P47 video

[Gambit21]

Said the pilots at the time...

 

"Take a picture if yourself with the Mustang to send home to your girl...come home to her in a  Jug"

 

That wasn't for no reason.

The durability of the Jug even at the time was well known...including the durability of the engine.

 

[FuriousMeow]

If we start modeling things based on stories, feelings and legends we'll end up in fantasy land with 109s that climb like rockets, turn like zeroes and as fast as the A-12.

 

Fact of the matter is the P47 was built as a high altitude fighter around that turbo which means it isn't heavily built up like the Il-2. It's a fighter designed for air combat at high altitude, not a ground pounder with the airframe considerations to do that. The legend of the P47 is just that. Could it take damage? Yep, and most of that is due to the P&W in the nose. That's what got the plane home over the P51. The airframe is no more overbuilt than any other fighter from that era.

 

Here's the only two pictures of Johnson's P47 that I know of, and it certainly doesn't depict something that took a terrible amount of damage than any other fighter of the era. 

 

[Gambit21]

All of the 352nd pilots that I interviewed (Bob Powell, Don Bryan and others) wished they had their Jugs back when the pre-D-Day pounding of Normandy began.

Some of this was because of the 8x.50 cals, but not all because of that.

 

 

[FuriousMeow]

10 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Said the pilots at the time...

 

"Take a picture if yourself with the Mustang to send home to your girl...come home to her in a  Jug"

 

That wasn't for no reason.

The durability of the Jug even at the time was well known...including the durability of the engine.

 

 

I've seen that Wings episode. But, it was a Wings episode. Of all the photographic evidence of the P47 provided, I don't see a single one that couldn't happen in this title. All of them can easily fly back to base in GB. 

 

Maybe the P&W should run longer after oil leak begins, never tested how long it can run but otherwise the P47 in GB can take the same damage in all pictures I've seen and keep flying. 

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

All of the 352nd pilots that I interviewed (Bob Powell, Don Bryan and others) wished they had their Jugs back when the pre-D-Day pounding of Normandy began.

Some of this was because of the 8x.50 cals, but not all because of that.

 

 

 

Well if I had a liquid cooled engine and I was assigned to fly low to attack ground targets I'd want a radial too.

Edited June 1, 2023 by FuriousMeow

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

 

 

 

Well if I had a liquid cooled engine and I was assigned to fly low to attack ground targets I'd want a radial too.

 

Absolutely. 

[354thFG_Rails]

In my opinion the 47 is still lacking in some aspects of it's modeling, that I hope the devs look at again someday. As a whole it seems pretty close, and pretty rugged and definitely takes a different approach to be successful in.

[Gambit21]

5 minutes ago, 86th_Rails said:

In my opinion the 47 is still lacking in some aspects of it's modeling, that I hope the devs look at again someday. 

 

I know for a fact they're looking at revisiting it.

I don't know if it will actually happen, or if so what it exactly will look like.  

I just know I was asked to provide some info etc, and I did.

 

 

 

 

[FeuerFliegen]

In the 8th Air Force, every one of the top 10 P-47 aces survived the war.  That's not the case for the P-51 or the P-38.

 

If you look at the parts manual for a P-47, everything down to the nuts and bolts, and parts that may seem trivial, appear to be built to last in a way that other fighters simply don't.

 

The fuselage itself is built strongly, and has additional features to keep the pilot alive.  It has a built in crash skid to help when ditching on land or water without landing gear.  It also has what is basically a roll bar similar to what is in a race car in the razorback models.

 

People mention the radial engine, and cylinders being shot out, but the turbocharger itself is also heavily built and also provides protection to the rest of the plane from fire that may originate from that area in the rear of the plane.  There are even diagrams of the plane that show the turbo system as one of the pilot protection features.  The turbo system, with all of it's ducting, takes up quite a bit of space throughout the fuselage, and even that ducting provides protection as it must be very strong to handle pressures reaching 40psi.  Think of all those parts that must be this strong; the waste gate, collector ring, tubing to the carburetor, intercooler cooling air exit, exhaust pipes, supercharger, flight hood, turbine, intercooler - those all add up to quite a bit of mass that in a way, creates armor, even if it is not literally considered armor.  None of those parts on their own might stop a bullet, but all of them added up will certainly slow down and destabilize the bullets / explosions / fragments before they do reach the rest of the airplane and pilot.

 

Yes, it's anecdotal, but the famous incident of Robert Johnson's P-47 that had an FW190 unload it's entire ammo capacity into his jug is quite remarkable, and we simply don't hear these kind of stories from other fighters.  All before the FW190 attacked him, his jug was set on fire, there were fuel and hydraulic leaks spraying everywhere including into the cockpit, it's turbosupercharger was completely knocked out, and he could not bail out due to a jammed canopy.  The fire went out, he regained control, and was able to head home... then intercepted by the FW190, and still survived.  Over 200 bullet holes just in the tail before he gave up on counting, but the most remarkable thing was the fact that the plane was hit by 21(!!) 20mm cannon rounds; 3 of which hit the armor plate behind the cockpit, which is NOT in any way designed to handle that kind of round, which I believe is more evidence that all of the other heavy duty parts of the plane, such as the turbocharger parts and ducting, adds to the slowing down and destabilization of enemy fire and effectively acts as armor.  It was not unheard of for a WW2 fighter to be brought down by one or two 20mm cannon rounds.

 

One interview with Rip Collins, a former P-47 and P-51 pilot, made a stamens referring to the Jug vs. the Mustang:

 

"The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction. One example was the throttle arm. You can see the difference. What does all this mean? The safety of the fighter pilot."  

 

"The Republic Thunderbolt had a radial engine that could take hits and keep on running. I know of an actual case where a Jug brought a pilot back from Borneo after 8 hours in the air. The pilot landed with the master cylinder and three other cylinders blown out of commission. But the Jug kept chugging along, running well enough to bring its pilot back safely to his base at Morotai. I was there."

 

He then speaks to it's ability to survive during a rough / crash landing:

"The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom. You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen."

 

"The Jug had a very wide landing gear. This made it easy to land just about anywhere, with no tendency to ground loop. Many times we had to land on rice paddies and irregular ground. When you set the Thunderbolt down, it was down. In the Far East, England, Africa, and Italy, this helped you get down and walk away from it. To me, that was very important for the safety of the pilot."

 

"The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is remarkable. The ratio of kills to losses was unmistakably a winner. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and 160,000 vehicles."

"But, the big factor, above all else, it saved pilots in great numbers. Ask most fighter pilots who flew both in active combat and they will tell you that, given a choice to fly either one in combat, it would be the Juggernaut hands down."

 

"Now one last thing: the P-51 Mustang was a superb fighter. I am fully aware of that! But, considering that I flew about every kind of mission the Pentagon could dream up, and a few they didn't know about, I will rate that 8 tons of destruction first as long as I live, and no one can change my mind. I was there. Simply walk up to one of them and see for yourself.  The dictionary defines "juggernaut" as: "any large, overpowering, destructive force or object." That was the P-47 of World War II."

 

The wing structure, being very strong, has two main spars, and three auxiliary spars, one of which is extra strong to take stress from the wing mounted landing gear.  This design reduces the chance of catastrophic damage to the wing.  There are countless cases of wings surviving cannon rounds, even up to 40mm(!).  There is a picture, which I'll have to locate, of a P-47 that landed with a 500lb bomb still attached, which exploded after landing.  the P-47 was completely torn apart, but the pilot survived, and the wings were still generally intact.  The vertical and horizontal stabilizers on the empennage are built in similar fashion as the wings.

 

All of this claiming it's just a bunch of stories, feelings, and legends is quite dismissive considering how well documented all of this is.  If the P-47 really wasn't any more durable than other fighters of WW2, then why would there be so much incentive to push this narrative?  Are there stores and feelings from people who lived the war who don't support this theory?  There's simply too much evidence otherwise, and I don't understand why some will make claims that it's not the case, other than the simple fact that there will always be those who, like everything in life(as a personality trait?), must push back against the narrative we have all read and learned about.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I know for a fact they're looking at revisiting it.

I don't know if it will actually happen, or if so what it exactly will look like.  

I just know I was asked to provide some info etc, and I did.

 

Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the P-47, and the fact that it would probably take as much
(or even more) work to model as a heavy bomber, the devs simply can not, or will not dedicate the amount of resources it takes to properly model it, as they will only allow so much FM development for a single engine fighter, regardless of how complex it is.

[Skycat1969]

Let's begin with assurances that P-47 pilots were given during the war, directly from the 1945 USAAF training manual:

Quote

 

"... Fighters will make an increasing number of attacks on ground targets .... The P-47 is a grand plane for this type of warfare. Terrific firepower keeps the enemy ducking, and the plane's heavy construction withstands savage punishment. Plenty of pilots in the ETO call the P-47 the best fighter in the world for low-altitude work."

"You are protected by a face-hardened steel plate behind and in front of the cockpit seat and bullet-resistant glass in front. The engine, supercharger and gas tanks are an added shield."

"When making a forced landing, keep your speed up even though the terrain is rough or wooded. A P-47, which is built like a bulldozer, will plough right through."

 

Even allowing for some confidence-boosting hyperbole, there is indication here that the real aircraft was more than a fat, waddling target.

 

IMO the P-47 in the game should have a more durable motor. I've had engines seize caused by exploding trucks during a strafing run. It seems to me that motor is too fragile or that it is too easily destroyed by energy directed at the cockpit area of the fuselage. Any ballistics to the upper cowling is fatal. This is where I agree with statement that the P-47 should be on a parity with the IL-2: It should at the very least be slightly better able to survive a strafing run against an armed train than a Mustang or Spitfire -- but I'll concede that is just my opinion.

 

Another 'probably just my opinion' is that the game's P-47 doesn't produce enough power for its weight; perhaps this is a game-ism to force it to be a slow climber or to hobble it as a dogfighter. The conventional wisdom of the community is, "it performed poorly at low altitude and that's reflected in the sim." I'll have to do some scientific comparisons but it has always struck me how much of a dog the P-47 is at, say 2000 feet, using full throttle and full turbo while the P-51 just glides along and achieves the same speed at half throttle or less. So how does this behavior compare to a contemporary comparison between a P-47D and P-51D? Consider this:

Quote

"We flew a formation take-off with the Thunderbolt and Mustang last year. Jon Gowdy was in the P-47 and I was in TF-51 Contrary Mary. I thought, I'll build up power on the brakes and release as soon as the Thunderbolt starts to roll. I expected I would need to come back on the power, and would end up getting airborne before the P-47. It was the polar opposite! The second he let his brakes off, I released mine and it was like nothing happened in comparison -- I was sat watching the P-47 disappearing off down the runway! I put on as much power as you'd want to put on the Mustang, and he was airborne before me. The Mustang cleans up faster than the Thunderbolt, so I closed the gap as the undercarriage was retracting on both aeroplanes, but the second the wheels were up the P-47 just went. It was a good 10kts faster and I eventually had to ask him to come back on the power as I was giving it everything and couldn't catch up!"

From Richard Grace on flying P-47D Thunderbolt 'Nellie B' (vintageaviationecho.com)

Again, I know this is just anecdotal evidence and certainly it provides an incomplete portrayal of the two aircraft at that. It does however lend to my suspicion that the game's P-47 is underpowered. Or rather, powerful just enough to haul an undamaged aircraft around.

[354thFG_Rails]

1 hour ago, Skycat1969 said:

Another 'probably just my opinion' is that the game's P-47 doesn't produce enough power for its weight; perhaps this is a game-ism to force it to be a slow climber or to hobble it as a dogfighter. The conventional wisdom of the community is, "it performed poorly at low altitude and that's reflected in the sim." I'll have to do some scientific comparisons but it has always struck me how much of a dog the P-47 is at, say 2000 feet, using full throttle and full turbo while the P-51 just glides along and achieves the same speed at half throttle or less. So how does this behavior compare to a contemporary comparison between a P-47D and P-51D? Consider this:

Again, I know this is just anecdotal evidence and certainly it provides an incomplete portrayal of the two aircraft at that. It does however lend to my suspicion that the game's P-47 is underpowered. Or rather, powerful just enough to haul an undamaged aircraft around.

I've made a bug report on this. The engine supercharger is losing to much manifold as it climbs. should be able to maintain 42" up to about 8k feet. Currently it can only manages about 38". There's also evidence that has been pointed(FM thread) out that it's critical altitude is to low for the turbo.  There's also a weird quirk or bug to where the RPM will not hold at certain speed or while turning. it's losing about 100 rpm, also accounting for power loss. There's also technical aspects of armament being wrong (no API or even I still) like no box convergence. Like has been stated there  is a lot that has been pointed out to where in my opinion the plane should get a second look, before a new plane.

Edited June 1, 2023 by 86th_Rails

[FeuerFliegen]

31 minutes ago, 86th_Rails said:

I've made a bug report on this. The engine supercharger is losing to much manifold as it climbs. should be able to maintain 42" up to about 8k feet. Currently it can only manages about 38". There's also evidence that has been pointed(FM thread) out that it's critical altitude is to low for the turbo.  There's also a weird quirk or bug to where the RPM will not hold at certain speed or while turning. it's losing about 100 rpm, also accounting for power loss. There's also technical aspects of armament being wrong (no API or even I still) like no box convergence. Like has been stated there  is a lot that has been pointed out to where in my opinion the plane should get a second look, before a new plane.

 

I need to make a big report on this too, but I've tested flying with the turbocharger at 0% and throttle at 100% to see how much boost it could put out with supercharger alone (which was lower than real life reports show), and I decided to close the intercooler flaps from neutral (50%) to 0%, and there was zero increase in speed from the improved aerodynamics.  This is clearly a bug as having two large openings on the side of the fuselage should definitely add some drag.

[Skycat1969]

Well, I just did some straight and level tests on the Normandy map and I'm actually surprised at how well both P-47 models performed. I was seeing about 300 mph IAS with full RPM, full turbo, and full throttle; and skimming the surface of the Channel. I did not see a noticeable difference between 10% fuel w/ no ammo loadout vs. 100% fuel w/ standard ammo load. Switching on the water injection got me up to about 325 mph in both loadout configurations.

The P-51D attained 325 mph within less time and without 'breaking the wire' on the throttle gate; and I got it up to about 350 mph on the deck with the throttle and RPM fully forward. (Again, I saw no noticeable difference between 10% fuel w/no ammo vs. fully fueled and loaded with ammo.)

In summary the P-47 exceeded my perception of its best AGL performance in the game, which was based on my experiences flying it on the Bodenplatte map. I'll continue my tests in the Rheinland.

I agree the P-47 does lose speed questionably fast if the throttle is reduced or if there is a deviation from straight and level.

[ZachariasX]

I see the problem - a deeper problem across several aircraft and generations of this sim series - in an inadequate computation of induced drag plus growing frontal plane drag. Heavy aircaft don‘t need to feel heavy, conversely relatively light airctaft can feel heavy. It depends on their layout and CoG. The P47 is a fine handling aircraft and doing airshow aerobatics in the Mustang is a considerable workout for the pilot as well.

 

The problem heavy aircraft have is a disproportional growth in induced drag, requiring exponentional more power to compensate. A heavy aircraft can NEVER follow a type similar (no F22 vs prop comparison here) heavy aircraft in slow turns. Also putting g loads on produces disproportional drag. The Tempest is probably the worst offender regarding that in this game. Or remember the Jugcopter? That is where they botched it. Not because „it didn‘t feel heavy enough“. The trick they used in the baby Spit to make it lively on the pitch was ok and a charming artifact. Yet it absolutely f*cked the Griffon Spit that is less tail heavy and it handles now like a confused whale instead like a Spit.

 

Induced drag is why a Mustang cannot follow a Spit in a slow turn, where you notice speed bleed getting an issue, whereas the Spit keeps going. Yet when you go fast, the Mustang accellerates away from the Spit, suddenly reversing the drag situation.

 

AFAIK, the P47 is not really flown past 4 g, as you would not keep up with your other airshow buddies, despite being one of the fastest plane otherwise.

 

It is of note that slow speed drag gets such that even 2500 hp can‘t save you when you went past coffin corner by being too slow in an approach. This is why you need to fly considerably faster than stated stall speed in these planes. You simply cannot assume the plane casually hovering at stall speed and not fall out of the sky, as full power and minimum speed don‘t mix well regarding control authority. You need A LOT of power to fly slow in a heavy aircraft.

[Lusekofte]

Speaking by the pilots view in interviews both from air shows and back in the days. 
All pilots that started their combat career in the Jug was not pleased when learning they would transfer to P 51. 
Until they did, their point of view changed instantly when getting airborne in their new ride. 
I have not found one interview of a ww2 pilot saying anything but praise about the P 47. But they would not get back once in a P 51. 
US pilots by 44 was probably the best trained pilots in the world. No matter what they flew, their collective strategy made them  a very dangerous adversary. And none of the opponents could by then meet them with quantity and quality. 
Airshows pilots got another point of view regarding these two planes. With P 47 thru first sentence would be “ you got to be aware of” or “if you don’t do this or that you will”  just as a side note airshow pilots flying both and P 40 find latter the most fun. 

P47 is and was a beast, its enormous power did make up for its weight and demanded a lot more of its pilots than the P 51. And it was adored by its crew. 
min a sim where you meet adversary with quantity and quality things are a little different. It is like day and night. Because in a sim us pilots no longer are well trained and work as a team. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Lusekofte

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I have not found one interview of a ww2 pilot saying anything but praise about the P 47. But they would not get back once in a P 51. 
 

Except for when they did, as I pointed out above. I did my own interviews. I’ve already named names and could give you more.

 

As I already indicated their comments were specific to ground attack.

 

Helps to read the thread.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Gambit21

[MisterSmith]

Intentional or not, this has clearly moved into an FM/DM conversation. Gotta move it now.

 

Smith

[TacticalOni]

Oh look, another P-47 FM/DM thread! 

I've said my peace in the other one but I would like to remark that the survivability of the P-47 seems to stem from the engine being able to take shocking amounts of punishment and the relatively decent armor behind the pilot helping keep them alive, but a bigger aircraft has a lot more skin to hit and a lot more "dead space" where a bullet can pass through and do essentially nothing. In the 47 the turbosupercharger and ducting took up about a thirdish of the bottom half of the fuselage, the rest is open space behind the pilot and up front you have quite a bit between you and the bullets in a head-on.
What I see very little of, and the thing that's gotten me killed the most frequently in IL-2's P-47, is any damage to the wings tends to rob it of its controls pretty quickly, and I don't have a body of evidence collected to say "well in WWII it was more survivable taking wing hits." 

Regardless on who agrees on what with the FM, I hope we can all agree that the 47 needs more lift. She soaks up a lot of runway and doesn't seem to want to leave the ground without flaps, clean. Even with, say 10' of flaps, it takes a lot of time past takeoff speed (which is just a skosh over stall speed) to get off the runway, and that's if you really pull. It's easy to tell that to get rid of the 47 doing helicopter stunts the devs stripped a lot of lift (and likely some engine power/propeller effectiveness ((and also decreased the effectiveness of the elevator))) and decided that it was fine after that, though in hindsight the pendulum was swung way too far the other way, and a gentle reintroduction of the nerfed characteristics will bring the 47 closer to what we know from data that not only the Russians have. 

[Sobilak]

Interesting info about P-47 in escort mission's;

 

[FeuerFliegen]

 

[the_emperor]

That reports clearly shows why each single plane needs at least a detailed fully modelled oil and coolant system (lines and tanks alike)

to give us those described B-Kills (in case of the P-47ˋs engine showing the oil system as its vulnerable system to produce a B-Kill). 
That is dearly missing in this game. 

Edited June 25, 2023 by the_emperor

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, the_emperor said:

That reports clearly shows why each single plane needs at least a detailed fully modelled oil and coolant system (lines and tanks alike)

to give us those described B-Kills (in case of the P-47ˋs engine showing the oil system as its vulnerable system to produce a B-Kill). 
That is dearly missing in this game. 

Clifs have that, it didnt atract more players from GB to try it, at this point DM should just be fine tuned from update to update to liking of curent player base, adding extra stuff to it detail is not to be expected if fuel system was abandoned. 

[356thFS_Melonfish]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:52 AM, the_emperor said:

That reports clearly shows why each single plane needs at least a detailed fully modelled oil and coolant system (lines and tanks alike)

to give us those described B-Kills (in case of the P-47ˋs engine showing the oil system as its vulnerable system to produce a B-Kill). 
That is dearly missing in this game. 

That may not be the vulnerability you think it is.

 

Not to mention documented cases of missing cylinders and the 47 being flown back home.

 

I still agree that we need full fuel/oil/coolant lines and damage models though.

[the_emperor]

3 hours ago, 86th_Melonfish said:

That may not be the vulnerability you think it is.

 

I was quoting the test, when a destroyed main oil line (not holed, destroyed by a 20mmHE) or radiator was counted as a 100% B-Kill if I understand that correctly, which cuts the engine from the oil supply which will ultimately cause an engine seizure.

Of course damage to the oil system is not always a certain kill and smaller damage might not be enough to credit for a kill an (as this picture shows, which may look spectacular but keep the engine supplied to a certain degree).

And I dont doubt the ruggedness of the P47s R2800.

 

3 hours ago, 86th_Melonfish said:

 

I still agree that we need full fuel/oil/coolant lines and damage models though.

Yeah..maybe in the next generation if this game

Edited June 28, 2023 by the_emperor

[EduardoMCfly]

On 5/31/2023 at 8:17 AM, DBFlyguy said:

Hmmm.....

 

 

Wow, I just noticed I somehow ended up in this thread... haha  

[kraut1]

Concerning AI of P47-D22:

I am flying currently a Luftwaffe 1943 SP Excel Logbook career in the Netherlands, only intercept missions against RAF / USAAF fighters, fighter bombers and light medium bombers, Missions created with EMG by Vander.

AI Level for fighters in general EMG level = regular, this means flight leader = veteran / high, the rest normal

And some single EMG "Lonewolves" AI fighters = Ace

The Allieds in general with numerical superiority.

-until end of May in first line vs. RAF Spitfire V / IX and Typhoon fighters.

The AI RAF fighters were in general aggressive, always dangerous / see video of FW190 vs B26 with Typhoon escort.

Attack on B26 05:45, damaged by Typhoons at 06:05

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/85623-il2gb-emg-by-vander-mission-alarmstart-von-amsterdam-schiphol-1943/

 

-since June I have selected another plane set with in first line USAAF planes, P47-D22 as fighter, fighter bomber.

All other mission settings the same.

The AI P47-D22s with the same AI level as the RAF fighters are attacking much less frequently, although they are very often in the same tactical position as the RAF fighters. Maybe they just don't fire? And much less frequently deflection shooting.

The losses of the Luftwaffe 4x FW190 flight are now much less. Before vs RAF always 25% to 75% losses. vs USAAF P47-D22 currently max. 25%.

I think I will raise the AI level for the P47-D22 in future.

 

Added 07.11.: Raising in EMG ailevel of flight to veteran (IL2 ailevel high/ace) helped, now the P47 escort fighters are dangerous

Edited November 7, 2023 by kraut1
Added 07.11.: Raising in EMG ailevel of flight to veteran (IL2 ailevel high/ace) helped, now the P47 escort fighters are dangerous