My Jug rant

[310th_Diablo]

Ive been a jug pilot since it first came out in il2.   All these years i have advocated and begged for API and APIT ammo for American planes.  I have not seen now in almost 20 years that it has been modeled.  I hope I’m wrong now.  My other gripe is how i so often see the jug being seen as nothing but a ground support aircraft.  Has no one ever heard or read about the 56th?  Why do all the career missions only use the jug as ground support under 5000ft.  Why are there no career choices or custom campaigns using the jug as a fighter?  I know some of you will say write your own….im not that smart….lol   Anyway there is my rant.

[Gambit21]

45 minutes ago, 310th_Diablo said:

Has no one ever heard or read about the 56th?  

Have you? ?

If so, riddle me this…what map and AI aircraft would we need?

 

Exactly.

 

Thus the 9th AF missions (which are better anyway) They did contrary to your recollection also operate as fighters.

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Gambit21

[310th_Diablo]

33 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Have you? ?

If so, riddle me this…what map and AI aircraft would we need?

 

Exactly.

 

Thus the 9th AF missions (which are better anyway) They did contrary to your recollection also operate as fighters.

 

lets see…yes ihave and read several books on it and its pilots. ?  as to aircraft how about the p-47d22, p-47d28, me 109’s and fw 190s all which are in game now.   Im pretty sure the maps we have in Bodenplatte and Normandy would suffice very well with the 56th theater of operations.  As far as the 9th AF  bring it on if theyflew jugs as fighter support.  How does that sound?

[357th_KW]

The objectively wrong AP only load out for western Allied machine guns is definitely a problem.  Hopefully we’ll see some movement on that after BoN gets across the finish line.  
 

Unfortunately the lack of firepower is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the 47’s problems in BoX.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, 310th_Diablo said:

lets see…yes ihave and read several books on it and its pilots. ?  as to aircraft how about the p-47d22, p-47d28, me 109’s and fw 190s all which are in game now.   Im pretty sure the maps we have in Bodenplatte and Normandy would suffice very well with the 56th theater of operations.  As far as the 9th AF  bring it on if theyflew jugs as fighter support.  How does that sound?

So part of your rationale for why should have already had 8th Air Force operations is a map that we don’t have yet that will go just beyond Falaise, and a map we do have that doesn’t have the Channel, England, or any of the 56th’s bases.
 

The 56th didn’t do anything on the upcoming Normandy map that the 9th Air Force didn’t do - including by the way, fighter sweeps. 
 

Aside from that I’ve yet to a rationale for 8th AF Jugs on existing maps.

[Jaegermeister]

8 hours ago, 310th_Diablo said:

Im pretty sure the maps we have in Bodenplatte and Normandy would suffice very well with the 56th theater of operations.  

 

Someone could possibly portray the June Rodeo missions out of Manston when the Normandy map is released, but it would be a very short career. I believe after that they did mostly B-17 long range escorts and long range fighter sweeps ahead of the large formation bomber raids. Those would have to be air-start missions on the Rhineland map, which I am not a fan of.

 

From Wikipedia...

 

The 56th FG sent its four most experienced pilots to Debden in early April 1943 to gain experience before the group's first mission, which occurred 13 April 1943. Its first combat and casualties occurred 29 April, when Capt. John E. McClure and 1st Lt. Winston W. "Bill" Garth of the 62nd FS became POWs. The 56th flew 24 missions and 900 sorties (almost entirely Rodeo fighter sweeps and Circus diversions) in April and May, losing a total of 3 aircraft to enemy action. Its first Ramrod bomber escort mission occurred 13 May, to Saint-Omer, France. 

 

In June the group staged out of a forward base at RAF Manston, Kent, to extend its range and registered its first victories over the Luftwaffe, shooting down four fighters on sweeps along the coast of France and Belgium on the 12th and 13th. On 26 June, providing withdrawal support for a late afternoon bomber mission to Villacoublay airfield, it fought a 20-minute battle with veteran Fw 190 pilots of III/JG 26 over Forges-les-Eaux, France. The result was a major setback, with five Thunderbolts destroyed, four pilots killed, and only two German fighters shot down. 

 

In July the 56th FG was moved from its comfortable quarters at Horsham St. Faith to a much-less improved installation at RAF Halesworth, along the coast of Suffolk, both to be nearer to German-occupied territory and to allow Horsham St. Faith to be completed as a heavy bomber base. 

[Gambit21]

You could do a fictional squadron that flew escorts out of their forward base in Belgium on days when they were not flying ground attack. 

This is what the 352nd did with their Mustangs in later 44. Took off from Chievres, joined up with the bombers, escorted then to their targets then returned to Chievres.

 

I would never build it, since 9th AF operations are so much more interesting, and includes air to air...plenty of it.

 

Or when Normandy arrives, shorter escorts into France and back, and could easily do a Wolfpack campaign as has been done elsewhere.

Again why bother with 8th AF (especially with no B-17's which is what I alluded to above) when 9th AF gives you so much more variety and you can make a short 9th campaign that's all air to air sweeps if you wanted.

[Motherbrain]

They should fix the P47s miserable maneuverability before anything else. Il2 and DCSs P47s are like entirely different planes. (And no, they shouldn't be).

 

The DCS P47 is actually a blast to fly. The Il2 P47 is like pulling teeth unless your ground pounding.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Motherbrain

[354thFG_Rails]

[ROCKET_KNUT]

Nailed it! Excellent!!!

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

On 8/1/2022 at 10:39 PM, 357th_KW said:

The objectively wrong AP only load out for western Allied machine guns is definitely a problem.  Hopefully we’ll see some movement on that after BoN gets across the finish line.  
 

Unfortunately the lack of firepower is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the 47’s problems in BoX.

I'm not holding my breath. They'll probably announce a Fiesler Storch collector plane which would be cool and I would totally buy....if they would fix the jug in this broke ass game.

[=RS=EnvyC]

On 8/2/2022 at 2:00 PM, Gambit21 said:

So part of your rationale for why should have already had 8th Air Force operations is a map that we don’t have yet that will go just beyond Falaise, and a map we do have that doesn’t have the Channel, England, or any of the 56th’s bases.
 

The 56th didn’t do anything on the upcoming Normandy map that the 9th Air Force didn’t do - including by the way, fighter sweeps. 
 

Aside from that I’ve yet to a rationale for 8th AF Jugs on existing maps.

You're completely missing the point. The point is that per the 9th's exploits the P47 was an exceptional fighter, contrary to the popular opinion that its a better striker than fighter. The P47 took part in breaking the backbone of the Luftwaffe in 1943 and currently the game does not even remotely reflect this.

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

You're completely missing the point. The point is that per the 9th's exploits the P47 was an exceptional fighter, contrary to the popular opinion that its a better striker than fighter. The P47 took part in breaking the backbone of the Luftwaffe in 1943 and currently the game does not even remotely reflect this.

I did not remotely miss that point, rather you’re missing the point regarding what maps and aircraft (no B-17) that have been available. I made that more than clear in my posts.

…and by maps that also means (in case it’s still not clear) what squadrons operated from what base. In case it’s STILL not clear - no 56th. This is why I made the ‘fictional squadron’ reference above. ?

[=RS=EnvyC]

I am perplexed at how you've managed to miss the point again after being urged to reconsider. Hes not suggesting we recreate the 9ths historical actions in game with maps and aircraft. The point was that the 9ths account of the aircraft is egregiously at odds with how it is represented in game, thats why he mentioned it. Its got nothing to do with building a module around the 9th AF.

 

We just want a P47 that flies like a real P47.

[CountZero]

46 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

I am perplexed at how you've managed to miss the point again after being urged to reconsider. Hes not suggesting we recreate the 9ths historical actions in game with maps and aircraft. The point was that the 9ths account of the aircraft is egregiously at odds with how it is represented in game, thats why he mentioned it. Its got nothing to do with building a module around the 9th AF.

 

We just want a P47 that flies like a real P47.

You have it in DCS, hope no more P-47 versions in this game.

[Gambit21]

12 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

I am perplexed at how you've managed to miss the point again after being urged to reconsider. Hes not suggesting we recreate the 9ths historical actions in game with maps and aircraft.
 

 

Not what happened - are we reading the same thread?

 

 

12 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

The point was that the 9ths account of the aircraft is egregiously at odds with how it is represented in game,

 

umm…no 

 

12 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

thats why he mentioned it. Its got nothing to do with building a module around the 9th AF.

 

 

Nope

 

12 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

We just want a P47 that flies like a real P47.

Again nope - re-read the thread…including ALL of the first post.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Gambit21

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

As gamers, we get to try, fail, learn, adapt and re-try.  The reason I say this is because while the American planes can be 'adapted to' and gamers can get success with them in gamey ways, the reality is that if the American planes were like this IRL, NONE of them would have been cleared for combat.

[Eisenfaustus]

12 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

As gamers, we get to try, fail, learn, adapt and re-try.  The reason I say this is because while the American planes can be 'adapted to' and gamers can get success with them in gamey ways, the reality is that if the American planes were like this IRL, NONE of them would have been cleared for combat.

I have no Problem with P51s when I fly them according to the manuals - what are you talking about?

[Denum]

2 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I have no Problem with P51s when I fly them according to the manuals - what are you talking about?

Oh yeah?

 

How much time do you spend behind the AI firing?

 

That'll get you clapped IRL and in multiplayer. 

[BCI-Nazgul]

6 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I have no Problem with P51s when I fly them according to the manuals - what are you talking about?

The P-51 is by far better represented in IL2 then P-47.   The P-47 IL2 suffers from

 multiple issues including very poor firepower for an 8 gun plane, extreme fragility for a plane that was supposed to be the toughest fighter of the war (even a P-40 can take more damage and keep fighting), terrible handling at all speeds inspite of a huge 2800 HP engine to drag you around a low speeds, and a nasty snap stall with no warning at high speeds.  The DCS plane is far better all around.  1C says most of this is because the P-47 is "heavy" yet it also has an engine that develops nearly TWICE the HP, plus twice the wing surface, of the "smaller" planes, but it matters not in IL2.

[-332FG-Zephyr096]

7 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I have no Problem with P51s when I fly them according to the manuals - what are you talking about?

If the P-51 had regularly taken hundreds of rounds to shoot down a BF109 while only needing to get struck by a few rounds of 13mm in return to be shot down in real life, no way would it have been the main air-to-air fighter used by USAF for the latter half of the war. If you do not hit a vital part of the plane, like the gas tank/engine/pilot, you will have absolutely no effect on target.

I don't fly it enough to be able to speak to the flight model, it feels mostly fine to me, but the big issue is the armament being completely neutered.

The .50 cal is probably about as effective in-game as the .303 was IRL. 

The P-47 is an absolutely deathtrap in-game compared to its IRL reputation as among the safest aircraft to fly in combat. I fly most of my hours in the P-47. There is a laundry list of problems with the engine, FM, DM, armament, etc. that are corroborated by community members both in rigorous testing with comparison to historic documents and in anecdotal reports.
 

[DBFlyguy]

I think the P-51D and B we have in the game are fine.  I enjoy flying them.  On the other hand, the two P-47s we have in game unfortunately I haven't touched since I've used the DCS P-47 and it met my expectations for how a P-47 should be.  The D-22 was one of the main reasons I was excited for BON (besides the map, Typhoon and P-51B) and its a shame that both the P-47D-22 and P-47D-28 are in the shape they are currently.  In general,  .50 cals don't bother me as much as they seem to bother other folks currently.  The DM and FM of the P-47s however ? I REALLY hope after BON is finally released the P-47s get seriously looked at finally.  I want to enjoy flying the P-47s in Great Battles, but in their current state, its just not worth the hassle.

 

I've also lost count how many posts have been made on these related topics concerning the P-47 in great battles, I hope the devs understand this is something that really needs some attention eventually.

Edited August 9, 2022 by DBFlyguy

[the_emperor]

1 hour ago, -332FG-Zephyr096 said:

If you do not hit a vital part of the plane, like the gas tank/engine/pilot, you will have absolutely no effect on target.

further enhanced by the problem that many of those systems are not even modelled (eg fuel/coolant/oil/pneumatic/hydraulic lines, electrical systems, ignition systems, fuel pump, single cylinders, puncturing tyres, undercarriage locking system etc the list is very long) all those things that doesnt allow your opponent to stay in the fight and forces to break of an engagement (a DM like in CloD series would be nice). It often feels like shooting a hollow airframe. 
and of course the overall endurance and toughness of all liquid cooled engines/planes

  

[=RS=Stix_09]

 

These types of discussuions are as old as this forum and I expect these topics will continute for the life of the sim just as they have for the past. The focus on il-2 from my experience is more an easy to fly , rather than super accurate deep sim (and its def a simulator class game)

 

So you could pick holes an many planes in Il-2 Gb (for so many dif things) , for example p40's landing flight model (you have to land 3 point or it's boing, boing....), the sounds  etc.

 

It is a fun sim , but I don't think its built to be a hightly accurate(not even sure if its possible to within the limits of the game engine), it def is a great sim to learn to fly, and I've has a lot of fun in the game, online and offline.

 

But as my experince has grown over the years flying in sims I have found more enjoyment in other sims mainly because they are more consistent and more indepth and they just feel more immersive to fly. It's a whole package thing about immersion and il-2 for me has become less so, because the limits become more noticable with experience.

 

So as I've matured as a sim pilot, I've by and large outgrown this sim as my go to immersive experience.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2022 by =RS=Stix_09

[Eisenfaustus]

Regarding firepower - yes, we absolutely need API simulated. I agree with you.

And I can’t judge wether IL2‘s or DCS‘ representation of the P47 comes closer to reality yet I admit I struggle with it in dogfights. 

But the post I answered to said:

23 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

gamers can get success with them in gamey ways, the reality is that if the American planes were like this IRL, NONE of them would have been cleared for combat.

This I saw more regarding the actual planes then the ammunition they fire. Otherwise I‘d expected the well known „0.50 is unrealistic“ mantra. 
And concerning the American planes as a whole - I don‘t see it. They pretty much behave as I expect from the books I read. Except the P47 - yet I also didn’t take my time learning the ins and outs of the highly complex engine management - so could be my fault either. 

[=RS=Stix_09]

13 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Regarding firepower - yes, we absolutely need API simulated. I agree with you.

 

 

Is not the question to ask why its not been done?

[BCI-Nazgul]

3 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

Is not the question to ask why its not been done?

I'd be happy if straight AP was modeled correctly.  Some pilots liked AP better than API after they were switched over to API.   They said, "It tore up enemy planes better".   I don't really have an opinion since I haven't been able to use API in this game.

[=RS=Stix_09]

13 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

I'd be happy if straight AP was modeled correctly.  Some pilots liked AP better than API after they were switched over to API.   They said, "It tore up enemy planes better".   I don't really have an opinion since I haven't been able to use API in this game.

 

I think a lot of effectiveness is not just about ammo type , but the componenet parts of the plane that are modeled (if at all) that can be damaged. Without more detail, I have no idea whats required to happen to code the results ppl want or is it a whole new game engine to add such things.

 

Anyone has any developer links on  where they have given info on that.

Edited August 9, 2022 by =RS=Stix_09

[ZachariasX]

I think clamping controls (I‘d say on average all planes get affected by that to similarish extents, exceptions apply) and adding stability is not a suitable way reflecting the effect of weight. The Spit9 weights as much as three Cessnas yet it can feel like a Cub in controls. (At slower speeds.)

 

It is my impression that the drag penalty from flying slow/high AoA is not showing sufficiently. Aside the feel in control, it is where the Mustang and the Spit differ most drastically. Adding one ton on roughly the same wing makes you hit the brakes in the Mustang when you pull the stick below 200 mph, where the Spit just shrugs that off and is happy all the way down to some 150 mph. There is absolutely no way the Mustang can follow the Spit in an 180 mph turn, regardless of the flaps you might deploy.

 

The Jug is even worse that way. This made the original „Jugcopter“ when it was first released such an abomination. The idea that you can stall turn an aircraft that way is idiotic. The main difference I would expect from the Jug is that minimum maneuvering speed for reasonably retaining flight speed is a tad higher than the Mustangs. Other than that, I wouldn‘t expect the Jug differing that much from the Mustang in terms of what it can give you. This of course translates in a more problematic handling, as your safety margins for takeoff and landing are reduced. Of course it negates goofing around at slow speed with aircraft half the weight and with comparable power.

 

Even though I imagine that the drag increase by going slow should be computable, it still feels a bit off in the game. Maybe it is just my perception, but it is where I feel things are off.

[354thFG_Panda_]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

The Jug is even worse that way. This made the original „Jugcopter“ when it was first released such an abomination. 

Wasn't the Jugcopter with the use of flaps only? In the old FM it turned worse than what we have now without flaps and was really stiff at high speed. You couldn't dogfight at all without the flaps and it had extremely harsh stall conditions and a spin really hard to recover from. On the other hand it was more responsive when it wasn't stiff with speed because this "heaviness" wasn't modelled. I think the Jug is the new FW190 like back in the day and needs a revision.

Edited August 10, 2022 by theRedPanda

[IckyATLAS]

It is interesting to compare P51 and the P47. 

The P47 was indeed the largest and heaviest single engine fighter.

 

Now here some elements there may be differences with all the variants but for the sake of the topic this approximations are good enough :

 

P47

Weight 7'400 kilos loaded (Max load is 8'000 kilos)

Engine power 2'300 Hp.

Weight/Power ratio = 3.2

Wingspan = 12.4 mt

Length = 11 mt

Wing surface area = 27.87 m2

Wing Loading = 265 kg/m2

Roll rate = 4.2 seconds

Rate of Climb = 14 m/sec

Max Speed = 689 km/hr

Drag coefficient = 0.0217

 

 

P51

Weight 4'300 kilos loaded

Engine power 1'500 Hp.

Weight/Power ratio 2.86

Wingspan = 11 mt

Length = 9.8

Wing surface area 21.8 m2

Wing Loading = 197 kg/m2

Roll rate = 5 seconds

Rate of Climb = 16 m/s

Max Speed = 710 km/hr

Drag coefficient = 0.0167

 

We see indeed that the P47 was a pretty good fighter indeed. The engine with nearly 1'000 more horsepower (some version had 2'500Hp) did help a lot to compensate for the added weight and higher drag coefficient which is still very good for its size. The 2500 Hp version would improve it a little.

The only things here that differentiate are the higher wing loading of the P47 and the larger wingspan which means more inertia in rotation and the overall weight which also means more inertia in motion. But otherwise those who designed it did a good job. Clearly the P47 would not be surpassed in pursuing downwards an enemy, the weight here with the powerplant and the very acceptable drag would probably make the plane accelerate quickly when plunging from the sky and catch any plane.

 

The only way to answer the question if the FM of the P47 in this sim is correct is to fly a real one and then the simulated one. Those who have done it are entitled to comment.

If any of you has flown a P47 (there are still flying  planes) please do not hesitate to comment, we will all be delighted to have your opinion.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, theRedPanda said:

Wasn't the Jugcopter with the use of flaps only?

Yes, indeed. My point is that even with flaps, in the game you could fly nose up and accellerate from there again with no issues. I would expect drag being monumental in this state. In the real Jug, I do not think that the throttle will be of much help and the only way out of a slow flight is nose down.

7 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

higher drag coefficient

At high AoA, the drag coefficient increases a lot, as frontal plane increases along with induced drag. The larger the airframe, the higher the penalty. Also at low speed and high AoA, you prop will be less efficient and many stated horses will not be available for traction. That is why it is rather trivial to assume flying the Jug at slow speed is a good idea. But in the first release in the game, it was a good idea.

 

But it is not something that would keep me from using the Jug in the game. It‘s a game and it is fun so what.

 

If you know of a two seater Jug, I‘ll fly that one. (There‘s room for 5 in it… ?)

[354thFG_Panda_]

59 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

It is interesting to compare P51 and the P47. 

The P47 was indeed the largest and heaviest single engine fighter.

 

Now here some elements there may be differences with all the variants but for the sake of the topic this approximations are good enough :

 

P47

Weight 7'400 kilos loaded (Max load is 8'000 kilos)

Engine power 2'300 Hp.

Weight/Power ratio = 3.2

Wingspan = 12.4 mt

Length = 11 mt

Wing surface area = 27.87 m2

Wing Loading = 265 kg/m2

Roll rate = 4.2 seconds

Rate of Climb = 14 m/sec

Max Speed = 689 km/hr

Drag coefficient = 0.0217

 

 

P51

Weight 4'300 kilos loaded

Engine power 1'500 Hp.

Weight/Power ratio 2.86

Wingspan = 11 mt

Length = 9.8

Wing surface area 21.8 m2

Wing Loading = 197 kg/m2

Roll rate = 5 seconds

Rate of Climb = 16 m/s

Max Speed = 710 km/hr

Drag coefficient = 0.0167

 

We see indeed that the P47 was a pretty good fighter indeed. The engine with nearly 1'000 more horsepower (some version had 2'500Hp) did help a lot to compensate for the added weight and higher drag coefficient which is still very good for its size. The 2500 Hp version would improve it a little.

The only things here that differentiate are the higher wing loading of the P47 and the larger wingspan which means more inertia in rotation and the overall weight which also means more inertia in motion. But otherwise those who designed it did a good job. Clearly the P47 would not be surpassed in pursuing downwards an enemy, the weight here with the powerplant and the very acceptable drag would probably make the plane accelerate quickly when plunging from the sky and catch any plane.

 

The only way to answer the question if the FM of the P47 in this sim is correct is to fly a real one and then the simulated one. Those who have done it are entitled to comment.

If any of you has flown a P47 (there are still flying  planes) please do not hesitate to comment, we will all be delighted to have your opinion.

 

 

The p47s in game have 2800 hp with 150oct and huge paddle prop, quite a big difference.

57 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Yes, indeed. My point is that even with flaps, in the game you could fly nose up and accellerate from there again with no issues. I would expect drag being monumental in this state. In the real Jug, I do not think that the throttle will be of much help and the only way out of a slow flight is nose down.

At high AoA, the drag coefficient increases a lot, as frontal plane increases along with induced drag. The larger the airframe, the higher the penalty. Also at low speed and high AoA, you prop will be less efficient and many stated horses will not be available for traction. That is why it is rather trivial to assume flying the Jug at slow speed is a good idea. But in the first release in the game, it was a good idea.

 

But it is not something that would keep me from using the Jug in the game. It‘s a game and it is fun so what.

 

If you know of a two seater Jug, I‘ll fly that one. (There‘s room for 5 in it… ?)

https://vintageaviationecho.com/p-47-thunderbolt-nellie/

Reminds me of this interview

Edited August 10, 2022 by theRedPanda

[IckyATLAS]

13 minutes ago, theRedPanda said:

The p47s in game have 2800 hp with 150oct and huge paddle prop, quite a big difference.

It will make some difference in absolute speed and climb rate. But for other things it should be marginal as you do not change wing loading characteristics. Inertial and aerodynamic forces do not change too. So g related issues will remain and may even become more important as with more power you may increase them by having larger acceleration in the same trajectory and hence more g loading. Also increasing power means that the enormous torque involved by the engine and propeller will creates other aerodynamic problems that will make the handling even more delicate.

 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, theRedPanda said:

Reminds me of this interview

Thanks for the link. That is exactly the kind of effect I was thinking about in a heavy aircraft and is where I see a key difference to lighter aircraft.

[357th_KW]

Those wing loading numbers are pretty far off.

 

From the game manual:

P-47D-28 Standard weight: 6503kg

P-47D-22 Standard weight: 6213kg

Wing Area:  27.87 m^2

 

Thst gives wing loadings of:

 

P-47D-28: 233.3 kg/m^2
P-47D-22: 222.9 kg/m^2
 

Some contemporaries we have in game:

P-51D: 205.3

Bf109K-4: 208.8

FW190D-9: 234.4

FW190A-6: 226.2

 

As you can see, the 47 isn’t that far behind a P-51 or 109 (10% worse or so), and is actually ahead of the 190s.  A far cry from the in game experience where it’s comparable to bombers in turn capability.

 

[ZachariasX]

27 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

As you can see, the 47 isn’t that far behind a P-51 or 109 (10% worse or so), and is actually ahead of the 190s.  A far cry from the in game experience where it’s comparable to bombers in turn capability.

The article referended just above shows, upon landing, the P47 is crossing the fence at ~140 mph indicated. I know the Mustang does it at ~120 mph indicated and the Spit9 does it at ~100 mph indicated. There is a very clear effect of the added weight. The fact that you cannot climb away out of a turn into final (all down) even with full power and minimum weight also illustrates how much weight can offset all the power you might throw at it once you are too slow and that in the P47 this can become a real issue much before that happens with other aircraft.

 

Edit: …but when you are fast:

You hear a lot about how the Thunderbolt flies like a brick, and is a bit of a freight train to handle”, Grace reflects. “Yes, it’s an enormous aeroplane and that could be daunting when you first approach it, but it’s so manoeuvrable. It’s every inch the fighter. With a light fuel load you could loop from 250kts, which is unheard of for an aeroplane of its size and weight. All these aeroplanes perform so differently, you just need to sit down and figure it out in your head, then have the opportunity to practice and really learn the aeroplane. It’s an awesome machine and down at low-level and 320kts you really get a sense of why it was such a successful ground attack aeroplane. We look after a number of ex-Fighter Collection aeroplanes and interestingly, this one came to us with more post-restoration hours on it than any of the others, which is perhaps indicative of how nice it is to fly.

 

(From the article above)

Edited August 10, 2022 by ZachariasX

[=RS=Stix_09]

On 8/10/2022 at 6:20 PM, ZachariasX said:

The article referended just above shows, upon landing, the P47 is crossing the fence at ~140 mph indicated. I know the Mustang does it at ~120 mph indicated and the Spit9 does it at ~100 mph indicated. There is a very clear effect of the added weight. The fact that you cannot climb away out of a turn into final (all down) even with full power and minimum weight also illustrates how much weight can offset all the power you might throw at it once you are too slow and that in the P47 this can become a real issue much before that happens with other aircraft.

 

(From the article above)

 

Its not just weight that impacts this. The term is wing load.

ie total mass of an aircraft  divided by the area of its wing

 

My point is this statement is over simplified, (lift, drag, power to weight, wing shape/area etc etc) all impact flight character of dif planes in various stages of flight (in landing, dive, climb, turn, dif speeds etc) Weight is only one factor.

 

My thoughts are the way this sim calulates the various plane flight models means some planes feel good and some are not as good. My understanding is there are generalised formulas in the flight model that applies to every plane in the sim , but fits some better than others. And the weaking for individual planes can't get around the generalisations without a completely different way of doing it.

ie I think there is some generalisations in the calculations that apply to every plane, that fits some planes better than others, so they take a best fit approach. I've read something or watched something in the past from the developer discussed this topic, probably one of the developer interviews.

The FM is generally very good , but has its limits and is more noticeable in some planes than others. Its also interesting flying the various ww2 combat sims, each having things better or worse, but overall this sim does a reasonable job for its target audience.

Edited August 12, 2022 by =RS=Stix_09

[von_Tom]

On 8/10/2022 at 5:17 PM, theRedPanda said:

The p47s in game have 2800 hp with 150oct and huge paddle prop, quite a big difference.

https://vintageaviationecho.com/p-47-thunderbolt-nellie/

Reminds me of this interview

 

That's a great article.  I'd like to know if that P47 was in stock military configuration or minus the armour and guns etc, and what the weight difference was.

 

It also highlights major errors flown by us online pilots as I tend to only see P47s online low down and turning quite hard.  I've also been plastered by BnZ P47s though.

 

von Tom

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

On 8/9/2022 at 6:30 PM, Eisenfaustus said:

 

This I saw more regarding the actual planes then the ammunition they fire. Otherwise I‘d expected the well known „0.50 is unrealistic“ mantra. 
And concerning the American planes as a whole - I don‘t see it. They pretty much behave as I expect from the books I read. Except the P47 - yet I also didn’t take my time learning the ins and outs of the highly complex engine management - so could be my fault either. 

 

For P-51, I'm talking about things like wings breaking off at medium 4-6 G when at high speed, the need to fly at 51"+ at 2700 RPM to get any usable speed out of it - basically takeoff and climb power, and the sudden nasty snap-stalls when doing simple maneuvers like wing-overs.  (Yes, this is all with 50% or less fuel).   There's also the basic issue with almost all the Allied planes as well: go slower than 250-200 mph and the gun platform becomes so unstable aiming is pointless.

Either that, or my T1600 rudder pedals and new-ish X52Pro HOTAS aren't good enough to get accurate control out of the plane.  I have the curves set as best as i can get them.

 

If you want to get into "muh .50 cal." , here's a little anecdote:  Last night I bounced a 109 on FVP server.  I had the convergence set at 250m and began firing at ~275, with good closure rate.  I raked the 109, which did a hard, diving, break turn.  I kept going and tried to keep my speed up to no avail.  The 109 turned back (about a 270 degree turn) and quickly ran up on me - shooting me down.  Afterward, the pilot said in the chat "That P-51 probably was set to 400m convergence but waited until they were at 100m, thus minimal damage."   Yep, sounds like a totally accurate representation of the .50 cal to me....