PDA

View Full Version : Thunderjoke



MLudner
10-03-2007, 10:38 PM
<Sigh> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
I may be about to abandon this game entirely, at the very least I am now exceedingly unlikely to buy BoB when it comes out.
I bought into this game as a WWII Combat Flight Simulator and I am now thoroughly disillousioned. More and more I now find myself thinking of this game as Oleg's Fantasy World and calling aircraft things like "Oleg's Fantasy Machine", the "Olegest V", "Oleg-Wulf-190", ET CETERA.

The Oleg-47 is my biggest frustration. That aircraft is so wildly tanked it staggers me. It in no way resembles a P-47. Today I found myself chasing a FW-190A6 with a P-47D-22 at altitudes that reached an excess of 8,000m. It started after I evaded one of Oleg's Fantasy Machines (a MiG-3U) by diving into the cloud cover and frustrating him until he gave up and left (I discovered that MiG-3U's can out-dive P-47's as I only just barely - by the very skin of my teeth, no less! - made it to the clouds before he reached effective firing range). After he went his way I climbed back up and returned to the combat area at 5,500m. I spotted a hostile at co-alt to my right so far away he was only a speck so I had no idea what it was, only that it was hostile.
Of course, we both started doing the same thing: climbing as each tried to get above the other before engaging. It didn't work for either, so I slowed my climb and turned into him so that I could at least know what I was confronting.
An FW-190A6.
I immediately figured there was a fight coming. My aircraft is painfully faster than an Fw-190A6/A8/A9 or D9 and we are now at 6,200m, which is optimal performance altitude for a P-47. A razorback P-47 will hit 432 or so MPH up here, the best an Anton will attain is 409 MPH. I therefore figure he will either have to fight of dive for it and hope I don't follow him all the way. I am confident I can turn with a 190 in my P-47.
Now, in case there is any question: 432 is a BIGGER number than 409, and thus it follows, as the night the day, that 432 MPH is FASTER than 409 MPH. Period. If there is any question as to the accuracy of this claim please refer to your 1st Grade math books, thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
He had also turned into me.
Curiously, he went past and I had easily turned onto his tail, expecting that initially I would Lose some ground but expecting my painfully faster P-47 would inexorably gain a speed advantage and close the gap.
Somewhere about 15 or 20 minutes later we have exceeded 8,000m altitude. I have gained exactly 0 meters. The FW is now 2.16/17/18/17/16/17/18 away at all times. I have experimented with every prop pitch setting from 40% to 100%, all to no avail. However, from experience I already knew that 85% pitch attained best speed, 100% best climb.
My bladder is ready to explode and I really need to break for lunch as I am famished, so I finally broke-off.
All I can say is that whole chase was entirely ludicrous. The 190 did not possess better energy, yet I was never able to close in an aircraft that was at least 23 MPH faster than the aircraft I was chasing.
Later, I had a D9 out-run me in the P-47D-somethingish, then add ludicrous to laughable by easily out-diving me ... again while possessing no energy advantage.
I have found I can only out-run aircraft in the Oleg-47 (for it is certainly no P-47) when I possess a vastly superior energy-state to my opponent and woe be unto me should anything show-up at co-alt with equal energy. I am probably going to abandon the Oleg-47 alltogether ... and possibly this entire, ludicrous game with it.

I.JG27_Wotan
10-04-2007, 12:53 AM
Hi MLudner

first: Please don`t give up the game.Every player is one reason more to Oleg to make a good SOW and maybe to update Il-2 to get rid of such annoying things.And we need you online. There will be less stuff to shoot at , when you leave http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Second:The story with the MiG is annoying. Yes you should be able to outdive him easily.

Third: If the FW was a D9 then it`s right that she(the FW) is faster( even faster as P-47 D27) at ALL altitudes( refering to Hardballs comparison tool).And the FW 190 (A6/A8/A9/D9) climbs better( Hardball).
If I`m wrong( or Hardball), tell me.

Take it easy.Yes there are some faults in Olegs game. I for my self detected quite a few. Despite that I have fun.And I hope you will not give up this wonderful game.

leitmotiv
10-04-2007, 01:21 AM
I am moved by such heartfelt pleas.

That is a nauseating P-47 story.

joeap
10-04-2007, 03:04 AM
Man you never used to be like that, are you joking or what?

general_kalle
10-04-2007, 03:21 AM
remember old Monty pythons wise words

Always look on the bright side of life
etc.

look on all the cool stuff.
and tell me which ww2 flight sim that is more accurate than this one?

yes the P47 is not as good at high altitudes as it should be.

myself i have completly been outerformed by a Ki84C at 6000 meters.
unrealistic ya but whatever.
its still the coolest game there is

its just my opinion that it isnt so bad that you have to leave the game

but whatever, your decicion
your loss

JG53Frankyboy
10-04-2007, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
..............................I immediately figured there was a fight coming. My aircraft is painfully faster than an Fw-190A6/A8/A9 or D9 and we are now at 6,200m, which is optimal performance altitude for a P-47. A razorback P-47 will hit 432 or so MPH up here, the best an Anton will attain is 409 MPH. I therefore figure he will either have to fight of dive for it and hope I don't follow him all the way. I am confident I can turn with a 190 in my P-47.
Now, in case there is any question: 432 is a BIGGER number than 409, and thus it follows, as the night the day, that 432 MPH is FASTER than 409 MPH. Period. If there is any question as to the accuracy of this claim please refer to your 1st Grade math books, thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
He had also turned into me.
.................................

il2compare is giging 635km/h (~395mph)for the P-47D-22 and 665km/h (~412mph) for the Fw190A-5 (identical performance as the A-6) at 6000m alt.
i trust compare in these numbers.............

anyway, one of my biggest wishes for the ingame P-47s , beside to have the extra ammo available with bombs abd droptanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , is to upgrade the performance of the D-22 to the perfroamnce of the D-27.
so we would have a Razorback and Bubbletop Thunderbolt with the same performance.

Sturm_Williger
10-04-2007, 04:11 AM
I don't fly the P47 as I'm normally flying Blue, but I've had them outdive and outrun me in a 190 (although I rarely go all the way up to their optimum alt)
Given the numbers quoted above, that implies that those P47 pilots are better pilots than me. Maybe you just ran into a very very good 190 driver, Mludner. One night's flights can never be conclusive.

Also, P47's can take an insane ( referring to my reaction, not casting aspersions on its historical durability ) amount of hits and fly home.

So like many Oleg-aircraft, whilst still wishing for absolute 100% accuracy, I believe it is "close enough".

leitmotiv
10-04-2007, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Man you never used to be like that, are you joking or what?

I think getting so emotional over a game is positively ridiculous! The guy has good reason to be disappointed. Imploring him to keep the faith like the game is religion is damned silly. I have always wondered about those wonder 190As myself. The 190A was a dog at high altutude.

joeap
10-04-2007, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Man you never used to be like that, are you joking or what?

I think getting so emotional over a game is positively ridiculous! The guy has good reason to be disappointed. Imploring him to keep the faith like the game is religion is damned silly. I have always wondered about those wonder 190As myself. The 190A was a dog at high altutude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't care that he's upset, I care he's upset. What I mean is don't get so pissed about a sim-toy cause that's what it is. It should be based on history and is but it's not, nor is it a sim-training tool. If they really had something like il-2 back in 1940 would the military not mod the hell out of it and come up with something like Steel Beasts or PS1 747 sim which models 1 plane in high fidelity in very restricted situations.

This is a game and sometimes cause of the limits we have to game the game...if you can't find the fun while ignoring the limitations then no sweat do something else. No need to hang around it's not as if we worship John Frum or something. I also wonder why folks get so personal as if Oleg porked their plane on purpose/incompetence rather than lack of knowledge overambition (too many planes for high fidelity).

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-04-2007, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
...anyway, one of my biggest wishes for the ingame P-47s , beside to have the extra ammo available with bombs abd droptanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , is to upgrade the performance of the D-22 to the perfroamnce of the D-27.
so we would have a Razorback and Bubbletop Thunderbolt with the same performance.

Ditto...which was historically accurate.

I agree the razorbacks aren't quite what I'd expect above 5,000m, but I'd also say that most of the FM's are adequately close enough to approximate an excellent and fun combat flight sim.

MLudner
10-04-2007, 08:48 AM
Just to be clear: I don't expect perfection. To expect perfection is to expect what will never be; the essence of futility.

For example; it does not bother me that the slip maneuver the real P-47 was capable of does not happen in this game. It was a favored evasive maneuver of P-47 pilots when under attack and was mentioned on the series "Dogfights". The pilot would move the stick one way then apply opposite rudder. The aircraft would not roll, instead it would slip to one side or the other while remaining level which would throw the attacking aircraft's sights off and allow the P-47 to roll-out and dive away before getting shot-down.
I tried it and the P-47 just rolled over on its back. I just grinned, no big deal.
However, I do expect the basic, obvious facts such as the aircraft hitting their rated speeds and relating to eachother correctly. That is not an obscure detail.
The P-47 was one the fastest fighters of the Second World War, period. No FW-190 could match its speed in reality. A D9 will hit 426 MPH, which means it can get real close to the speed of a bubble canopy P-47, but still not quite as fast. Thus, if you're chasing a P-47 in a Dora you should not be catching it unless you had a good energy advantage. When a P-47 dives nothing will gain on it that was not propelled by jets or rockets. Its roll rate should be second only to the FW-190.

If a P-47 out-ran you he had a lot of energy over you. That's how I've out-run opponents in aircraft I could not turn against: by staying high. But, should a Spit or La show-up up there with me ...

JG53Frankyboy
10-04-2007, 10:57 AM
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/P-47D10%20Leistung.jpg

it shows that the speed at SL and around 9000m is roughly ok - but between and above 9000m its speed is sometimes way off (read : to slow......)

the performance curve in il2compare showes that its shape is wrong..........

JG53Frankyboy
10-04-2007, 11:09 AM
btw, il2compare is giving 6.215,84 kg as takeoff weight for the D-10 , ~13.703,65 pounds

with eight guns , 200 rounds each (in default)

Stew278
10-04-2007, 12:19 PM
In the report conditions there it lists "14 pounds pyrotechnics", what does that refer to?

IFly_1968
10-04-2007, 02:03 PM
If a P-47 out-ran you he had a lot of energy over you. That's how I've out-run opponents in aircraft I could not turn against: by staying high. But, should a Spit or La show-up up there with me ...

I remember not to long ago somebody making mention that Oleg said that the FM was affected by altitude only to 15,000 FT. Then again I do not know if this was change in one of the patches.

FoolTrottel
10-04-2007, 02:38 PM
The pilot would move the stick one way then apply opposite rudder. The aircraft would not roll, instead it would slip to one side or the other while remaining level which would throw the attacking aircraft's sights off and allow the P-47 to roll-out and dive away before getting shot-down.I tried it and the P-47 just rolled over on its back

You sure you did not 'over-control' it?
IL2's P47 can be sideslipped....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/fooltrottel/P47SideSlip.jpg

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-04-2007, 02:45 PM
Look, there is no UBI-zoo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Sorry Bearcat, it is this kind of threads that gets me... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

VW-IceFire
10-04-2007, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
Look, there is no UBI-zoo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Sorry Bearcat, it is this kind of threads that gets me... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
Its a jungle out there...try and keep your head above the trees http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cajun76
10-04-2007, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The pilot would move the stick one way then apply opposite rudder. The aircraft would not roll, instead it would slip to one side or the other while remaining level which would throw the attacking aircraft's sights off and allow the P-47 to roll-out and dive away before getting shot-down.I tried it and the P-47 just rolled over on its back

You sure you did not 'over-control' it?
IL2's P47 can be sideslipped....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sideslip on my landing approach about 25% of the time to slow down faster if I'm coming in too hot. Some pilots call it "crossing" the controls. Robert Johnson mentions it. Full rudder and maybe 25% roll. Not sure about the roll, I have my inputs set up with curves.

han freak solo
10-04-2007, 06:11 PM
.

SlickStick
10-04-2007, 06:16 PM
Wow, a whole page and not one "Learn to fly Noob!" yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

You guys are going emo on me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cajun76
10-04-2007, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Wow, a whole page and not one "Learn to fly Noob!" yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

You guys are going emo on me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well, if he was a Spit or La-7 jock bemoaning his porked ride, then I would expect it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

A Jug driver with problems will usually get more support, just like Focke Wulf pilots tend to stick together and support one another.

Schwarz.13
10-04-2007, 08:13 PM
I'm not suggesting you are not a good virtual pilot Mludner (god knows i'm sh**e at the moment) but your post reeks of "my favourite plane isn't owning every other plane"!

Don't get me wrong i'm not flaming you - you obviously know your P-47/Fw190 tech specifications etc. and i'm sure the game isn't without its faults (like any) but just because someone is an enthusiast and knows a lot about a particular plane doesn't make them a good (virtual) pilot - you might be forgetting any number of things such elevator/rudder trim/prop pitch/just flying clean etc. etc. or maybe you've just got sh*tty hardware/set-up wrong? Or maybe you expect your 'favourite' plane to match your expectations regardless of input?

I'm sure there are some 'Jug' fans who understand what you're saying but it still sounds like " i have a better, faster plane with 8x .50cals so i have to win!" - remember it's not the plane but the pilot...

DrHerb
10-04-2007, 08:24 PM
Sideslipping is pretty easy, full rudder deflection and apply enough opposite ailerons to keep the wings level, if you want to turn in the direction of the slip ease up a bit on the ailerons, if you want to turn away from the slip, add more ailerons and hold alt with elevators, but im sure you already knew that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

MrMojok
10-04-2007, 09:21 PM
Were you overheating at all during your long pursuit?

MLudner
10-04-2007, 10:30 PM
I can do what you pictured; that's a crab. It's not quite the described maneuver. I tried it more than once, more than one way.

I was in a D-22, not a D-10. The D-22 had the turbo-supercharger and paddle props, the D-10 lacked those two, vital features. The D-22 got better performance because the new props took full advantage of the R-2800's massive power out-put. Combined with the turbo-supercharger it added a whole new dimension to the P-47 because suddenly it could climb.

I do not think the P-47 should be able to own everything. It was not a great turn-fighter, though not so bad as in this game. It's strong point was its speed and roll along with its dive and ruggedness .... of course, 8 Ma Deuces come in handy.

Down on the deck the FW-190A6 might have been faster, but not up where we were. The real pusuit began at above 6,100m and went up from there another 2,000m. By pulling the fight up there the 190 pilot should have been making a big mistake.

I'm not saying I have a better faster plane, just a faster plane at those altitudes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I also fly 190's, they were great planes and pack a heavy punch. I had it trimmed as well as my controller allows. I have never been able to trim an aircraft to the point where I do not have to touch the controls at all, but I can get it to fly level and straight with only slight and occasional touches to the stick.

No, I did not over-heat the engine. I usually don't do that anymore, even in a Tempest V.

And, no, I'm not the best pilot in the world, either. Gunnery is my biggest difficulty. But, neither do I suck. I've had times up there in a P-47 or Tempest where I owned the high altitudes ... not so much by killing everything that came after me, but mostly by simply forcing them to dive before I did manage to shoot them down. He-he. But, then there are those times when I run into some billy-badarse (or billy-badarses more commonly) that send me scurrying to the deck or the nearest cloud .... or a smoking hole.

heywooood
10-04-2007, 10:34 PM
sideslipping is also referred to as 'crossed controls' yes...?

One AVG pilot was quoted as saying that in his first ever attack pass on an IJA bomber formation he got all froggy and flew sideways through the group with crossed controls - neither hitting anything nor to his amazement getting hit by anything...

It was used by some pilots to keep an enemy fighter on their tail from being able to draw a bead - they couldn't solve the lead properly with the target crabbing sideways in front of them...pointed in a given direction - but not flying in that direction if you will...

also used to scrub energy rapidly - for slowing to proper approach speed on entering the landing pattern - or to stay behind an enemy target that was manoevering to evade and staying on his six...

I'm sorry - was this already covered? what was the question?

oh - the P-47 wine is the new P-51 porkplane lament. I love red AND blue equally http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

leitmotiv
10-04-2007, 10:46 PM
Look, the guy has a completely legitimate point. There was no way in the world a lousy Fw 190A of any flavor could outpace a P-47D of any flavor at high altitude. Outside of playland the 190A was well-known for being a flop at high altitude. The P-47 lived at high altitude. If an A-8 beat him in a straight chase, something is screwy. From my first ventures into IL-2 I noticed AI 190A-8s seemed questionably speedy at altitudes where they should have been wheezing. I don't think the flyable A-8s are worth a damn above medium altitude, and that is dead right.

JG53Frankyboy
10-05-2007, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Look, the guy has a completely legitimate point. There was no way in the world a lousy Fw 190A of any flavor could outpace a P-47D of any flavor at high altitude. Outside of playland the 190A was well-known for being a flop at high altitude. The P-47 lived at high altitude. If an A-8 beat him in a straight chase, something is screwy. From my first ventures into IL-2 I noticed AI 190A-8s seemed questionably speedy at altitudes where they should have been wheezing. I don't think the flyable A-8s are worth a damn above medium altitude, and that is dead right.

"proplem" , the A-5/-6 is much faster than the A-8 above 5500m in game............

the A-8 has a somewhat strange performance charackteristic in game, more like a low level Fighterbomber.

JG53Frankyboy
10-05-2007, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:

I was in a D-22, not a D-10. The D-22 had the turbo-supercharger .............., the D-10 lacked those two, vital features. ...............................
????????????????????????????????
a Thunderbolt without Turbosupercharger ???????????????????????

i heavily doubt that , this whole thing was constructet around such a turbo !


and as i said, IN GAME , the D-10 and D-22 has identical performance - and as i already mentioned too, bad choice of the game developer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

leitmotiv
10-05-2007, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Look, the guy has a completely legitimate point. There was no way in the world a lousy Fw 190A of any flavor could outpace a P-47D of any flavor at high altitude. Outside of playland the 190A was well-known for being a flop at high altitude. The P-47 lived at high altitude. If an A-8 beat him in a straight chase, something is screwy. From my first ventures into IL-2 I noticed AI 190A-8s seemed questionably speedy at altitudes where they should have been wheezing. I don't think the flyable A-8s are worth a damn above medium altitude, and that is dead right.

"proplem" , the A-5/-6 is much faster than the A-8 above 5500m in game............

the A-8 has a somewhat strange performance charackteristic in game, more like a low level Fighterbomber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Shouldn't they be since they were lighter than the A-8? Or did GM1 give the A-8 an edge? For pure fighting pleasure I wish we had the ultra-lightweight A-1!

JG4_Helofly
10-05-2007, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Look, the guy has a completely legitimate point. There was no way in the world a lousy Fw 190A of any flavor could outpace a P-47D of any flavor at high altitude. Outside of playland the 190A was well-known for being a flop at high altitude. The P-47 lived at high altitude. If an A-8 beat him in a straight chase, something is screwy. From my first ventures into IL-2 I noticed AI 190A-8s seemed questionably speedy at altitudes where they should have been wheezing. I don't think the flyable A-8s are worth a damn above medium altitude, and that is dead right.

"proplem" , the A-5/-6 is much faster than the A-8 above 5500m in game............

the A-8 has a somewhat strange performance charackteristic in game, more like a low level Fighterbomber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The performance of the A8 is very close to RL when you are looking at speed and climb.
Earlier Antons like the A5 or A6 were faster than the A8 in RL too.
So the game is pretty accurate here.

JG53Frankyboy
10-05-2007, 03:44 AM
also interesting:
the P-47 tactical charts.......... for all versions
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

as its shown, the D-22 with paddle prop is actually better in climb than the non-paddle prop D-10......................... the benefit in speed for the D-22 is not so much.

anyway, i still wich the D-27 eprfromance for the D-22 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - just from the view of a missionmaker http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
10-05-2007, 06:46 AM
The performance of the P-47 is a complex topic.

Personally I am of the opinion that overall it probably over-performs relative to other aircraft in the sim because of the limitations of the model, especially with regard to engine "overheating", general engine handling, and Mach number effects. However, it seems to be too slow at medium altitudes. So it's "under modelled" and "over modelled" at the same time...

You have to be particularly careful when using the performance curves available via for example the WWII Aircraft Performance website that you are comparing like with like with regards to weight, balance and drag.

This is especially important with the P-47 because precise details such as the prop type, the precise turbocharger and turbo-regulator in use can have a dramatic impact upon performance. And of course, as has already been stated, quite a lot of the early tests were conducted upon 6 gun aircraft...

I would be very interested to see what prop the D-27 is supposed to have; unfortunately the table stops at the D-26... Without this kind of detailed information it is very difficult to make accurate statements about aircraft performance. This makes analysing the performance of the "D" an absolute nightmare.

Test methodology also matters; using the autopilot application I can consistently attain speeds slightly faster than those listed in IL2C in most aeroplanes.

Also, JG53Frankyboy, be careful with your unit conversions. For example, to the nearest km/h, 435 mph = 700 km/h, not 707 km/h. (Check with google).

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-05-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Personally I am of the opinion that overall it probably over-performs relative to other aircraft in the sim because of the limitations of the model, especially with regard to engine "overheating", general engine handling, and Mach number effects. However, it seems to be too slow at medium altitudes. So it's "under modelled" and "over modelled" at the same time...


Agreed. With this in mind I say, quite simply, fly it to its strengths. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Brain32
10-05-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Wow, a whole page and not one "Learn to fly Noob!" yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

You guys are going emo on me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Read the first post and tell me what's the point of saying that really...

roybaty
10-05-2007, 12:59 PM
The Fw-190a8 should perform worse than the earlier/lighter versions, it was heavily armed and armored, specifically to handle attacking bomber groups.

MLudner
10-05-2007, 01:56 PM
I have to disagree with that "performs better than it should in relation to other aircraft" comment, particularly after that chase.

Had I been flying the 190 I would have maneuvered to pull the P-47 down. Historically the real FW-190A's were better performers low than high, the P-47 was the exact opposite. Thus, I would not have considered doing what that 190 pilot did and climbing ever higher as I would have assumed - based on the historical aircraft - that the P-47 would own me up there. In fact, the Dora with its in-line engine was designed specifically beause the Anton was not such a good high alt fighter due to its radial engine and the D9 was Tank's answer to the problem.

The whole chase was just silliness. When that 190 started pulling the fight up he should have found himself in difficulty pretty quick; he would have had that been a real P-47 versus Anton encounter.

It is my understanding that the D-10 and earlier had a supercharger, but that the turbosupercharger was new in the D-22. However, I could be wrong there.

I do fly it to its strengths ... at least, as they should be.

Daiichidoku
10-05-2007, 02:09 PM
P-47

designed by two tsarist Russians tranplanted to USA

nuff said

LilHorse
10-05-2007, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

I was in a D-22, not a D-10. The D-22 had the turbo-supercharger .............., the D-10 lacked those two, vital features. ...............................
????????????????????????????????
a Thunderbolt without Turbosupercharger ???????????????????????

i heavily doubt that , this whole thing was constructet around such a turbo !
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. All P-47s had the G.E. turbosupercharger.

As for the A8, it was heavier than previous Antons and was intended more as a fighter-bomber.

LilHorse
10-05-2007, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
(too many planes for high fidelity).

Which is why I have always wished this sim had stayed an Eastern Front sim. The developement could have went into fewer planes and more accurate modeling. Oh, well.

ElAurens
10-05-2007, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
P-47

designed by two tsarist Russians tranplanted to USA

nuff said

What on earth does this have to do with the subject at hand?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SlickStick
10-05-2007, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
Wow, a whole page and not one "Learn to fly Noob!" yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

You guys are going emo on me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Read the first post and tell me what's the point of saying that really... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, Brain. You missed the point of my post. This forum is notorious for that statement regardless of whether or not the original post has validity or not.

It was a jab at the forum, not the poster. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HuninMunin
10-05-2007, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
P-47

designed by two tsarist Russians tranplanted to USA

nuff said

What on earth does this have to do with the subject at hand?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I didnt know for example... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )

ElAurens
10-05-2007, 03:11 PM
HuninMunin, Google Seversky Aircraft.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

VW-IceFire
10-05-2007, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
(too many planes for high fidelity).

Which is why I have always wished this sim had stayed an Eastern Front sim. The developement could have went into fewer planes and more accurate modeling. Oh, well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My personal guess is that it would be ever so slightly more accurate but with far fewer planes. I think its the engine itself thats somewhat flawed and difficult to work with to get the right sort of power curves and roll rates and the like. Everything is off somewhat on every plane and I wonder if they had more time if it'd really be that much better.

HuninMunin
10-05-2007, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
HuninMunin, Google Seversky Aircraft.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Just have - interessanter stuff.

JG53Frankyboy
10-05-2007, 03:55 PM
a standard Fw190A-8 was not a special armoured bomberdestroyer, it was not a special fighter bomber !!

the standard Fw190A-8 was a normal fighter !
its main plus weight compared to a Fw190A-6 were the replacement of the cowling MG17 with MG131 and its aditional 115 liter tank in the fuselage and propably a "normal" increase in protection/armour (as the most fighters got better protection during the war)

the special armoured Bomberdestroyer was the Fw190A-8/R8 (the so called "Sturmbock").
the special fighterbomber/groundsupport variant was the Fw190F-8, sure a A-8 could also carry a fuselage bomb and be used as a "normal" fighterbomber (as the most fighters at the end of WW2).

Kettenhunde
10-05-2007, 04:13 PM
Earlier Antons like the A5 or A6 were faster than the A8 in RL too.

This is simply not correct and is an often repeated myth. I think it stems from Green's book and the confusion of FW-190A8 flight testing mounting the propeller weights required when using the 115 liter Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf.

Focke Wulf reports performance averages for the type:

FW-190A5 especially prepared and polished finish - 567kph at 0Km

FW-190A6 normal serial production finish - 563kph at 0Km.

FW-190A8 normal serial production finish - 578kph at 0Km. The 115 liter zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf did not see widespread use and was not considered for series production aircraft until late in the FW-190A8's production lifecycle after the introduction of the FW190A9. To offset the rearward CG movement, the ETC 501 rack was moved forward and ballast weights were installed on the propeller. The presence of the weights is the only sure way to indicate the presence of the tank.

http://img188.imagevenue.com/loc22/th_23628_Propeller_weights_122_22lo.JPG (http://img188.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=23628_Propeller_weights_122_22lo.JPG )

http://img166.imagevenue.com/loc1166/th_23633_Propeller_weights_2_122_1166lo.JPG (http://img166.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=23633_Propeller_weights_2_122_1166lo .JPG)

The power to weight ratio of the FW-190A8 without the tank was equal or better than the FW-190A3's. It was the best performing and was more maneuverable than the previous Anton fighter types.

Using Focke Wulf data this is easily confirmed by some simple calculations.

All the best,

Crumpp

leitmotiv
10-05-2007, 04:23 PM
Yes, I thought the A-8 was fastest, but I didn't know it had a better power-to-weight ratio than than A-3 (but wasn't the A-3's engine de-rated?). Was this when the A-8 was using GM1?

JG53Frankyboy
10-05-2007, 04:28 PM
no in combat used BMW driven Fw190 used MW50 or GM1 injection ever.

BMW developed an additional fuelinjection (from the normal fuel tank) - had almost the same result as MW50 injection , and the benefit no special fluid had to be carried.

well, the BMW801D was improved in its timeline, thats it - more power.
but sure, still lacked highalt power..........

leitmotiv
10-05-2007, 04:34 PM
Wait! What about the new tank fitted in the A-8 under the pilot---I thought that was for GM or MW---what was it's purpose? Too bad about te 190A's high alt performance. Why was this? Inferior supercharging?

Kettenhunde
10-05-2007, 04:42 PM
Was this when the A-8 was using GM1?


GM-1 was tested and approved for use in the FW-190A8. However it was not altogether recommended as it increased the chances of icing in the manifold.

A simple manifold pressure increase was the system approved for fighter variants in the FW-190A8 and above. This was possible due to stronger pistons, cooling changes to the engine compartment, improved fuel pump, propeller changes, and reduction gearing changes which moved the design efficiency point of the propeller to a higher velocity.

To save production cost, the existing manifold pressure regulator was retained. A simple line/valve was tapped into it fooling the regulator diaphram into providing more manifold pressure.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG53Frankyboy
10-05-2007, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Wait! What about the new tank fitted in the A-8 under the pilot---I thought that was for GM or MW---what was it's purpose? Too bad about te 190A's high alt performance. Why was this? Inferior supercharging?

yep, no sufficent supercharger.

the 115liter additional tank in the fuselage was "planed" to be for MW50/GM1........ but than was used for fuel.
additonal range was very usefull, at the easternfront and in the homedefence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

the B-17 flew not alwasy over "your" homebase http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
10-05-2007, 05:04 PM
Why was this?

BMW never solved it. It was not the supercharger efficiency and the conclusion seems to be it was a quirk of the combination of the intake manifold design and valve placement.

It was a conventional layout with the supercharger behind the main block. The airstream simply had to make too many 90 degree turns to feed the cylinders.

Even with a very efficient turbocharging system, the 801 series lost considerable efficiency at high altitudes.

BMW was not happy with the RLM's decision to continue development of the motor. Their solution was the BMW802 which was an extremely promising radial engine.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
10-05-2007, 05:14 PM
the 115liter additional tank in the fuselage was "planed" to be for MW50/GM1


The tank was used for Alkohol-einspritzung in the BMW801H, Q, and S series engines.

It could use MW50, MW25, and EW30. It was referred to as "Ribbenol" by the pilots poking fun at the Nazi Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop .


In 1919 Ribbentrop met Anna Elisabeth Henkell[2], known as "Annelies" to her friends. She was the daughter of wealthy champagne producer Otto Henkell and his wife Katharina "Käthe" Michel from Wiesbaden. They were married on July 5, 1920 in Wiesbaden and Ribbentrop travelled Europe selling the family firm's wares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_von_Ribbentrop

All the Best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
10-05-2007, 05:42 PM
I thought the A-8 was fastest

Think about this, Leitmotiv.

If you make the same design airplane heavier, you reduce it's top level speed. That is one of the effects of weight.

Your heavier variant must have more power to even fly the same speed. Going faster than the lighter variant requires even more power! Power requirements being cubed at the high velocity end of the curve.

Make sense, now?

All the best,

Crumpp

longbow_3ID
10-05-2007, 05:44 PM
Fellas....

Come on...that above noted report is about as fake as they get. They didn't have word processors with Times New Roman. And it wouldn't be "Material" it would be "Materiel." Come on....seriously. Don't turn into Dan Rather on us, my friend.

leitmotiv
10-05-2007, 05:50 PM
Thanks for the enormous clarifications Crumpp and Frankyboy---now I understand the misfortune of the 190A's high altitude performance. I completely forgot about the history of the A-8's tank. Very educational. Looks like FW paid a price for the extremely narrow fuselage in that there wasn't enough room to properly arrange the supercharger? Or, it was just due to the flaws of the 801 motor?

JG4_Helofly
10-05-2007, 06:01 PM
Thanks for your contribution Crumpp. Always good to have a real expert.
I looked at the fw190A charts in the cwos forum and saw that early Antons seem to be faster than the A8 at alt. Only at low level the A8 seem to be faster. I have also a document from the Focke-Wulf GmbH called "Flugleistungen FW 190A-5 bis A-8". The 190 A5 A6 and A8 are compared at different hights and power settings and the A8 is always the slowest. But here I don't know if they used emergency boost pressure or mw50.
Do you know that chart and can you explane this? Or did I miss something important?

Kettenhunde
10-05-2007, 06:15 PM
Looks like FW paid a price for the extremely narrow fuselage in that there wasn't enough room to properly arrange the supercharger?

Glad to help guys.

It is more from the airflow characteristics of the intake manifold, combustion chamber, and the valves.

It is not something that would be affected by the width of fuselage.

Neither Focke Wulf nor BMW were incompetent firms anymore so than North American was for producing all those P51 Mustangs that achieve the designs goal of laminar flow.

It was just one of those quirks in engineering at the cutting edge of technology that ended up not quite working up to design parameters even though all the components "should have worked".

No different than claims of "laminar flow" or the meredith effect in many designs of the era.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-445/ch5-5.htm

http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/lam-flow.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
10-05-2007, 06:32 PM
"Flugleistungen FW 190A-5 bis A-8".

I used for the FW-190A5 and FW-190A6 speeds reported to the RLM the exact same report and the reports it is compiled from.

The FW-190A8's speeds come from the same type report to the RLM entitled "Einmotoren Jäger: Leistungsdaten" and the type production trials which the data is transcribed.


The 190 A5 A6 and A8 are compared at different hights and power settings and the A8 is always the slowest. But here I don't know if they used emergency boost pressure or mw50.

I looked at the sea level speeds as it reduces the number of factors in a comparision. You can take the sea level speeds and easily convert them to EAS to compare relative performance under any equal condition of level flight. It eliminates altitude and atmospheric descrepancies of the data from the equation.

The FW-190A8 is compared at it's maximum output as well. It would not be a valid comparision to have one set using top power output against a reduced power output. Naturally if we did that, one would conclude that the FW-190A5 and FW-190A6 were superior at their 5 minute rating than the FW-190A8, even though the FW190A8 is not using it's 10 minute rating.

All the best,

Crumpp

leitmotiv
10-05-2007, 06:39 PM
All fascinating. What is interesting is that the 190A became the bete noir of European skies between late '41 and late 1943 despite its high altitude handicap. Definitely a testament to the operations people, tactics, and fighter leaders of the ounumbered Luftwaffe.

DKoor
10-05-2007, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
I have experimented with every prop pitch setting from 40% to 100%, all to no avail. However, from experience I already knew that 85% pitch attained best speed, 100% best climb. Error! Do not make a mistake, you can achieve top speed only on 100% pp (if there's no auto)!
Lower pp means only -> lower speed.

But I guess some of the aces here already told you that on those four pages.

Kettenhunde
10-05-2007, 07:12 PM
despite its high altitude handicap.


Well it was not all that handicapped. First, these performance numbers simply don't mean all that much in reality. I could write a long dissertation on why that is summed up with, "airplane performance does not work like that".

If you want to see a glaring example of this, look at a copy of "The Joint Fighter Conference". In there the pilots report the stall speeds they recorded for each aircraft flown in IAS. IAS is not affected by atmosphere and in theory, all pilots should have reported a similar stall speed from the same aircraft (literally the same aircraft) under the same configuration. However this is just not the result. For example, the F6F in clean configuration stalls at 65-81mph!

Sure it's performance was reduced in comparison to some of the allied designs, it always had the option to take the fight lower were it's performance was much better. Again however, the type airplane has almost nothing to do with the outcome of the fight.

In the big picture though, you will never win air superiority by giving up the high ground.

IIRC, I have some RAF documents expressing concern to Wright Patterson about the increasing low altitude superiority of the German fighters. IMHO this was a surprise benefit of their fuels. In order to achieve some semblance of parity in the lean mixture, the German fuels ended up having to surpass the capabilities of their engine design in the rich mixture.

So at low altitudes, the Germans generally had better fuels than the current engine technology of the day could exploit.

Generally speaking, this is almost the opposite problem that the allies experienced. Their fuel technology outstripped their motor development and they were constantly pushing for motors that could exploit their fuels.

In the big picture this makes no impact as the German pilot training was woefully inadequate compared to the Allied training regiments.


All the best,

Crumpp

leitmotiv
10-05-2007, 08:06 PM
As long as the German fighters were able to choose when they fought, where they fought, and have the advantage in altitude, they had a good run, but that disappeared in 1944.

Viper2005_
10-05-2007, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
I have to disagree with that "performs better than it should in relation to other aircraft" comment, particularly after that chase.

Had I been flying the 190 I would have maneuvered to pull the P-47 down. Historically the real FW-190A's were better performers low than high, the P-47 was the exact opposite. Thus, I would not have considered doing what that 190 pilot did and climbing ever higher as I would have assumed - based on the historical aircraft - that the P-47 would own me up there. In fact, the Dora with its in-line engine was designed specifically beause the Anton was not such a good high alt fighter due to its radial engine and the D9 was Tank's answer to the problem.

The whole chase was just silliness. When that 190 started pulling the fight up he should have found himself in difficulty pretty quick; he would have had that been a real P-47 versus Anton encounter.

It is my understanding that the D-10 and earlier had a supercharger, but that the turbosupercharger was new in the D-22. However, I could be wrong there.

I do fly it to its strengths ... at least, as they should be.

As has already been stated, all P-47s had a turbosupercharger. The whole configuration of the aeroplane was dictated by the ducting for the turbosupercharger; without it you'd have an aeroplane which looked more like the P-43.

IME, when flying the 190, in a Co-E situation I would expect to beat the P-47 at or below around 4-5 km. Above that altitude the P-47 has a performance advantage. However, rule #1 of air combat is that you don't engage the enemy Co-E. Instead, the objective of the exercise is to join the party with an energy advantage and kill the other guy.

If you give me an energy advantage, then I can easily out-perform a "superior" aeroplane. The limit case would be using a Gladiator to vulch a 262. The Gladiator is clearly inferior, but if the 262 has no energy, the Gladiator can still win.

When flying an A8, it is difficult to produce an energy advantage over a P-47 at altitudes above about 5 km, but it is not impossible, and given such an advantage, victory for the 190 pilot is not especially surprising.

Actually, the 190A attains its best performance around 6 km, whilst the P-47 attains its best performance at around 7.5-9 km depending upon model.

If the 190 is flown properly, then the P-47's advantage is quite small until overheat starts to bite. If you were messing about with prop pitch settings other than 100% you were throwing performance away. (IRL you'd have destroyed your engine)

Since I can fly a 190A for just under 5 minutes with an OVERHEAT message before damage occurs, this can take longer than some people think...

Had you pressed the chase beyond 8 km, I think it likely that you would have started to overtake the 190, and eventually you would have won the fight.

As for being beaten by D9s, what do you expect? A D9 is basically a big engine, a small wing and a seat, with a few guns attached.

As for "dive" performance, this is one of my biggest gripes with the way people view IL2.

Try a simple thought experiment. Let's hang a P-47D and a 190D9 from a steel cable up in the sky. First, we'll hang them at 100 km altitude.

At this altitude there is basically no air and so neither aeroplane will have a functional engine. If we cut the cable, they will therefore accelerate downwards at exactly the same rate.

Now let's restart the experiment, but reduce the starting altitude to say 6 km.

Both aircraft can now run their engines. We can measure the power:weight ratio, and then depending upon the performance of the props we can convert this into a thrust:weight ratio.

Since gravity is the same for both aeroplanes, and air-resistance is zero, from a standing start, the aeroplane with the highest thrust:weight ratio will accelerate the fastest.

Now we'll restart the experiment without engines. Initially, the aircraft will accelerate at the same rate. However, air-resistance will rapidly build up. Once this happens, the aeroplane with the highest ballistic coefficient will accelerate the fastest.

All of this should be pretty obvious from basic physics.

So, now let's put it all together.

The D9 has more power:weight, so it probably has a higher thrust:weight too.

At low speeds, this dominates, so the D9 will outperform the P-47 at low speeds.

The P-47 is heavy and has a relatively small frontal area. Thus it has a higher ballistic coefficient than the D9. Since thrust is inversely proportional to velocity, it follows that at high speeds the P-47's high ballistic coefficient dominates, and it will therefore out-dive the D9.

So, if you get slow you shouldn't expect the P-47's dive capability to save you. The P-47's dive advantage exists only when ballistic coefficient is more important than thrust:weight ratio. If you fly fast, this will always be the case. If not, YMMV, as you discovered...

Obviously, similar arguments apply to the MiG-3. A light aeroplane will usually out-dive a heavy aeroplane from a standing start because at low dynamic pressures, thrust is more important than drag.

IRL the P-47 pilot would have to be rather more careful than his IL2 counterpart when diving because the maximum tactical Mach number of the P-47 was in the same ballpark as that of the P-38 until dive recovery flaps were fitted at the very end of the War. Therefore IRL P-47s could all too easily out-dive everything right into the ground...

Stay fast in a P-47 at altitude and you're basically untouchable.

Like the P-51, the P-47 suffers from the fact that virtual pilots generally consider their primary objective to be to score kills, whereas IRL the average fighter pilot's primary objective is probably to stay alive, though he might be reluctant to admit it!

As such, the energy fighter's ability to run away bravely is considerably undervalued IMO, especially since virtual pilots don't tend to fly missions from East Anglia to Germany and back...

Of course, this argument equally applies to the D9 vs Spitfire matchup...

I made the point about relative performance because:

- The P-47's overheat model is considerably different from most other fighters at altitude, for no sensible engineering reason. Heat transfer sums aren't that difficult, and I am constantly amazed that the P-47 can run its fuel tanks dry at 110% power with a closed radiator at high altitude when for example the P-51 cannot.

- The P-47 had a tactical Mach number which was not much greater than that of the P-38, and lower than that of either the 109 or 190, not to mention the P-51 & Spitfire. This was the reason for the 8th USAAF standardising on the P-51 in 1944. There is no point in having the best altitude performance in the world if you can't use that potential energy offensively due to Mach number limitations. This lesson was re-learned by MiG-15 pilots in Korea.

Kettenhunde
10-05-2007, 09:26 PM
As long as the German fighters were able to choose when they fought, where they fought, and have the advantage in altitude, they had a good run, but that disappeared in 1944.

If your trying to say one sides airplanes were better than the other, I disagree.

If you mean a generalization of the airwar without reference to aircraft performance then what your saying is true.

I think it is more accurate to say:

Whoever was able to choose when they fought, where they fought, and have the advantage in altitude thru good controllers, leadership, or luck, would have a good run. The German pilots did not have adequate training or enough forces for the task at hand. They could not compete with the Allied forces in 1944.

Good discussion and good luck!

All the best,

Crumpp

R_Target
10-05-2007, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
- The P-47's overheat model is considerably different from most other fighters at altitude, for no sensible engineering reason. Heat transfer sums aren't that difficult, and I am constantly amazed that the P-47 can run its fuel tanks dry at 110% power with a closed radiator at high altitude when for example the P-51 cannot.

The F6F and F4U overheat model behaves similarly to that of the P-47. I would guess that they're modeled identically, but I don't have the time or the inclination to test it. No overheat at high altitude, instant overheat at low altitude.

When the ADI fluid runs out on the Corsair and Hellcat ("Water Injection Enabled" message disappears, reduced performance), the engine drops back to Military Power, which is the RL 30 minute rating on the F6F, and I believe on the Corsair too. Thirty minutes at Military power burns alot of fuel. Does anyone know how long the ADI lasts on the IL2 P-47? Or does the "Water Injection Enabled" display last until the fuel tanks are empty? If I'm figuring it right, there should be enough fluid for 25 to 30 minutes of WEP, and Military Power after that. However, the last P-47 manual I saw recommended 5 minutes continuous WEP, as does the Hellcat manual.

So what should happen? The five minute rating is tied to the cylinder head temperature. Is it cold enough at 400mph at 30,000 ft to not exceed the limiting CHT that the WEP time limitation is dependent on? I'm asking because I don't know.

There's an interesting passage in Graham White's R-2800 book relating P&W engineer Frank Walker's ADI testing. A "B" series R-2800 (P-47D, F6F, F4U1A-D) was successfully run at 150"Hg in an attempt to beat the then under development R-4360 Wasp Major. Walker also made frequent 100 hour, 3,000HP runs on an R-2800. Food for thought.

Anyway, as far as IL2 is concerned, if it were up to me I'd gladly give up Strato-WEP™ for more realistic heat tolerance at medium and low altitudes.

Also, the cowl flaps on the Double Wasp planes have never worked to cool the engine, unless this was changed in 4.07 or 4.08.

leitmotiv
10-05-2007, 11:31 PM
No, no---I meant exactly as you put it. Wasn't a technical matter, it was operational (my German is very rusty: Nicht Teknisch aber Einsatz!). The Luftwaffe lost control of the battle after Jan 1944 and had to fight under unfavorable conditions. Heavy losses of the experienced personnel combined with the inability to train adequately replacements led to the AAF being able to continually inflict heavy losses on the Jagdwaffe. Technically, the Luftwaffe kept springing unpleasant surprises, but without trained personnel, fuel, and with the supply net continually degraded the Germans could not adequately retaliate except occasionally at night. Great exchange. Hals und Beinbruch!

JG53Frankyboy
10-06-2007, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
All fascinating. What is interesting is that the 190A became the bete noir of European skies between late '41 and late 1943 despite its high altitude handicap. ...............

and not to forgett a normal Spitfire Mk.V was also no stelar performer at high altitudes with its single stage&speed Merlin 40 series engine.
the Merlin 60 series changed a lot.

leitmotiv
10-06-2007, 04:13 AM
Yes, the Fw definitely put the hammer on the Spit V. The British gave the superior Merlin XX to the Hurricane II and Defiant II instead of the Spit, and the Spit caught it from the 109F and Fw until the advent of the IX. A brutal period for Fighter Command.

Viper2005_
10-06-2007, 05:42 AM
Firstly, different blocks of P-47D had different sizes of water tank, with the earlier versions carrying less water and therefore being able to use water injection for a shorter length of time. For example, this report says that the D-10 carried 15 gallons of water, which was sufficient for 10 minutes of operation:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035-11oct43.html

Here is another 15 gallon D10. Note the considerable performance differences between props.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035.html

This boosted version had the same tank capacity. It is reasonable to assume that at higher boost the ADI would be consumed faster. Note the warnings given regarding overheating. The carriage of 300 rpg suggests that this was another 6 gun aeroplane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

It is possible to run out of water in the P-47 in the game, but the duration of water injection is considerable.

Secondly, as for the cowl flaps, given the length of time it takes to generate an overheat message at low level and the fact that the engine actually can't overheat at high altitude, it seems that effectively the cooling capacity of the flaps is fixed in a condition representative of their being fully open, meaning that IMO with the cowl flaps closed you effectively get "something for nothing".

In this context, it is interesting to read this post war report on the P-47N

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html

Whilst operating at similar powers (~2200 bhp) to the P-47D, despite further development time, climbs at military power above 30,000 feet resulted in overheating after 10 minutes of operation, despite the fact that climbs were conducted with the cowl flaps wide open.

It is inevitably harder to keep an air-cooled engine cool as its power is increased through development work because extra cooling requires re-design of the cylinders to increase fin area. Meanwhile, with a liquid cooled engine it is relatively simple to enlarge the radiator and coolant pumps.

I wouldn't expect the P-47 to suffer from overheating in high speed level flight, but equally I wouldn't expect any other sensibly designed fighter to suffer from overheating under those conditions either. This is where the issue of relative performance becomes important. In particular, I would draw your attention to the various reports on the performance of the P-51 which clearly state the ability of the aeroplane to operate in high speed level flight at high powers with the radiator closed or almost fully closed without overheating. For example:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-6883.html

In particular, note this report which points out the need to reset the radiator flap to give a slightly larger gap in order to avoid overheating at +25 psi/3000 rpm:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html

Kettenhunde
10-06-2007, 05:57 AM
Yes, the Fw definitely put the hammer on the Spit V.

I would say that German pilot training had much more to do with the "Focke Wulf summer" than the performance of the Spitfire Mk V or the FW-190A.

Here we can see Fighter Commands opinion of their pilots of the FW-190A before the flight trials of WNr. 313:

http://img111.imagevenue.com/loc886/th_70870_FC_first_impressions_122_886lo.JPG (http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=70870_FC_first_impressions_122_886lo .JPG)

The facts are the FW190 was not considered a serious threat until it was closely examined.

If we take a look at pilot training during this time period we can see some significant trends.

When the FW-190 was introduced to the Jadgwaffe, the average German pilot had more training and experience than the average RAF pilot. After losing the Battle of Britain, the Focke Wulf was more a catalyst than the cause of the German successes in the summer of 1942. It was a new design that was competitive. It bolstered the German pilots confidence which translated to aggressive action in the air.

Subsequently, the Spitfire Mk IX was the catalyst which recovered Fighter Command from it's self induced crises of confidence over the FW-190.

However if we look at pilot training, we can see that during the Spitfire Mk IX introduction, the average RAF pilot had a large advantage in the amount of training he received.

http://img127.imagevenue.com/loc1170/th_71562_GAF-RAF-AAF-Fighter-Training-Hours_122_1170lo.JPG (http://img127.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=71562_GAF-RAF-AAF-Fighter-Training-Hours_122_1170lo.JPG)

So to look to the LW's success in the summer of 1942 or the RAF's counter punch in 1943 as the result of individual aircraft performance is just not factual.

All the best,

Crumpp

leitmotiv
10-06-2007, 07:10 AM
Yes, and I would add that the British were employing unimaginative tactics which allowed the inferior force of JG2 and JG26 to attrite them with aerial guerilla tactics.

Diablo310th
10-06-2007, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
I have experimented with every prop pitch setting from 40% to 100%, all to no avail. However, from experience I already knew that 85% pitch attained best speed, 100% best climb. Error! Do not make a mistake, you can achieve top speed only on 100% pp (if there's no auto)!
Lower pp means only -> lower speed.

But I guess some of the aces here already told you that on those four pages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never fly anything but 100% PP. Only in a steep dive to evade might I switch to something lower.

Kettenhunde
10-06-2007, 03:02 PM
Yes, and I would add that the British were employing unimaginative tactics which allowed the inferior force of JG2 and JG26 to attrite them with aerial guerilla tactics.

Most certainly the RAF use of outdated tactics greatly contributed to their losses in the Summer of 1942.

The lesson's learned led to changes in their basic tactics which combined with the RAF's better trained pilots to deliver results by the Summer of 1943.

All the best,

Crumpp

R_Target
10-06-2007, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Firstly, different blocks of P-47D had different sizes of water tank, with the earlier versions carrying less water and therefore being able to use water injection for a shorter length of time. For example, this report says that the D-10 carried 15 gallons of water, which was sufficient for 10 minutes of operation:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035-11oct43.html

Here is another 15 gallon D10. Note the considerable performance differences between props.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035.html

This boosted version had the same tank capacity. It is reasonable to assume that at higher boost the ADI would be consumed faster. Note the warnings given regarding overheating. The carriage of 300 rpg suggests that this was another 6 gun aeroplane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

It is possible to run out of water in the P-47 in the game, but the duration of water injection is considerable.


It certainly appears that blocks before D-25 had a 15 gallon tank, although I can't find tank capacity specified anywhere. The table of various loads for pre-D-25 Thunderbolts in America's 100,000 does list the weight of the water/alcohol supply as half of what is listed in the table for D-25 and up. So there is evidence for a 15 gallon tank. I guess if someone's really interested, they could test the various models for ADI duration to see if they're accurate.

I did note the recommendation for pilots to exercise caution regarding high cylinder head temperatures in extended climbs and level flight with the increased boost provided by the high-grade fuel. However, I didn't see a prohibition, just a recommendation.


Secondly, as for the cowl flaps, given the length of time it takes to generate an overheat message at low level and the fact that the engine actually can't overheat at high altitude, it seems that effectively the cooling capacity of the flaps is fixed in a condition representative of their being fully open, meaning that IMO with the cowl flaps closed you effectively get "something for nothing".

Well, "something for nothing" if we accept your premise that drag is not modeled but cooling capacity is. How long does the IL2 P-47 take to overheat at low altitude? Is it different from the R-2800 equipped USN birds? Because the F4U and F6F overheat quickly at low altitude.


In this context, it is interesting to read this post war report on the P-47N

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html

Whilst operating at similar powers (~2200 bhp) to the P-47D, despite further development time, climbs at military power above 30,000 feet resulted in overheating after 10 minutes of operation, despite the fact that climbs were conducted with the cowl flaps wide open.

Yes, I see that they had engine trouble with "this specific airplane." With the extremely low ROC in such a heavily loaded condition, I'm not surpised that it overheated.


It is inevitably harder to keep an air-cooled engine cool as its power is increased through development work because extra cooling requires re-design of the cylinders to increase fin area. Meanwhile, with a liquid cooled engine it is relatively simple to enlarge the radiator and coolant pumps.

The P-47N (and the P-47M) used a "C" series R-2800 which incorporated, among the many changes, redesigned cylinder head cooling fins.




I wouldn't expect the P-47 to suffer from overheating in high speed level flight, but equally I wouldn't expect any other sensibly designed fighter to suffer from overheating under those conditions either. This is where the issue of relative performance becomes important. In particular, I would draw your attention to the various reports on the performance of the P-51 which clearly state the ability of the aeroplane to operate in high speed level flight at high powers with the radiator closed or almost fully closed without overheating. For example:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-6883.html

In particular, note this report which points out the need to reset the radiator flap to give a slightly larger gap in order to avoid overheating at +25 psi/3000 rpm:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html

Agreed.

Fork-N-spoon
10-06-2007, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<Sigh> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
I may be about to abandon this game entirely, at the very least I am now exceedingly unlikely to buy BoB when it comes out.
I bought into this game as a WWII Combat Flight Simulator and I am now thoroughly disillousioned. More and more I now find myself thinking of this game as Oleg's Fantasy World and calling aircraft things like "Oleg's Fantasy Machine", the "Olegest V", "Oleg-Wulf-190", ET CETERA.

The Oleg-47 is my biggest frustration. That aircraft is so wildly tanked it staggers me. It in no way resembles a P-47. Today I found myself chasing a FW-190A6 with a P-47D-22 at altitudes that reached an excess of 8,000m. It started after I evaded one of Oleg's Fantasy Machines (a MiG-3U) by diving into the cloud cover and frustrating him until he gave up and left (I discovered that MiG-3U's can out-dive P-47's as I only just barely - by the very skin of my teeth, no less! - made it to the clouds before he reached effective firing range). After he went his way I climbed back up and returned to the combat area at 5,500m. I spotted a hostile at co-alt to my right so far away he was only a speck so I had no idea what it was, only that it was hostile.
Of course, we both started doing the same thing: climbing as each tried to get above the other before engaging. It didn't work for either, so I slowed my climb and turned into him so that I could at least know what I was confronting.
An FW-190A6.
I immediately figured there was a fight coming. My aircraft is painfully faster than an Fw-190A6/A8/A9 or D9 and we are now at 6,200m, which is optimal performance altitude for a P-47. A razorback P-47 will hit 432 or so MPH up here, the best an Anton will attain is 409 MPH. I therefore figure he will either have to fight of dive for it and hope I don't follow him all the way. I am confident I can turn with a 190 in my P-47.
Now, in case there is any question: 432 is a BIGGER number than 409, and thus it follows, as the night the day, that 432 MPH is FASTER than 409 MPH. Period. If there is any question as to the accuracy of this claim please refer to your 1st Grade math books, thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
He had also turned into me.
Curiously, he went past and I had easily turned onto his tail, expecting that initially I would Lose some ground but expecting my painfully faster P-47 would inexorably gain a speed advantage and close the gap.
Somewhere about 15 or 20 minutes later we have exceeded 8,000m altitude. I have gained exactly 0 meters. The FW is now 2.16/17/18/17/16/17/18 away at all times. I have experimented with every prop pitch setting from 40% to 100%, all to no avail. However, from experience I already knew that 85% pitch attained best speed, 100% best climb.
My bladder is ready to explode and I really need to break for lunch as I am famished, so I finally broke-off.
All I can say is that whole chase was entirely ludicrous. The 190 did not possess better energy, yet I was never able to close in an aircraft that was at least 23 MPH faster than the aircraft I was chasing.
Later, I had a D9 out-run me in the P-47D-somethingish, then add ludicrous to laughable by easily out-diving me ... again while possessing no energy advantage.
I have found I can only out-run aircraft in the Oleg-47 (for it is certainly no P-47) when I possess a vastly superior energy-state to my opponent and woe be unto me should anything show-up at co-alt with equal energy. I am probably going to abandon the Oleg-47 alltogether ... and possibly this entire, ludicrous game with it.

I hear your pain. About three years ago, I gave up completely on this game. I've not played since, and I don't even have it installed. I rarely come to this forum, but once and a while I do so that I can badger Daiichidoku.

Daiichidoku
10-07-2007, 01:13 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/badger3.jpg

PF_Coastie
10-07-2007, 08:22 AM
Some very good discussion here folks, well done!

I am going to put my 2 cents in a very simplistic manner.

The IL2 game engine is lacking in the "high alt" department as we all know. This is a limitation of the original code.

Perhaps the way things currently work are just Olegs way of getting around this. Since he can not fix the code to make it more realistic, he gives the P47 "unlimited" performance with no overheat when at high alt. Other planes that "should suffer" some sort of disadvantage at high alts overheat quickly to make up for this.

Just my two cents in a very simple form.

Brain32
10-07-2007, 08:42 AM
I can't help not to wander what do you guys expect at high altitude from P47?
OK so I haven't flown the Razorbacks as I had enough BS with FW cockpit I really don't have to take it when I fly Red too. But on the matter of performance of P47D27 and especially D_late I really do not see what is possibly left to be desired. Above 7000m you have advantage in 3 out of 4 most important categories over nearly ALL Luft planes, you are as fast or faster but you don't overheat, you climb better and on top of that you don't overheat, you turn better still don't overheat, and you roll worse than FW190. On top of that the thing is the heaviest flying tank in the game, you complain about how much 50's can a FW take, but that's how many 20's can 47 take. WTF do you want? Do you want to trade for the uber FockeWulf FM and DM? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Get real, does every Allied plane has to fly like a Spitfire to be "accurately modelled"????

As for the opening poster, not once did I try to explain to that guy not to look at apsolute TOP speeds but speed at specific alt, but nooooooooo it does not catch up. il2c? Who needs that? I've seen top speeds at wikipedia...

MLudner
10-07-2007, 11:02 AM
LOL, Brain. I do not expect that the P-47 should perform like a Spitfire. I expect it to out-run Spit IX's and out-dive Spit IX's, but not turn or climb with them. That would be silly and I would object to it doing that as much as I object to it not out-running what it should out-run.

To recap a little: the chase began at 6,200m. From there we climbed to over 7,000m. The gradual climb continued until we exceeded 8,000m. I chased at over 8,000 as long as my bladder allowed, for some minutes. I never closed.

Here's the advantage to prop-pitch adjusting: Lower pitch settings reduce the work-load on the engine and allow you to use a higher power setting for greater periods before overheat occurs. Along with that, you reduce fuel consumption which allows you to stay in the air longer. Flying level in a P-47 and watching my airspeed I hit higher speeds at 85% than 100%, but my climb rate increases at 100%.

But, remember: I experimented with every pitch from 40 to 100% in 5% increments. Even at 100% it made no difference, except that my speed dropped a little.

Proppitch settings work different in different aircraft. In a FW-190A I always switch to manual after take-off. I use 80% during the climb, 60% as I near my desired altitude, then 40% thereafter. At 40% pitch you can leave the throttle at 100% - note, not 110%, not 101%, just 100% - indefinitely without over-heating the engine and can sustain 110% for a greater amount of time before over-heat occurs. I get really good speed at 40% pitch and I have not noted higher pitch settings causing an increase in speed ... in fact, quite the opposite: if I start increasing pitch I start losing speed.
Lower pitch reduces drag and reduces engine work-load; higher pitch increases drag, but also increases lift.
In some aircraft if you're leaving your pitch at 100% you're asking for trouble. The Tempest V is the best example of this. Pitch at 100% with boost engaged will over-heat and then fry the engine with startling suddenness. Keep your pitch at 80% during climb and 55% to 60% otherwise. I hit the best speeds at 55%, but 60% gets a better climb - almost as good as 80% - and achieves almost the highest airspeed, so that is where I set it until I really need a bit more speed.

DKoor
10-07-2007, 11:50 AM
MLudner, have you ever tried to test just how much speed do you lose when you actually do not fly on 100% pp and select custom prop pitch?

Just asking.

Davinci..
10-07-2007, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
LOL, Brain. I do not expect that the P-47 should perform like a Spitfire. I expect it to out-run Spit IX's and out-dive Spit IX's, but not turn or climb with them. That would be silly and I would object to it doing that as much as I object to it not out-running what it should out-run.

To recap a little: the chase began at 6,200m. From there we climbed to over 7,000m. The gradual climb continued until we exceeded 8,000m. I chased at over 8,000 as long as my bladder allowed, for some minutes. I never closed.

Here's the advantage to prop-pitch adjusting: Lower pitch settings reduce the work-load on the engine and allow you to use a higher power setting for greater periods before overheat occurs. Along with that, you reduce fuel consumption which allows you to stay in the air longer. Flying level in a P-47 and watching my airspeed I hit higher speeds at 85% than 100%, but my climb rate increases at 100%.

But, remember: I experimented with every pitch from 40 to 100% in 5% increments. Even at 100% it made no difference, except that my speed dropped a little.

Proppitch settings work different in different aircraft. In a FW-190A I always switch to manual after take-off. I use 80% during the climb, 60% as I near my desired altitude, then 40% thereafter. At 40% pitch you can leave the throttle at 100% - note, not 110%, not 101%, just 100% - indefinitely without over-heating the engine and can sustain 110% for a greater amount of time before over-heat occurs. I get really good speed at 40% pitch and I have not noted higher pitch settings causing an increase in speed ... in fact, quite the opposite: if I start increasing pitch I start losing speed.
Lower pitch reduces drag and reduces engine work-load; higher pitch increases drag, but also increases lift.
In some aircraft if you're leaving your pitch at 100% you're asking for trouble. The Tempest V is the best example of this. Pitch at 100% with boost engaged will over-heat and then fry the engine with startling suddenness. Keep your pitch at 80% during climb and 55% to 60% otherwise. I hit the best speeds at 55%, but 60% gets a better climb - almost as good as 80% - and achieves almost the highest airspeed, so that is where I set it until I really need a bit more speed.

umm dude! have you ever actually looked into that?? or are you just guessing based on what you feel... cause its flat out wrong..

PF_Coastie
10-07-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I can't help not to wander what do you guys expect at high altitude from P47?
OK so I haven't flown the Razorbacks as I had enough BS with FW cockpit I really don't have to take it when I fly Red too. But on the matter of performance of P47D27 and especially D_late I really do not see what is possibly left to be desired. Above 7000m you have advantage in 3 out of 4 most important categories over nearly ALL Luft planes, you are as fast or faster but you don't overheat, you climb better and on top of that you don't overheat, you turn better still don't overheat, and you roll worse than FW190. On top of that the thing is the heaviest flying tank in the game, you complain about how much 50's can a FW take, but that's how many 20's can 47 take. WTF do you want? Do you want to trade for the uber FockeWulf FM and DM? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Get real, does every Allied plane has to fly like a Spitfire to be "accurately modelled"????

As for the opening poster, not once did I try to explain to that guy not to look at apsolute TOP speeds but speed at specific alt, but nooooooooo it does not catch up. il2c? Who needs that? I've seen top speeds at wikipedia...

Brain,

You know I fly the P47 almost exclusively on WC. You have never heard me utter a word about its performance above 7K. If I fly smart, I am never touched above 7K, EVER. If I do get touched, it was because I was studpid, impatient or was jumped from a Very, very high LW Pilot.

I think the P47D is just fine in the game. No complaints from me!

Also, to Ludner. I never mess with PP in this bird. I have never even seen the Overheat come on above 7K at 110% forever. Now when I drop down to 4 or 5K, it will come on quickly on the spring/summer maps. Even when it does come on, it will cool off in 10 seconds by simply going to 95% throttle.

Viper2005_
10-07-2007, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Here's the advantage to prop-pitch adjusting: Lower pitch settings reduce the work-load on the engine and allow you to use a higher power setting for greater periods before overheat occurs. Along with that, you reduce fuel consumption which allows you to stay in the air longer. Flying level in a P-47 and watching my airspeed I hit higher speeds at 85% than 100%, but my climb rate increases at 100%.

But, remember: I experimented with every pitch from 40 to 100% in 5% increments. Even at 100% it made no difference, except that my speed dropped a little. Don't try this with a real WWII piston engine or you'll turn it into scrap metal very quickly!

At low rpm detonation is likely at lower manifold pressures and you need to throttle back before reducing rpm. If you are increasing power then you need to increase rpm before you open the throttle.

IL2's engine management is extremely forgiving for all aircraft, but the fact that there is no need to use the turbocharger control in the P-47 gives it an unfair relative advantage because you get the extra performance associated with turbosupercharging without the extra cockpit workload...


Proppitch settings work different in different aircraft. In a FW-190A I always switch to manual after take-off. I use 80% during the climb, 60% as I near my desired altitude, then 40% thereafter. At 40% pitch you can leave the throttle at 100% - note, not 110%, not 101%, just 100% - indefinitely without over-heating the engine and can sustain 110% for a greater amount of time before over-heat occurs. I get really good speed at 40% pitch and I have not noted higher pitch settings causing an increase in speed ... in fact, quite the opposite: if I start increasing pitch I start losing speed.
Lower pitch reduces drag and reduces engine work-load; higher pitch increases drag, but also increases lift.
In some aircraft if you're leaving your pitch at 100% you're asking for trouble. The Tempest V is the best example of this. Pitch at 100% with boost engaged will over-heat and then fry the engine with startling suddenness. Keep your pitch at 80% during climb and 55% to 60% otherwise. I hit the best speeds at 55%, but 60% gets a better climb - almost as good as 80% - and achieves almost the highest airspeed, so that is where I set it until I really need a bit more speed.

IRL you would almost always get the best kinematic performance at maximum rpm unless the tip Mach number was well and truly supersonic, which would only happen if the designers failed to do some pretty basic maths (velocity triangles aren't exactly challenging) or you were operating the aircraft at speeds or rpms beyond design values, in which case thrust is the last thing you want (if you break your aeroplane then the ground has a PK=1, which is better than any enemy weapon system, so even under fire it isn't sensible to tear your aeroplane apart trying to escape...). Range would be maximised at cruising boost settings by opening the throttle and controlling power output with rpm. This is fine at low powers, but as soon as knock or detonation become a factor you've got to use the more sensible engine handling technique I outlined above if you want your engine to last for any reasonable length of time...

MLudner
10-08-2007, 04:08 PM
LOL. Yes, I have ... especially when being chased. You better believe that I am paying close attention to my airspeed when I have a Spit or La coming for me in a P-47, Tempest V or FW and I'm trying to keep out of their range.

Have you experimented? I do not believe you have because of your disbelief. Just hours ago, in fact, I was in a P-47D-somethingish and after I reached 4,000m en route to the combat area I levelled-off and flew at 100% pitch for a minute, then bumped it down to 85% and as always the P-47 seemed to hop and then gained some speed, albeit not a huge amount.

Try getting an FW-190A, get up. Switch to manual set pitch at 80% and climb. When you achieve alt reduce your pitch to 40% and set your throttle at 100% on the button. Your fuel tanks will run dry before your engine overheats. Test how long you can stay at 110% at 40% compared to on auto.

In a D9 this does not work as well. In a Bf-109 or Bf-110 it is ill-advised to switch off the autopitch. One little mistake and you will fry the engine. The 190A is more forgiving; if you leave the pitch high in a dive or at high speeds it will not cook so suddenly, but do that in a 109 and instantly you will be limping - or gliding - back to base! Using manual in a 109/110 is too risky. As I said: it is different for different planes.

Viper, technically you may be correct ... but technically I should have caught that 190A.

You're right that prop RPM should not be too low, but too high is just as bad. The higher your RPM's the harder your engine is working. In any new plane I always fly level and experiment with pitch before going forward into combat to see what effect each range has on performance. I was taught the 190A trick by other 190 pilots and I'm not going back to auto on that aircraft.

Viper2005_
10-08-2007, 05:06 PM
You go faster immediately after reducing rpm because you've just taken kinetic energy out of the prop and converted it into thrust. You can see how this works quite clearly in an engineering flightsim like X-Plane if you set up an appropriate model.

If you measure the sustained maximum speed as a function of prop pitch setting then a different picture will almost certainly emerge.

Why are you so certain that you "should" have caught that 190A anyway?

I just checked IL2C.

The 190A6 has a maximum speed (110% & WEP) of about 677 km/h (~420 mph), attained at about 6500 m (~21,300 feet).
The P-47D22 can only manage around 643 km/h (~400 mph) at this altitude.
The P-47D22 has a maximum speed of about 694 km/h (~431 mph) at 9000 m (~29,500 feet).

It only becomes faster than the 190A6 at altitudes above about 7500 m (~25,000 feet).

Had you continued the chase beyond 8 km it is likely that you would have caught the 190A in level flight within about 5-10 minutes.

It is worth pointing out that the 190A6 also out-climbs the P-47D22 below about 7000 m, so actually you were doing well not to fall behind...

Early P-47s are really high altitude machines.

Had you been flying a D27 (normal boost) the chances are that things would have been rather different, since you would then have held a speed advantage at all altitudes above 2500 m...

Whether those performance numbers are historically accurate or not is of course another debate, though they don't seem obviously unreasonable at first glance. However, given the numbers available from IL2C by flying around 3 km below your real optimum altitude you simply didn't fly your aeroplane to its strengths and suffered the consequences. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MLudner
10-08-2007, 06:11 PM
It sustains the speed increase. In other words, it does not start slowing down.

Your stats confirm the FW-190 is performing beyond its historical capabilities in this game, which is the source of my complaint. As I said previous: the top of a FW-190A8 was 409 MPH at optimal altitude and with boost it could hit 428 MPH, But that was at around 15,000ft ASL. It will not hit those speeds above 20,000ft ASL. The A8, as pointed-out earlier by another poster, was faster than the A6. Thus, there is a clear difference between how the aircraft work in-game as opposed to reality.

That was my point.
Now, you are right that I started below the optimal altitude for a P-47 at 5,500m. However, on-line I could fly at 7,500m until my fuel ran dry and find no opposition. Most players are flying 3,000m or below, thus being at 5,500m usually puts me above everybody else and allows me to use energy against my opposition and stay out of trouble. Actually, most times 4,000m is quite sufficient.

Now, back to prop pitch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

It just dawned upon me: before I started flying on-line I thought the same about the subject as y'all. My first experience with prop pitch was my first attempt to take-off in an Hurricane and being completely unable to generate enough power to take-off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. I found it quite baffling at first, then I thought about it for a minute and discovered my pitch was at 60% for some odd reason. I set it at 100% and VOILA! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif I was in the air. EYPHKA! Never touched pitch again off-line. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Then, on-line people started telling me to adjust my prop pitch and I reacted the same way and disregarded it for a long time. Then I learned because people flying the same aircraft as I was kept out-running me and I could not figure out why!

That doesn't happen too much anymore. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In fact, until I learned how to manage prop pitch I really, really hated the Tempest V. Once I learned how to manage it I suddenly found that I could cope with Spits and La's so long as they didn't show-up above me.

JG53Frankyboy
10-08-2007, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
It sustains the speed increase. In other words, it does not start slowing down.

Your stats confirm the FW-190 is performing beyond its historical capabilities in this game, which is the source of my complaint. ...................


so, your topic should actually be named "Würgerjoke" ...............

if that would be more clear from the beginning than i would have not looked about any P-47 datas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ok, gents , any hard sources for Fw190 performances ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cajun76
10-08-2007, 07:58 PM
From what I can tell,

# FW-190A-4: Similar to FW-190A-3, but with MW-50 water-methanol engine boost and with radio mast on top of tailfin.

# FW-190A-5: Similar to FW-190A-4, but with modified, longer engine mount.

# FW-190A-6: New lighter wing, and armed with two MG-17 guns and four MG-151/20 cannon.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html#m3



Now, the A4 could do about 416mph at 21,000ft (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw190af.html) . The MG-151/20 added only 28kg (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html) , so I would think the A6 should have similar performance, depending on how much lighter the new wing was.

Viper2005_
10-09-2007, 03:28 AM
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/190a5-performancetable.jpg

IL2C seems to be in good agreement with the figures in this datasheet; it seems that the A5/6 performance (IL2C only includes data for the A5, which implies that the A6 has identical performance, though this might be worth testing one day) is based upon a mass of 3850 kg, whilst the A8 performance is based upon a mass of 4300 kg.

Note the effect of rpm upon performance.

Viper2005_
10-09-2007, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Now, you are right that I started below the optimal altitude for a P-47 at 5,500m. However, on-line I could fly at 7,500m until my fuel ran dry and find no opposition. Most players are flying 3,000m or below, thus being at 5,500m usually puts me above everybody else and allows me to use energy against my opposition and stay out of trouble. Actually, most times 4,000m is quite sufficient.


If the fight is at 3 km or so, the P-47D22 is obviously the wrong aeroplane for the job.

Now, if you decide to fly the P-47D22 significantly below its optimal altitude because it's your favourite aeroplane or something, that's entirely your prerogative; but having made that decision you can hardly complain about the accuracy of the simulation when the opposition, operating much closer to the optimum altitude for his aeroplane, out-performs you...

ImpStarDuece
10-09-2007, 03:56 AM
Remeber that when the P-47 began operating in Europe, the Groups operating it established a hard floor of 16,000 ft/5,000 m for it. Below this height it was considered that the lighter, smaller German fighters outclassed the P-47.

Ideally, you want to operate at 6,500-7,500, where the P-47 was designed to fight.

Brain32
10-09-2007, 04:04 AM
@Coastie, sry man, I'll never touch chilli again lol


# FW-190A-4: Similar to FW-190A-3, but with MW-50 water-methanol engine boost and with radio mast on top of tailfin.
That's incorrect, there was no MW50 boost on 190A4 or any other Anton for that matter.

JG53Frankyboy
10-09-2007, 04:12 AM
this MW50 in the 190A-4 is a often repeated mistake , in books and internet.

like the 3 canon Bf109E-3 or the MG151 Bf109K-4 cowling guns.

M_Gunz
10-09-2007, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Of course, we both started doing the same thing: climbing as each tried to get above the other before engaging. It didn't work for either, so I slowed my climb and turned into him so that I could at least know what I was confronting.
An FW-190A6.
I immediately figured there was a fight coming. My aircraft is painfully faster than an Fw-190A6/A8/A9 or D9 and we are now at 6,200m, which is optimal performance altitude for a P-47. A razorback P-47 will hit 432 or so MPH up here, the best an Anton will attain is 409 MPH. I therefore figure he will either have to fight of dive for it and hope I don't follow him all the way. I am confident I can turn with a 190 in my P-47.
Now, in case there is any question: 432 is a BIGGER number than 409, and thus it follows, as the night the day, that 432 MPH is FASTER than 409 MPH. Period. If there is any question as to the accuracy of this claim please refer to your 1st Grade math books, thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
He had also turned into me.

What speed did you reach? 432? What speeds did you both start at? Did one of you fly in
inefficiently, not well trimmed and perhaps a bit nose high? What speed were you climbing
with when you decided to slow your climb and turn into him?

We know the -possible- speeds but those are not guaranteed at all nor is acceleration.
Unless perhaps you have a FULL SPEED button that handles the controls for you?

MLudner
10-09-2007, 12:40 PM
LOL, Viper. I thought of that last night as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif It was not the P-47 but the 190 that was wrong.

Kettenhunde provided a lot of hard data. Had I my own personal library available I could check any one of several books I have, but, alas ...

My speed when I ended the climb at about 6,200m was probably in the mid-300 KPH range, I doubt his was any better since he had not gotten any higher. Asking me exactly how fast he was going is a bit futile as I can only guess. <shrugging smiley>

As I said: when I turned onto his tail I expected to lose some ground, but I also expected that since we were well above his optimal performance altitude and entering mine I would close the gap. Even at 7,500m I was not gaining. At 8,000m I was not gaining ... at 8,100m I was not gaining. As far as my speeds; sorry, I do not remember. Not slower than his, but not faster, either.

I had my aircraft as trimmed as could get it. I have rudder and elevator trim on rotary dials on the throttle of my X-52, aileron on the right and left arrow buttons of my keyboard. I dial in the rudder first, then the elevators, then retrim the rudder, then ailerons. I cannot get an aircraft to fly along on its own, but I trim until it needs only minor nudges here and there to keep it on course.

MLudner
10-09-2007, 12:48 PM
Oh, and it was a long, gradual climb.

Had the 190 stayed at 5,000m and out-run me in a P-47D22 I would have nothing to say, that is how it should go. It was that he pulled the chase up well above his optimal and into mine ... and still out-ran me; that is the problem.

Widowmaker214
10-09-2007, 01:31 PM
Somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 feet, the flight model goes out the window. Thats a known issue. I just don't remember exactly if its angels 15 or 20. Thats reality.. and that screws with Mustang, JUG and 190 pilots.

When you got above the FM alt, all the data goes out the window.

I love the mustang but you cant really fly her like she's supposed to be flown due to the FM at altitude. Sucks but its reality. so we make due with the way things are. I still fly it, still love it but I know things just ain't perkin' like it should up there.
Same with the 47. I love flying em but I know the limits. The bubble top is great IMHO.
If anyone should be complaining about the Jug.. its the glass jaw of the razorbacks. They are just as weak up front as the P40B/Cs (The P40EMs are only slightly more resilient) .. which is the biggest joke.
One or two ***** around the engine and its lights out.

DKoor
10-09-2007, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
When you got above the FM alt, all the data goes out the window. Personally I wouldn't bet my money on it.
I just tested P-47D22 at 9,000m (that's roughly 30,000ft) and it does slightly over 700km/h.
703km/h=437mph to be more precise.
It takes ages to get that speed and by that time water-methanol injection dies.....

And yes.
Another super-cool P-47 feature: you can run as long as you have fuel on max settings and never overheat!

FTWhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

PF_Coastie
10-09-2007, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
And yes.
Another super-cool P-47 feature: you can run as long as you have fuel on max settings and never overheat!

FTWhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Only above 7K though. Get down below 6K and it will overheat quickly on a spring/summer map.

ImpStarDuece
10-09-2007, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
Somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 feet, the flight model goes out the window. Thats a known issue. I just don't remember exactly if its angels 15 or 20. Thats reality.. and that screws with Mustang, JUG and 190 pilots.

When you got above the FM alt, all the data goes out the window.


I don't know why this myth still hangs around.

There were some altitude and atmospheric model limitations in the original IL-2, but since FB the atmospheric and altitude model extends to 10 km/33,000 feeet after which it is static.

That is more than enough altitude to play with, even in a P-47.

Viper2005_
10-09-2007, 02:41 PM
The lack of realistic transonic effects is a pretty major limitation IMO...

MEGILE
10-09-2007, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:


but since FB the atmospheric and altitude model extends to 10 km/33,000 feeet after which it is static.


AFAIK this is a myth. See Power loss, mixture settings, speed and climb rate @ >10,000M


I don't think Oleg vouches for the accuracy up there however.

M_Gunz
10-09-2007, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Here's the advantage to prop-pitch adjusting: Lower pitch settings reduce the work-load on the engine and allow you to use a higher power setting for greater periods before overheat occurs. Along with that, you reduce fuel consumption which allows you to stay in the air longer. Flying level in a P-47 and watching my airspeed I hit higher speeds at 85% than 100%, but my climb rate increases at 100%.

But, remember: I experimented with every pitch from 40 to 100% in 5% increments. Even at 100% it made no difference, except that my speed dropped a little.

Proppitch settings work different in different aircraft. In a FW-190A I always switch to manual after take-off. I use 80% during the climb, 60% as I near my desired altitude, then 40% thereafter. At 40% pitch you can leave the throttle at 100% - note, not 110%, not 101%, just 100% - indefinitely without over-heating the engine and can sustain 110% for a greater amount of time before over-heat occurs. I get really good speed at 40% pitch and I have not noted higher pitch settings causing an increase in speed ... in fact, quite the opposite: if I start increasing pitch I start losing speed.
Lower pitch reduces drag and reduces engine work-load; higher pitch increases drag, but also increases lift.
In some aircraft if you're leaving your pitch at 100% you're asking for trouble. The Tempest V is the best example of this. Pitch at 100% with boost engaged will over-heat and then fry the engine with startling suddenness. Keep your pitch at 80% during climb and 55% to 60% otherwise. I hit the best speeds at 55%, but 60% gets a better climb - almost as good as 80% - and achieves almost the highest airspeed, so that is where I set it until I really need a bit more speed.

I see you are not lazy with learning to pilot as so many seem to be. Good observations but
permit me to say that you need to keep an eye on speed with those. For example notice that
on the climbs where more RPM (that is what pitch on P-47's and FW's tells you, many others too)
is better that you are not going real fast then. Also you see that on high speed level flight
that more RPM is not always a good thing for speed or engine heat.

Really there is for -any- speed of each plane a best power and RPM as you note not always 100%
but check into how speed affects that.

DKoor
10-09-2007, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by PF_Coastie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
And yes.
Another super-cool P-47 feature: you can run as long as you have fuel on max settings and never overheat!

FTWhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Only above 7K though. Get down below 6K and it will overheat quickly on a spring/summer map. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I was quite impressed with the P-47 as I did those tests.
That aircraft seems to be from some other story....
Where other aircraft choke, their engines barely functioning, this monster seems to be at home http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
It's a crime to drive this baby only at lower alts.......

M_Gunz
10-09-2007, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Oh, and it was a long, gradual climb.

Had the 190 stayed at 5,000m and out-run me in a P-47D22 I would have nothing to say, that is how it should go. It was that he pulled the chase up well above his optimal and into mine ... and still out-ran me; that is the problem.

Might I suggest that even at your better alt that his climb angle could be better than yours,
to follow him directly could have kept you slow where heading a bit lower than his climb angle
-might- have given you enough speed to catch up on horizontal and still get a short zoom to
bring the guns onto him. Very like how 3 AI teammates can be impossible to catch by players
that point their nose at the leader, fly lower gets the speed to catch up. I only point that
out because there the AI's are not at full power, not near full speed and yet confound many
players to catch up even at 110%. So less power can get and stay ahead.

I can't remember but it's the D-27 that has the paddle prop but then again which FW's have the
wide blade props?

MLudner
10-10-2007, 08:40 AM
Yeah, I tried the level-off or shallow descent trick a few times, but he countered just as I would have by leveling off himself when he saw it. I know the pilot who was flying the 190 as we have been on together many times and he was one of the good ones: experienced and dangerous. So, he knew - just as I know - to keep his eye on the aircraft chasing him and reply to its moves intelligently. I have myself frustrated the shnizzle out of people chasing me in aircraft I wasn't going to turn fight but could keep away from and watched them back there struggling to find a way to close the gap, but each move they make I just counter. I actually told a Spit Vc(4) chasing me the other day that no matter how long he chased me I was not going to let him catch me in that mamby-pamby Spit ... and he didn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Not for lack of trying, though. He pretty much ruined both his own and my sortie.

I myself do not yet understand all of the vagueries of prop pitch manipulation, but I have learned much and I am continuing to test various ideas.

The D-22 introduced the paddle props. I am not certain from memory when the braod blade props became available for FW-190's from memory, but I bet Kettenhunde could.

M_Gunz
10-10-2007, 06:47 PM
Okay.

1) Does the D-22 WE HAVE got the paddle blade prop?

2) You level off and he does. Which model in game has the faster Level Top Speed at that alt
by more than a small margin? From what You write, they must be close or FW is the faster.

3) Could you be doing anything not as well or so cleanly as your friend?

MLudner
10-10-2007, 11:03 PM
Well, it should. The D-22 was - I believe - the variant the paddle prop was introduced in and was standard from the D-22 on. However, in the real world after the introduction of the paddle prop one of the best evasive maneuvers the P-47 had was to enter a spiraling climb as FW's and 109's couldn't follow them through it. At least, that's what Gabresky said (USAAF leading Ace in the ETO with 28 Victories in the P-47), and this was also mentioned by another P47 Ace on the series Dogfights.

Try that in this game! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Evidently, at the alt the chase began at, around 6,200m, the A6 might have been a little faster ... but I am dubious about that for reasons stated in previous posts. However, at the higher alts we gradually attained this was certainly not the case.

3: Possibly. The guy I was chasing was no newb, but neither am I. If someone knows how he managed it I would love to be enlightened.

However, going by the speeds of each aircraft at the altitudes involved he should not have been able to stay away.

Of course, it was a little frustrating that he kept running: it's not like I was flying a Spit, La, Zero, I-185 or other plane he could not have turned with. 190's can handle P-47's on the turn and VICE VERSA, they're fairly evenly matched. In that situation I would have turned and fought. However, not really a big deal, that part.

It's that my P-47 could not catch a FW-190A6 at those alts that bothers me.

Ratsack
10-10-2007, 11:54 PM
G'day MLudner,

I haven't read the rest of the post because I got stuck on this:



...a razorback P-47 will hit 432 or so MPH up here [at 6,200 m]...


It's worth sorting this out first, then seeing what's left. Firstly, the 432 mph top speed for the P-47 is not at 6,200 m (20,300 feet). The P-47 reached speeds like that up around 28,000 feet (8,500 m). You said:



...we are now at 6,200m, which is optimal performance altitude for a P-47...


That's just not true. To illustrate the fact, consider the tests that the US Navy did in Oct 1944. They used a P-47 (type unspecified), and got 441 mph out of it at 28,000 feet. At 20,000 feet, the same plane managed only 419 mph. This was one of the examples running at high boost, too. An earlier version, such at that modelled for the P-47 D-22 in this game, would be even slower at 20,000 feet.

On the other hand, 20,000 feet is right in the sweet spot for the Fw 190 A. It reaches its max speed of 405-420 mph (depending on type and on source) at about that altitude.

To summarize, when you started the fight you were NOT at the optimum altitude for the P-47, you were at the optimum altitude for the Fw 190 A.


cheers,
Ratsack

MLudner
10-11-2007, 11:25 AM
You are right ... and you are wrong.

I was considering the optimal alt for a P-47 to be lower than it actually was.

The optimal alt for a FW-190A is in the 15,000 foot range (approximately 5,000m), 20,000ft ASL is above the FW-190A's optimal alt. In fact, that was where 190's started having real difficulty. The radial engine used was not good at those altitudes, this was - as I pointed-out in a previous post - the reason why Tank designed the D-series FW and used an in-line engine more efficient at those altitudes.

Viper2005_
10-11-2007, 11:51 AM
Since you obviously didn't read it the first time, here you go again:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/190a5-performancetable.jpg

6300 m

Now, which weight you choose to base your performance estimate upon is another question entirely...

Viper2005_
10-11-2007, 12:02 PM
Here is an interesting set of performance data for a captured 190G3

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb104-fig2.jpg

The aircraft was operated at ~3871 kg, which it seems from the description is representative of a reasonable combat weight.

The top speed of 415 mph is around 668 km/h which is in reasonable agreement with German data. The top speed was obtained at 22,000 feet which is some 6700 m. The difference suggests that the German data did not take ram effect into account.

Anyway, here is the rest of the report:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

It is interesting to note the following:


VIII Conclusions

1. The FW-190, AAF No. EB-104, is a well armored fighter airplane with provisions for carrying heavy armament and it compares favorably with standard AAF types of the same date in maneuverability, speed, and climb at low and medium altitudes. <span class="ev_code_red">However, the performance is definitely weaker than standard AAF fighters at altitudes above 28,000 feet.</span>

This seems to be in reasonably good agreement with the simulation, and I stand by my statement that you simply should have flown higher...

M_Gunz
10-11-2007, 04:16 PM
I thought they did....

Viper2005_
10-11-2007, 04:33 PM
They did. He didn't.

M_Gunz
10-11-2007, 05:59 PM
I had to go back and look.
So he quit before the alt got to where he actually has the edge he thought he had?

Oh well.

stalkervision
10-11-2007, 06:54 PM
I may be crazy and probably am but I have a feeling oleg has his own special aeronautical software fm program he runs all these ww2 aircraft through. He feeds in their drag coefficents/hp/airfoil designs factors..ect till he comes up with a flight model for each plane.

Unfortunately more then a little often this doesn't really make for a true fm of how the aircraft actually flew in real life.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Ratsack
10-15-2007, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
You are right ... and you are wrong.
...
The optimal alt for a FW-190A is in the 15,000 foot range (approximately 5,000m), 20,000ft ASL is above the FW-190A's optimal alt. In fact, that was where 190's started having real difficulty....

No.

Max speed for the Fw 190 A was at about 20-21,000 feet. The BMW 801 didn't have problems until 25,000, and at that altitude the Fw 190 A could still manage 400 mph.

6,000 m is not high alt. It's jus high alt on the average dogfight server.

cheers,
Ratsack

Scharnhorst1943
10-15-2007, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
.

Your on yours? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sorry, just kidding. But care to elaborate? Was this a typo or intentional?

M_Gunz
10-15-2007, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I may be crazy and probably am but I have a feeling oleg has his own special aeronautical software fm program he runs all these ww2 aircraft through. He feeds in their drag coefficents/hp/airfoil designs factors..ect till he comes up with a flight model for each plane.

Unfortunately more then a little often this doesn't really make for a true fm of how the aircraft actually flew in real life.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

That must be where the tweaking to match data part comes in and why there is no perfect fit.

If people complained about things that were completely fixable it would be a better forum,
instead we have no matter which way the difference is some people actually get offended.