P-47 Flight modelling

[ACG_Dickie]

I've been flying a few P-47 missions in our campaign with the classic fighter and I would just like to know if anyone else thinks the flight model is right?  I've done a lot of missions but I'm no ace nor do I claim to be, but this one can't fight, loves a stall in a knife fight energy or not.  An unstable aircraft should be agile surely?

 

Currently we are aware of DM changes to come and I would hope that it gets beefed up, which would be correct because it was one of the hardiest birds of the war,  but is the FM getting a look at?

 

I'd like to hear opinions from others since this is one of the birds to be used in Normandy and ACG have a lot of Normandy ahead of us.  We want one of the most potent US aircraft to perform as closely as possible to the real thing, I think we can all agree on that regardless of our favourite factions.

 

Thank you

~S~

[Art-J]

Oh dear, that's not even a dead horse to beat, more like its dry bones.

 

Keep in mind, i'm not trying to discourage you, but there are four subject-related threads on the first page of "FM/AI discussion" section of the forum alone, and that's just a tip of an iceberg. It's quite possible this thread is going to be merged with one of the others as well...

[Knarley-Bob]

Whilst it IS beating a dead horse, the complaints HAVE merit.

People pay their money, find out it flies like an overloaded pickup with under inflated tires, and complain. They don't know of the volumes already written, and ignored, about the subject. If it wasn't such a piece of junk, not all these people would complain. No?

Perhaps a warning to people BEFORE they purchase the product would help. Especially those who would like to fly a P-47. Warn them!

 

KB

Edited August 28, 2022 by Knarley-Bob

[354thFG_Panda_]

The P47 is fine and does not need any changes to its flight model, what are you expecting from a extremely heavy draggy brick??? I would rather the devs focused on more pressing issues like the lack of modifications for the FW190A8 (a true workhorse), tempest turning and the D9s winter performance being subpar,,,,, 

 

These things would greatly enhance the immersion of the simulation, especially the tempest 

Edited August 29, 2022 by theRedPanda

[=621=Samikatz]

Someone did a really good long post on it in the FM discussion forum and tl;dr it's missing a decent amount of lift and ability to pull AoA, so it should turn a fair bit better. imo the aircraft's most frustrating problem is even if you get a good drop on someone you can't often pull lead to actually hit them which doesn't feel right

 

 

I imagine FM/development focus has been on finishing BoN and getting it out the door. Once that's over and done with I hope things like this get another look

[354thFG_Panda_]

11 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Someone did a really good long post on it in the FM discussion forum and tl;dr it's missing a decent amount of lift and ability to pull AoA, so it should turn a fair bit better. imo the aircraft's most frustrating problem is even if you get a good drop on someone you can't often pull lead to actually hit them which doesn't feel right

 

 

I imagine FM/development focus has been on finishing BoN and getting it out the door. Once that's over and done with I hope things like this get another look

The experts have already disproven everything in there^

 

You cant pull lead because you are not suppose to. It only flies in straight lines with the occasional tug. It is not a fighter my friend. Not a good ground attacker either. Im not sure what it is, it just exists...

Edited August 28, 2022 by theRedPanda

[DBFlyguy]

20 minutes ago, theRedPanda said:

The P47 is fine and does not need any changes to its flight model, what are you expecting from a extremely heavy draggy brick??? I would rather the devs focused on more pressing issues like the lack of modifications for the FW190A8 (a true workhorse), tempest turning and the D9s winter performance being subpar,,,,, 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by DBFlyguy

[354thFG_Panda_]

Please stop with the ad hominems...

 

Peoples expectations of the Jug are quite off honestly.

 

"Thunderbolt" disappointed Soviet test pilots. One of the best flight engineers at LII, Mark Lazarevich Gallay, recalled the flight on the P-47 this way:

- Already in the first minutes of the flight, I realized that this is not a fighter! Stable, with a comfortable spacious cockpit, comfortable, but not a fighter. "Thunderbolt" had unsatisfactory manoeuvrability in the horizontal and especially in the vertical plane. The plane accelerated slowly - the inertia of the heavy machine affected. The Thunderbolt was perfect for a simple en-route flight without harsh manoeuvres. This is not enough for a fighter.

Edited February 2, 2023 by theRedPanda

[Hitcher]

The P47 was only effective against zerstorers and fighters flying in a straight line distracted by heavy bombers, look it up.

[DBFlyguy]

1 hour ago, ACG_Dickie said:

I've been flying a few P-47 missions in our campaign with the classic fighter and I would just like to know if anyone else thinks the flight model is right?  I've done a lot of missions but I'm no ace nor do I claim to be, but this one can't fight, loves a stall in a knife fight energy or not.  An unstable aircraft should be agile surely?

 

Currently we are aware of DM changes to come and I would hope that it gets beefed up, which would be correct because it was one of the hardiest birds of the war,  but is the FM getting a look at?

 

I'd like to hear opinions from others since this is one of the birds to be used in Normandy and ACG have a lot of Normandy ahead of us.  We want one of the most potent US aircraft to perform as closely as possible to the real thing, I think we can all agree on that regardless of our favourite factions.

 

Thank you

~S~

There are numerous topics covering the P-47s we have in this game needing some more work in FM and DM ...will they ever get looked again... we'll see.  The "other game" has a very nice representation of the P-47 though, definitely recommend checking that one out in the meantime.

 

 

[354thFG_Panda_]

15 minutes ago, Hitcher said:

The P47 was only effective against zerstorers and fighters flying in a straight line distracted by heavy bombers, look it up.

Events like this are quite cherry picked to amplify the success of this bus, you have to keep that in mind.

 

Are you guys happy, it will now fight DVIIFs. Take off might be a struggle though...

Edited August 28, 2022 by theRedPanda

[354thFG_Panda_]

Wrong, That's not what I am saying at all 

Edited August 28, 2022 by theRedPanda

[ST_Catchov]

Whilst you're here in the FC forum, what do you think about the Se5a FM? As a starting point, I think it's the WW1 equivalent of the Jug.

[MisterSmith]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

Whilst you're here in the FC forum, what do you think about the Se5a FM? As a starting point, I think it's the WW1 equivalent of the Jug.

 

One bad click............

[CountZero]

Its hangar airplane in this game, best you prepare to replace it with some other model or get best you can from what you have now, i doubt anything gona change with its FM/DM any time sone.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Can't figure out why they bothered putting a supercharger in it, the high altitude performance is abysmal at the most, where was the cost ratio benefit?

[354thFG_Panda_]

42 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Can't figure out why they bothered putting a supercharger in it, the high altitude performance is abysmal at the most, where was the cost ratio benefit?

Strange it has pretty good speed at high altitude. Especially the d22

There is this thread related to it though 

[Mtnbiker1998]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Can't figure out why they bothered putting a supercharger in it, the high altitude performance is abysmal at the most, where was the cost ratio benefit?

they didn't, they put a turbocharger in it.

[354thFG_Panda_]

13 minutes ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

they didn't, they put a turbocharger in it.

They put both

[gimpy117]

On 8/29/2022 at 5:16 PM, theRedPanda said:

They put both

Turbosupercharger doesn't mean what you think it does. It was an old aviation term for a turbocharger. I asked my professors while I was studying for my A&P about that actually, they said it probably sounded better to marketing. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by gimpy117

[Charon]

1 hour ago, gimpy117 said:

Turbosupercharger doesn't mean what you think it does. It was an old aviation term for a turbocharger. I asked my professors while I was studying for my A&P about that actually, they said it probably sounded better to marketing. 

No, the R-2800 has a supercharger in addition to the Turbosupercharger in the rear fuselage This is why you can pull more than 30" MP even with the turbo wastegates fully open.

 

Straight from the manual:

 

Quote

The P-47N has two superchargers; an impeller attached directly to the engine, and a turbo-supercharger which gives the plane its superb high altitude performance.

- Pilot training manual for the Thunderbolt P-47N, Sept 1945.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Charon

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, Charon said:

No, the R-2800 has a supercharger

It is even required to distribute the fuel to the cylinders evenly in big radials. The engine wouldn't even run properly below 30'' if it wasn't for the provision of that impeller. the Ju-52 engines even have one, despite the modest charging. Also they wouldn't really work at all without it.

[Sitaro]

All I really want to know, are they ever going to fix the 47? There is more than enough documentation in about 3 threads on here showing it is just completely hosed. Both in the flight model and the damage model. Perhaps if it was a bit more true to life, people would actually try to fly it more. But right now you ask, want to fly the 47? And people think you're cracked for even suggesting it. 

[354thFG_Panda_]

2 hours ago, Sitaro said:

All I really want to know, are they ever going to fix the 47? There is more than enough documentation in about 3 threads on here showing it is just completely hosed. Both in the flight model and the damage model. Perhaps if it was a bit more true to life, people would actually try to fly it more. But right now you ask, want to fly the 47? And people think you're cracked for even suggesting it. 

Maybe when Normandy is over and they have time they will look into it. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by theRedPanda

[Eisenfaustus]

They did say that with 5.0 there will be a DM overhaul if I remember correctly. So yes - P47 might feel sturdier afterwards. We‘ll see. 

[Sitaro]

1 hour ago, Eisenfaustus said:

They did say that with 5.0 there will be a DM overhaul if I remember correctly. So yes - P47 might feel sturdier afterwards. We‘ll see. 

Possibly but there is a lot of flight modeling in question as well. And there was no mention of that.  Until the update, we just won't know. 

[354thFG_Rails]

The skin damage bug is a big deal. I’m hoping that at least gets corrected with the upcoming patch. Hopefully they’ll look into the flight model soon but I won’t hold my breath. 

[JG27*PapaFly]

The P-47... when it was released, it was a helicopter. Then, the Tempest came around and took all the available turn rate contingent ?

[TacticalOni]

I swear that when the FM was "fixed" to take care of the prop hanging helicopter part, something was inexplicably busted in the flight model. 

With the understanding the P-47 was a big heavy airplane, It just sheds energy in spades and doesn't get it back at all, and it feels incorrect in a way that has already been expounded by people smarter than me in other threads. 

With BoN out the door, can we begin to hope the devs start putting the aircraft back in line? 

[354thFG_Panda_]

1 hour ago, TacticalOni said:

I swear that when the FM was "fixed" to take care of the prop hanging helicopter part, something was inexplicably busted in the flight model. 

With the understanding the P-47 was a big heavy airplane, It just sheds energy in spades and doesn't get it back at all, and it feels incorrect in a way that has already been expounded by people smarter than me in other threads. 

With BoN out the door, can we begin to hope the devs start putting the aircraft back in line? 

BoN is kind of half out the door, still has to be released on steam. The recent damage model update made it so much more enjoyable to fly. Would really be awesome to see this vital aircraft revisited once again when they have the time.

Edited September 28, 2022 by theRedPanda