tires. Now, let's put it on a drag strip against a muscle car.

If you see an enemy, you are toast, especially if he puts one bullet into you ship.

Sorry Gents, but that's my take on it. Just too bad it's that way..........

Like it was said before, "This game is not made for American aircraft".

we got another murica guy

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GodTickles

I really gave up after 3 pages but the one thing I noticed is how so many live to derail the topic. Fact is, the P47 was an extremely rugged plane. It was also extremely fast. Twin spars in the wings allowing it to fly fine with the wing spar knocked out. Heavily armored, hence the weight. Yes, it knocked out a tiger tank with the machine guns. Lost half a wing and still outran spitfires that misidentified it due to the damage and were trying to kill it. With 2 short bursts, it knocked out 2 110's leaving them in fire balls. And the famous account of the pilot in a damaged plane getting helplessly pummeled by a 190 but refuswd to go down and the german left after hus ammo was out. 

 

Which 1 of these stories do you think could possibly be reenacted in IL2. Not a single one. I don't know how the devs can explain the tank like handling of the game plane due to the weight but the fragility of hydrogen filled zeppelin with a toothpick frame. It doesn't matyer if the British, Americans,  or Russians broke the back of the Germans.  That wasn't the point of the OP. 

 

The point of the post was the absolute horrible representation of the plane in game compared to the actual plane in real life. And it is horrible. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GodTickles

And here is anither thing I just foind out. Quick mission builder. The Bf-109G6 late actually handled better at 39,000 feet than the P-47. I went up in the 47 against 3 G6 lates. Drug them up to 39,000 feet. Even though their top alt is listed at around 34,000. Even at that height,  they out performed the 47. I love this game.  

 

Not gonna fix it all. But I type like a chimp with swollen fingers. 

Edited by GodTickles
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legioneod
4 hours ago, GodTickles said:

I really gave up after 3 pages but the one thing I noticed is how so many live to derail the topic. Fact is, the P47 was an extremely rugged plane. It was also extremely fast. Twin spars in the wings allowing it to fly fine with the wing spar knocked out. Heavily armored, hence the weight. Yes, it knocked out a tiger tank with the machine guns. Lost half a wing and still outran spitfires that misidentified it due to the damage and were trying to kill it. With 2 short bursts, it knocked out 2 110's leaving them in fire balls. And the famous account of the pilot in a damaged plane getting helplessly pummeled by a 190 but refuswd to go down and the german left after hus ammo was out. 

 

Which 1 of these stories do you think could possibly be reenacted in IL2. Not a single one. I don't know how the devs can explain the tank like handling of the game plane due to the weight but the fragility of hydrogen filled zeppelin with a toothpick frame. It doesn't matyer if the British, Americans,  or Russians broke the back of the Germans.  That wasn't the point of the OP. 

 

The point of the post was the absolute horrible representation of the plane in game compared to the actual plane in real life. And it is horrible. 

It was a very rugged aircraft but it certainly wasn’t as rugged as some people might want it to be. It could get shot up and make it back to base.

It could lose multiple cylinders, lose part of its wing, it could take some high caliber rounds like some 20mm and maybe on the rare occasion a 30mm. Many of these situations have historical records to back them up. 

 

The P47 certainly could take this sort of damage but the keyword here is “could”, it didn’t always happen this way and I think people are under the false impression that they should tank some 30mm and make it back every time. The damage model isn’t the worst imo, especially not compared to the past, but I do agree it could use some improvements and not just for the p47 either. I have lots of ideas for how the damage model as a whole could be greatly improved and made more accurate, but it’s costly and takes time.

 

 

P-47 certainly was fast, one of the fastest prop fighters of the war and its that way in-game as well, it just has errors at higher altitudes that need correcting.

 

P-47 never killed a tiger with .50s, “maybe” set a gas tank on fire or something (if that) but it never killed one with its .50s. Rockets and bombs sure it was possible, but not with .50s not in any way that would keep the tank out of action.

 

The P-47 losing a portion of his wing did happen but I don’t know if he outran spitfires or anything. It was a Brazilian pilot in this instance. He made it back with a portion of his wing missing.

 

No idea about the 110 thing, it’s possible I assume but I won’t say for certain one way or the other.

 

The P-47 that got pummeled by the 190 was Robert S Johnson and the story is true but only just. He did get hit by multiple 20mm rounds (all AP iirc) and some machine gun rounds also. He did get shot up pretty good, but he didn’t look like swish cheese like some people imagine. There are P-47s that have gotten worse than Johnson ever did, he may not haves lived either if that 190 had more ammo but who knows.

 

 

3 hours ago, GodTickles said:

And here is anither thing I just foind out. Quick mission builder. The Bf-109G6 late actually handled better at 39,000 feet than the P-47. I went up in the 47 against 3 G6 lates. Drug them up to 39,000 feet. Even though their top alt is listed at around 34,000. Even at that height,  they out performed the 47. I love this game.  

 

Not gonna fix it all. But I type like a chimp with swollen fingers. 

 

Dealing with COVID right now so can’t test but you should be able to outpace the g-6 at those altitudes. (Maybe not as well as you should, p-47 still has errors for power at those alts)


It certainly should put perform the P-47 at those altitudes. Handling wise I can’t say with any certainty but I have always felt 109s handled a bit too well at high altitudes in comparison to other aircraft.
Not saying it’s wrong it just feels strange, almost like they don’t need and real power to stay in the air and do maneuvers.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GodTickles

Very unfortunate, couldn't think of a better phrase at the moment, that you're dealing with covid and I hope everything works out good. Basically, full recovery with no resulting problems. 

 

That being said, yes, the tigwr was set fire, engine killed, crew bailed after the fire over took the tank, somehow, and the tank burnt down. It was the same plane, same mission, of the one that flew home without half a wing due to hitting a stack, chimney, pulling out of a dive where the speed had gotten higher than it should. The exact same plane had taken multiple flak hits before the dive and the pilot still found it to fly well enough to continue the mission. Every story i sited can be easily found with the name of the pilot. I would be willing to bet I could find a new story every day for a year. But I seriously have better things to do. 

 

The point still remains the same. And this is the point. The P47 is horribly represented in the game. 

 

Not claiming it is the best plane ever. That would be an opinion, not a fact. Not claiming it is the fastest plane ever. Not claiming it was impossible to shoot down. Not claimint it single handedly won the war. Simply stating it was much better than it is modeled in the game. 

 

Why does this meet so much resistance? Why is everyone so afraid of the truth. The OP didn't seem to be stating anything outrageous.  Most people,most, don't seem to be asking anything outrageous.  They just seem to me to be asking for a realistic representation of planes they like in real life. 

 

Sure, there will always be a bias in their mind, that's the cause of a preference.  But it doesn't discount what they say. I don't know if it is a rush to defend the devs. Kind of doubt it. But, i will need to go back ad read again, i do not recall the poster trashing the devs. So the only reason I can think of is the people so readily trying to derail every topic like this is they are german mains and fear facing better planes. This is simply a guess and I am not trying to trash the German fliers. 

 

Personally,  i would not want any plane I chose to fly over modeled. I woikd not want a turkey shoot in my favor. It would completely ruin the fun. It would take any challenge out of it. And thats what I want is the challenge. Just not a lopsided challenge due to honest mistakes. 

 

There are people out there that will fly only in friendly territory and jump out at the first site of a 6. They will fly in orbit and only come down if the see an easy shot. They can't bear the idea of getting shot down and their kill streak ending. I don't even see how this is fun. The idea of multiplayer is to fight eachother for fun. It is to pit your skill against anothers. It is not to see how many kills you can get in a single pilot life. At least that is how I see it. 

 

I view stats as a way to brag for someone who needs some way to falsely boost their ego.  They need a way to boost their self worth. My stats in a game do not define who I am. How I treat people in need, how I treat the people and their property that hire me, and how a act when I think no one is looking. That's what defines me. If I got to the point that I needed a game statistic to feel good about myself, that would be a sad day. 

 

Once again, not trying to trash any specific person. And if you are not a person who uses crap bs tactics to falsly inflate your stats, you should have no reason to feel that I have offended you. 

 

I have grown tired of this debate now. I am 100% certain someone is gonna focus on some specific point in this overly long text. They will completely miss the point. Fail to see the forest because of the trees so to speak. But for the rest, it is simple. the op just wants a plane he loves more accurately modeled in his game. And in this, i agree. And I really don't even fly the 47. But i would like to see it more closely mirror its real life counterpart.  

 

Other than that,  i have nothing to say that wouldn't be just a repeat of what I already have.  I just hope some of you actually see the forest. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knarley-Bob
On 10/13/2021 at 6:37 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

If the only way one can get fish is to shoot them in a barrel, so be it. Stats built on shooting down under modeled aircraft is the same thing. If that is what it take to keep them happy, who are we to complain........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GodTickles
14 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

If the only way one can get fish is to shoot them in a barrel, so be it. Stats built on shooting down under modeled aircraft is the same thing. If that is what it take to keep them happy, who are we to complain........

 

To go with the analogy,  the American mains are the fish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
6 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The P-47 losing a portion of his wing did happen but I don’t know if he outran spitfires or anything. It was a Brazilian pilot in this instance. He made it back with a small portion of his wing missing.

 

Emphasis by me.

 

6 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The P-47 that got pummeled by the 190 was Robert S Johnson and the story is true but only just. He did get hit by multiple 20mm rounds (all AP iirc) and some machine gun rounds also. He did get shot up pretty good, but he didn’t look like swish cheese like some people imagine. There are P-47s that have gotten worse than Johnson ever did, he may not haves lived either if that 190 had more ammo but who knows.

 

The story is pulled mostly out from his butt, as any look at any of the background-pictures will reveal. The aircraft is mostly hit by 7.92mm with a couple of 20mm hits in between. Had the 190 pilot been with a couple of more rounds of 20mm (or had he been a better shot, who knows), RSJ would have spent the remainder of the war in the Stalag Hilton.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knarley-Bob
28 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Emphasis by me.

 

 

The story is pulled mostly out from his butt, as any look at any of the background-pictures will reveal. The aircraft is mostly hit by 7.92mm with a couple of 20mm hits in between. Had the 190 pilot been with a couple of more rounds of 20mm (or had he been a better shot, who knows), RSJ would have spent the remainder of the war in the Stalag Hilton.

What ever.........🙄 And now you have to stoop to the level of calling American pilots who have long since passed away liars? Mr. Propeller, you sir, are a real class act.......

1 hour ago, GodTickles said:

 

To go with the analogy,  the American mains are the fish. 

I don't hunt at a 'game' farm, nor do I shoot deer out of a pen either. Some guys do, and think they were on a 'real' hunt. Oh well............

Edited by Knarley-Bob
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
20 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Wasn`t this P-47s kill Tigers myth put to rest YEARS ago?

 

I heard you could make destroyers capsize and cut Tigers in half with a good burst of Ma-Deuce!

 

Or did I mix that up? 🤨

Edited by Bremspropeller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-[HRAF]BubiHUN
12 hours ago, GodTickles said:

It was also extremely fast

at high altitude, above 6000 meters or more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
1 hour ago, Knarley-Bob said:

What ever.........🙄 And now you have to stoop to the level of calling American pilots who have long since passed away liars? Mr. Propeller, you sir, are a real class act.......

 

Not american pilots. Just specifically ONE american pilot:

 

media-7607.jpeg

 

media-7608.jpeg

 

[Flex Tape dude voice]

That's a lot of damage!

[\Flex Tape dude voice]

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

Here's what I can find from his book.

He claimed to be shot by 21 cannon shells as he visual explains the "gapping holes" it only adds up to 20.

5 holes in the propeller (No Photo)
3 against the armoured plate(Maybe 2?)
5 right wing(No Photo)
4 left wing(No Photo)

2 lower rudder(Hard to tell maybe 1)
1 exploded inside the cockpit, next to his left hand(No Photo, but this could all be the result of 1-2 cannons shells from hitting the armoured plate)

Do you have anymore photos of his battle damaged P-47.

From my experience the P-51 is notably more rugged from 20mm cannon fire than the P-47. After shooting some down in the Fw-190D9. I actually found it laughable how brittle the P-47 was compared to the P-51. I say just switch their damage models around and call it a day.

Edited by DSR_A-24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The damage to the tail can be seen here:

 

halfpint4.jpg.10ec46902e4e6289df1f7525108e2326.jpg

 

 

Hit by flak. 

Messerschmitt-Bf-109F4-JG53-White-10-bat

 

20mm cannot hit from a 109 according to the caption.

tumblr_a4cec008e5275a1bc32ed0cd0c36065d_da1db6c1_2048.jpg

Edited by Raven109
Added P40 damage pic
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

The damage to the tail can be seen here:

 

halfpint4.jpg.10ec46902e4e6289df1f7525108e2326.jpg

 

 

Hit by flak. 

Messerschmitt-Bf-109F4-JG53-White-10-bat

 

 


Honestly, that could be just 1 cannon shell, but I'm no expert. We still don't have enough photos count the holes from the wings or the propeller. 

I think simply by nature of the P-47's larger size we would expect it to take more punishment. Not in the sense that it is BUILT more rugged than Bf-109, but its large size grants it room to play with by enemy gun fire having less effect over a larger area. The photo of the 109 you shared has a wing area of 172.8 sq ft vs the P-47's 300 sq ft. A B-17 has a wing area 1,420 sq ft. I think it safe to assume a 1x20mm shell on a B-17 is no near is deadly as it is on a Bf-109.

Spoiler

qtv4ywzjfv731.jpg



Atta boy, bring her home.
 

Edited by DSR_A-24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
Just now, MiloMorai said:

Wasn`t this P-47s kill Tigers myth put to rest YEARS ago?

 

This myth is immortal. It is, after all, just another version of the St. George and the Dragon myth, in turn a version of the generic "hero slays monster and gets female reward" myth, repackaged for the History Channel generation. 

 

Of course most believers identify the P-47 as George and the Dragon as the Tiger,  but given some of the comments here over the years, it would not surprise me if a few "critical thinkers" identify the Tiger as St. George. 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
1 hour ago, DSR_A-24 said:

Do you have anymore photos of his battle damaged P-47.

 

There used to be more, but those were the only ones I could find quickly.

 

IIRC it was about 5-6 actual 20mm hits. The rest was 7,92mm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sevenless
1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

And it wasn't Meyer who was in the Fw-190 that shot up the P-47.

 

No. Certainly not Egon Mayer. We know that since 20 years, but myth spread by History Channel bollocks pop up again and again, like that rikochet Tiger belly 50cal nonsense.

 

Robert Johnson vs Egon Mayer-Urban myth? [Archive] - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum (12oclockhigh.net)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Talisman
On 10/13/2021 at 9:44 PM, Knarley-Bob said:

Nothing should be able to catch a P-47 in a dive. Granted enough altitude, one should nearly dive away to disengage an enemy fighter. No matter what material one quotes, or videos one shows, the howls and screams of the nay-sayers will out. One would think with as many 'Complaints' about the plane some one would look into it. Some one who can/will would be nice. And Kudos to that person IF it happens. We be going 10-10......out.

 

 

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ACG_Talisman said:

 

 

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft

 

I took the liberty of adding one more factor to consider when diving away from a capable enemy.

 

cannon.thumb.png.0b7160de47835b50ab59635273269fef.png

  • Haha 7
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raven109 said:

 

I took the liberty of adding one more factor to consider when diving away from a capable enemy.

 

cannon.thumb.png.0b7160de47835b50ab59635273269fef.png


Funny, BUT its a tactical misunderstanding of how a superior diving aircraft would be used in combat.

 

The reason you keep your speed up in a P-47 is to enter in a dive or zoom at a speed from which your opponent being in the lighter airframe would no longer benefit from their power to weight ratio advantage.

If you're on my 6 in a Spitfire, and I'm in a Fw-190. The greater weight of the Fw-190 allows me to dive faster and hold that energy for longer, while going into a zoom or exiting that dive. Its very difficult to perform in a 1v1, but I can replicate it in DCS. I can do this against a Fw-190D9 in a P-51 or P-47. In the P-51's case the zoom is aided greatly in its cleaner design. The AI in DCS fly perfectly in a stall, so I think this has some merit.

Very similar to what was portrayed in Robert Johnson's story against the Spitfire is what I can replicate in DCS P-51 even against the faster and better power to weight ratio Bf-109K4. If you can't get the energy advantage because of how fast a K4 or D9 is, the weight behind the airframe should at least get you back to base or until you can find a teammate.

These energy combat maneuvers are basically impossible in IL2:GB's P-47. I suspect that is to weight bearing very little on dive performance in my previous test. I've done it fairly well in the Fw-190A-3 against the lighter Russian aircraft. I suppose this is why the Fw-190 is always my go to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...