P-47 Fail

[WarSlothdsbeckett]

Both models of the P-47 have been nearly unflyable for about a year. I just tried to fly it again for the first time in about six months and there has been no improvement. The aircraft consistently handles as if on the verge of a stall, regardless of the power setting. Slight flight control inputs nearly throw the aircraft out of control, moderate flight control inputs will result in an unrecoverable spin, again regardless of power setting or any other aircraft parameters. To fly this in any kind of combat environment is not even worth the time to try.

[WarSlothdsbeckett]

I understand it can't all be fixed at once. I first brought this issue up about a year ago when in the middle of a BON career the 47 all of a sudden couldn't fly anymore. The only aircraft I have flown more than the 47 is the 109, primarily E & F models, and haven't had any issues with them at all.

But as long as it's being tracked so it can be fixed that's my main concern. 👍

[354thFG_Leifr]

Hi WarSloth.

We fly the 47 exclusively, and have done successfully for a long time. Feel free to drop by and ask questions/find someone to fly with online if you're interested.

 

356thFS.

[WarSlothdsbeckett]

I'll check that out, thanks!

[kraut1]

I fly IL2 GB since 2015, always with realistic settings. But today I flew the first time a P47D22 in a EMG by Vander Sept.44 escort mission (from take off to landing without autopilot / time acceleration with realistic settings).

Yes, the handling is very different to most other fighters and it is much more difficult to control the P47 in air combat.

And I had sometimes difficulties to avoid a stall.

But maybe, I am not quite sure, this is much more realistic as the maybe simplified  flight characteristics of the other fighters.

I am not a real pilot (apart of 3 weeks glider training in 1986).

But from my restricted point of view a real plane does not react so straight forward / direct to control commands as the most IL2 planes behave.

So maybe the P47 is not the problem...?

 

[WarSlothdsbeckett]

I appreciate the perspective and agree that different aircraft will have differing handling characteristics. But I used to fly the P-47 on IL-2 on a nearly daily basis, now I never fly it. A basic traffic pattern is a risky undertaking at best as banking the aircraft while in a climb will likely result in an unrecoverable spin.

I can say as a military aviator with nearly 10 years of experience, the P-47 is definitely the problem.

[Art-J]

Keep in mind last year's big revision of both P-47 flight models brought them closer to test results of 1947 NACA paper about stability and controllability of the type. Before revision the planes were flying bricks, now they're MUCH more responsive in pitch, as they should be. With small pitch stability margins (even worse with aux tank full), they just require small and careful joystick inputs. You can call it a "problem", but based on reference material, it appears to be more accurate than before the revision and requires either developing new habits, or more tweaking of joystick curves (now that we can do it separately for each aircraft so why not use it?). Sounds a bit like you're hamfisting the airplane, which might've been necessary with old flight model, but is a big no no with a new one.

 

Also, if you're a pilot, you know that one can stall the airplane at any speed and power setting but one angle of attack, so why are you so concerned with the former while you should work more on control of the latter?

Edited April 28 by Art-J

[czech693]

Are you flying with a full auxiliary tank (or partially filled)?  It moves the CG aft just like the rear fuselage tank does on the P-51.  That can cause stalls and departures.  It's recommended in the manual to use it first.  If you're going on short missions, leave it empty (go with 68% on the fuel).