PDA

View Full Version : XP-47 'Lightweight intercepter'!



Whirlin_merlin
04-14-2007, 03:22 AM
Searching the book shops for cheapies yesterday I came accross a book about P47s (Classic WWII aviation volume 4: P47 Thunderbolt, Edward Shacklady).
Now I have to admit I've never realy been 'into' the jug, although I do like what 8 50s does to a ki84! However now I've started to read about it my interest is heightning.
The story of it's development is facinating. I was surprise to hear that the Republic XP47/47A was to be 'a lightweight interceptor...powered by the Alision V-1710-39...armed with one .5in and one .3in m/gn'
A plane that sounds almost 'Russian' in philosophy as opposed to the big brutal beauty the P47 became which is so typically 'American'.

(nation sterotype images are purly an outsiders thoughts, no derogatory intentions)

I_JG78_Max
04-14-2007, 03:48 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47#P-43_Lancer_.2F_XP-47B

Gruß,

I/JG78_Max

woofiedog
04-14-2007, 03:50 AM
An article of the devolopmentof the P-47 and a few stories of the war time use.

Link: http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Seversky-Republic2.html (http://home.att.net/%7EHistoryzone/Seversky-Republic2.html)

http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/XP-47Bdoor-inset.JPG
The unusual cockpit door of the XP-47B is clearly seen in the inset.
Note that the vent window is open.

Akronnick
04-14-2007, 08:55 AM
Here's a three-view of how the P-47 was originally conceived:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/akronnick/XP-47.jpg

Early in the design process, while events in Europe were disproving many pre-conceived notions of what air combat would be like, Kartveli decided to scrap that idea and start over with a clean sheet of paper. Nothing like solving a problem with brute force!

About the only thing that even resembles the Jug is the windscreen, and even that was changed when they introduced the bubble canopy version.

BillyTheKid_22
04-14-2007, 09:27 AM
http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/1940formation.JPG

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

http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/P-44.jpg



XP-44



www.cradleofaviation.org (http://www.cradleofaviation.org)

Whirlin_merlin
04-14-2007, 09:55 AM
Thanks for links and wotnot.

Having read the rest of the book I have to now say/whine.

'I want an XP-72!'

Aaron_GT
04-14-2007, 10:27 AM
It's worth looking at the P-35 & P-43. You can see the genesis of the eventual P-47. The P-43 was essentially a placeholder for Republic production (to keep the company solvent) whilst awaiting the P-47. The original XP-47 design is not part of that P-35-43-47 evolution, though.

horseback
04-14-2007, 11:09 AM
The original design for the XP-47 looks like a pregnant P-40...all I can say is thank God the USAAC changed their minds about that ugly baby.

cheers

horseback

Daiichidoku
04-14-2007, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
The original design for the XP-47 looks like a pregnant P-40...all I can say is thank God the USAAC changed their minds about that ugly baby.

cheers

horseback


yup

the "lightweight" part was dfropped after observing the battle of britain, and abosorbing all the data in the conflict that could be hgad

this decided the go-ahead for a large number of guns, dictating a heavier machine

they basically scaled up the p 43 lancer, itself a development of the p35s

WarWolfe_1
04-14-2007, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
An article of the devolopmentof the P-47 and a few stories of the war time use.

Link: http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Seversky-Republic2.html (http://home.att.net/%7EHistoryzone/Seversky-Republic2.html)

http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/XP-47Bdoor-inset.JPG
The unusual cockpit door of the XP-47B is clearly seen in the inset.
Note that the vent window is open.

Thank God that they got rid of the "doors". Imagine what it would have been like to have to baleout from that mess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

berg417448
04-14-2007, 12:40 PM
Maybe the door had a release for bailout that would allow it to fall free completely.

woofiedog
04-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Whirlin_merlin...
Quote... Having read the rest of the book I have to now say/whine.

It would be quite the Killer in the IL-2 Skies! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WarWolfe_1... seeing how it opens towards the front on the craft... I would think that the air presure at even a cruising speed would cause a bit of consern if your trying to open it for a quick bale out. LoL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BillyTheKid_22... Mint photo!

Sergio_101
04-14-2007, 02:43 PM
P-47 was to a P-43/44 as a B-17 was to a Boeing 247.

Like the Boeing 299(YB-17) being a 4 engined 247
the P-47 was a streched and re-engined P-43.
It keeps development costs down.
All were developments on the basic P-35.
In the end, both aircraft likely used little
if any of the ancestor airframes.

Sergio

BlakJakOfSpades
04-14-2007, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
A plane that sounds almost 'Russian' in philosophy as opposed to the big brutal beauty the P47 became which is so typically 'American'.

(nation sterotype images are purly an outsiders thoughts, no derogatory intentions)

i take it as a compliment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WarWolfe_1
04-14-2007, 04:35 PM
The RE-2000 series was a rip off of the P-43, and it turned out to be a fairly good fighter, with a big enough engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sounds alot like the P-47 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

BillyTheKid_22
04-14-2007, 07:41 PM
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/p-43.jpg



Republic P-43 Lancer



http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/p-35a.jpg



Republic (Seversky) P-35A "GUARDSMAN"



http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/xp-72.jpg



Republic XP-72

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

www.daveswarbirds.com (http://www.daveswarbirds.com)







http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/9/90/REPUBLIC_AVIATION_1943_Advertisement_s.jpg

erco415
04-14-2007, 08:08 PM
"It vas a dinosaur, but a dinosaur vit good proportions!" -Kartveli

"A plane that sounds almost 'Russian' in philosophy as opposed to the big brutal beauty the P47 became which is so typically 'American'" Not so surprising considering that Seversky and Kartveli were Russians!

I Love the Jug!

BillyTheKid_22
04-14-2007, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by erco415:
"It vas a dinosaur, but a dinosaur vit good proportions!" -Kartveli

"A plane that sounds almost 'Russian' in philosophy as opposed to the big brutal beauty the P47 became which is so typically 'American'" Not so surprising considering that Seversky and Kartveli were Russians!

I Love the Jug!



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Alexander_P._de_Seversky.jpg



Alexander P. de Seversky



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/AlexanderKartveli.jpg



Alexander Kartveil


I have book!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

woofiedog
04-14-2007, 10:35 PM
WarWolfe_1... Couldn't agree more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Reggiane's RE 2000 certainly deserved more luck at home; insofar the first creation of the Emilian Aviation factories certainly was one of the most interesting and capable aircraft built in Italy at the time. The aircraft was realized on the basis of the project defined by the team led by Ing. Longhi. The inspiration of the project clearly was an American one. The RE 2000 didn't hide its origins coming from the Seversky P-35, a fact caused by the previous professional experience of Ing.

Link: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Reggiane.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ehistoryzone/Reggiane.html)

I would Totally enjoy flying either P-35 or Re-2000 in the game.

*rap Planes Forever! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Akronnick
04-14-2007, 10:43 PM
P-35 Would be nice for an early war scenario. Saw some combat in the Phillipines.

JarheadEd
04-14-2007, 10:45 PM
Just read my sig, For I too love the jug. And an XP-72 would be ,...Sexy. yeah.

woofiedog
04-14-2007, 11:29 PM
Oh Yes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Seversky_P-35A_USAF.jpg/760px-Seversky_P-35A_USAF.jpg
Seversky P-35 (USAAC Serial no. 36-0404) at the National Museum of the United States Air Force marked as the P-35A flown by the 17th Pursuit Squadron commander, 1 Lt. "Buzz" Wagner, in the Philippines, early 1941.

Treetop64
04-14-2007, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Akronnick:
P-35 Would be nice for an early war scenario. Saw some combat in the Phillipines.

...and got the stuffing whoopped out of them in the process, unfortunately. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Did any of the few that survived the ground-pounding get any air kills before they were comprehensively swatted from the skies themselves?

Skycat_2
04-14-2007, 11:58 PM
Precedence says that the XP-47 has a far greater chance of being included in IL-2 than a P-47N or P-47D-40. I'd say that there is also a higher probability that we'll someday receive an XP-47 than there is we'll ever get minor cosmetic tweaks to the current P-47 cockits.

I don't know why the developers have been so disinterested in the Thunderbolt; perhaps they are protecting the IL-2 (and IL-10) as the premier Allied fighter bomber. The P-47 was one of the first 'third party' projects to be included in the game, and while I've heard that the models required a lot of cleaning up to make useable, it irritates me that the current models haven't been revisited except to create a souped-up FM. Ilya promised to take a look at the cockpits when PF was still in development if he had time, but I guess he was too busy. I remember there was an interview right before 1946 came out where one of 1C's programers basically said that coding the Lerche was a relief because the last thing the series needed was another P-47 ... why he chose to isolate the Thunderbolt by name was curious to me.

I don't mind the various novelty planes in the series; by that I am referring to the Bf109Z, I-185, B-I1, YP-80, GO-229, etc. as well as the '46 set. However, IL-2 was originally conceived as a tactical sim where ground attack was on equal footing with escort and intercept. As a fighter-bomber, the P-47 series is right at home in the IL-2 game engine; it has always been frustrating to me that the Thunderbolt has been regarded as more of an inconvenience or an anomoly by the developers than as a significant aircraft of WWII.

I know we can't have all versions of all planes. Still, I feel that there are several aircraft that should have been included because they were workhorses of the war, or because they represent the final evolutions in a production series tempered by years of combat.

Treetop64
04-15-2007, 12:10 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Though I can't help but feel that all other theatres represented in this sim, along with their respective machines, served only as distrations from what is truly the heart and soul of this product: A simulation of the tactical air war over the Eastern Front.

I almost exclusively fly the Soviet v German offline campaigns, primarily because those planesets and map locations are the most complete of any presented in the entire game.

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 12:37 AM
SkyCat::
I don't know why the developers have been so disinterested in the Thunderbolt; perhaps they are protecting the IL-2 (and IL-10) as the premier Allied fighter bomber.
IL-2 was never a "fighter bomber." The IL-2 was, however, the premier Allied tactical support aircraft of World War 2.


SkyCat::
one of 1C's programers basically said that coding the Lerche was a relief because the last thing the series needed was another P-47 ... why he chose to isolate the Thunderbolt by name was curious to me.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Its a relief for me as well, as enough other The Sims have long ago covered the P-47(tm), just like on TV. I think the programmer may refer to the disaster of AEP, where Oleg tried to copy the Microsoft 1944 Online Dogfight Plane Theater, Oleg's biggest business blunder to date.

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 12:39 AM
Treetop::
I almost exclusively fly the Soviet v German offline campaigns, primarily because those planesets and map locations are the most complete of any presented in the entire game.
I agree, although I became fond of the Pacific with PF releace, as despite the PF limitations from a rushed development, Oleg's game engine does appear well suited for immersive Pacific carrier operations. If Oleg had only done the Pacific in detail instead of the AEP 1944 Microsoft Theater dogfighter plane disaster. Oleg does his best work when he follows the Forgotten Theme, and Pacific is a semi-forgotten theater.

tools4foolsA
04-15-2007, 12:55 AM
. If Oleg had only done the Pacific in detail instead of the AEP 1944 Microsoft

Agreee 100%!

*****

tools4foolsA
04-15-2007, 01:02 AM
P-35 and P-43 are interesting planes.

P-35 hopeless with its slow speed.

P-43 with good speed for the time but 'paper plane'. Now dunno how it manouvered but sounds like boom and zoom in a 'paper plane' vs a Zero...
Or do what they did: use it for recon, avoid fights...
****

Daiichidoku
04-15-2007, 01:45 AM
Robert Smith took a P43 Lancer on a jaunt over Everest....even slid the canopy open and took some still pics of it (BRRR!)

supposedly, this flight was the last one taken, as after this, Tibetan authorities forbade overflights of the sacred "Qomolangma/Sagarmatha/Chomolungma"

Aaron_GT
04-15-2007, 02:49 AM
I remember there was an interview right before 1946 came out where one of 1C's programers basically said that coding the Lerche was a relief because the last thing the series needed was another P-47

Noone can email in tests of fantasy planes and complain that they don't meet historical specifications as there are none to meet. So it is probably a welcome relief for the coders as they know that once it is done it is done (bar any big glitches). The P-47 is perhaps the one that has come up most often in terms of needing serious fixes (e.g. the horribly wrong roll rate when initially released) and calls for enhanced versions or more minor performance tweaks, so they probably get bored of looking at the P-47 again and again. Of course anything that is wrong should get fixed.

TX-Gunslinger
04-15-2007, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Treetop:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I almost exclusively fly the Soviet v German offline campaigns, primarily because those planesets and map locations are the most complete of any presented in the entire game.
I agree, although I became fond of the Pacific with PF releace, as despite the PF limitations from a rushed development, Oleg's game engine does appear well suited for immersive Pacific carrier operations. If Oleg had only done the Pacific in detail instead of the AEP 1944 Microsoft Theater dogfighter plane disaster. Oleg does his best work when he follows the Forgotten Theme, and Pacific is a semi-forgotten theater. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could also be said that a strong online game with no moving objects - is a poor home for Carrier Simulations.

Additionally, Imagine that more effort had been placed into Europe vice the Pacific.

It could reasonably be argued that the Pacific effort could have been redirected to the following items:

1) Flyable B-17/B-24
2) Flyable B-26
3) Actual Jager FW-190A3/A5/A5/A6/A7/A8
4) Actual Me-109 G14AS
5) Typhoon
6) Late Tempest (Tempest would have come earlier)
7) Spit XIV, Late Boost P51D
8) Reworked P-47 cockpit
9) Lancaster/Wellington/Halifax
10) Later Mossie versions
11) He-177/Do-17/Hs-129/He-219/Me-410
12) Detwoine 520/Curtis Hawk/MS 405/410

You really think PF offset the items I've listed above?

For online - where PF is the weakest - evidenced by the continually lower turnout on PF servers vs European servers - FB and AEP are the main business of the sim - not PF.
Also, the FM was modified to allow half-laden carrier aircraft to take-off from stationary carrier and the FM has never quite recovered, even with 4.0 enhancements. This was the point at which all the roll-rate peaks moved down in TAS.

I'm ok with things the way they are, but if you want to talk about alternate reality, I'd like to counterpoint.

Imagine a poll on this forum and the European forums giving a choice of PF or the items I've listed above. PF would not stand a chance. Those ten items up there have been asked for countless times - month after month - year after year.

S~ Lex

Gunny

Skycat_2
04-15-2007, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Its a relief for me as well, as enough other The Sims have long ago covered the P-47(tm), just like on TV. I think the programmer may refer to the disaster of AEP, where Oleg tried to copy the Microsoft 1944 Online Dogfight Plane Theater, Oleg's biggest business blunder to date.
La lah lah.

1. The P-51D(tm) is a staple of many other The Sims, and yet Oleg's team reserved it and modeled it even though there really wasn't a theater for it at the time.

2. Said P-51D has that fancy K-14 gunsight arrangement, which may have been the attraction? Those 1C coders seem to thrive on challenges ...

3. Which is probably why they enjoyed figuring out how to make the Lerche fly. It represented a completely different routine instead of what they had perfected with the dozens of single engined, piston-driven fighters already in the game.

4. But back to those boring single engined, piston-driven fighters included in every known The Sims WWII Online Dogfight set ever made ... Oleg's team also built us a P-51B and P-51C, and have coded in--like--20 versions of Spitfires.

5. Maybe the P-47 was covered, just like on TV, years ago ... but that doesn't mean that Oleg's team couldn't do it better. The offset gunsight in IL-2's razorback cockpit exceeds interpretations in other air combat titles; Microsoft totally buggered their razorback's gunsight in CFS-3 by putting it dead center on the dash so the view is blocked by the post in the center of the wedged windscreen.

6. Seriously, would it have killed 1C to give us a P-47D-40 with HVAR rockets and K-14 gunsight? The Thunderbolt in Jane's WWII Fighters was my favorite plane in that game, which BTW was my first WWII air combat sim. Oleg used to claim Jane's WW2F as one of his favorite games also. I feel like I'd 'have it all' even if they simply dropped the Jane's version 'as is' directly into IL-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

7. I can't think of any "The Sims TV WWII Reality Simulators" that include a P-47N as a flyable plane.

8. For that matter, I can't think of any that have modeled a P-47 with a working K-14 sight. It's a shame 1C got bored with the idea after the YP-80, because they had the gyroscopic sight's code figured out and probably could have just dropped the existing K-14 housing right into the boosted P-47D's cockpit. Add a HVARs loadout and we'd have something more interesting than a carbon copy of the D-27's model with a hotrodded FM:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/061020-F-1234P-022.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 04:35 AM
TX::
Also, the FM was modified to allow half-laden carrier aircraft to take-off from stationary carrier and the FM has never quite recovered, even with 4.0 enhancements. This was the point at which all the roll-rate peaks moved down in TAS.
Yes, Oleg crippled his own flight models for a tiny number of Online Dogfight players, like he did with the elevator trim in the old flight models from FB 1.0.


TX::
For online - where PF is the weakest - evidenced by the continually lower turnout on PF servers vs European servers - FB and AEP are the main business of the sim - not PF.
PF was never finished, and you know that, but you don't want to talk here with us about it. But then then, neither was the "microsoft euro" online dogfighter game disaster of AEP, unless the goal was nothing more than arcade dogfight with P-47Doras and P-51Doras, in which case, AEP Euro is complete, finished, all wrapped up. And, Online play is irrelevant, unless the sim is Pay To Play. When you really want to talk here, and exhcange some ideas, we may talk.

Spock! TX

SkyCat::
For that matter, I can't think of any that have modeled a P-47 with a working K-14 sight. It's a shame 1C got bored with the idea after the YP-80, because they had the gyroscopic sight's code figured out and probably could have just dropped the existing K-14 housing right into the boosted P-47D's cockpit. Add a HVARs loadout and we'd have something more interesting than a carbon copy of the D-27's model with a hotrodded FM:
The IL-2 has lots of rockets, years before there was any P-47Bertha, Dora, or Otherwise. If you really need it, TEH LOMAC or TEH FALCON superHUDjetsims offer fancy digital super-gunsights, and even a fancy MFD, and it too is all Digital.

Problem Solved. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

"Thanks Lexx"

no problem.

SPOCK ALL!

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

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 04:57 AM
Oh, and SkyCat, if you really want to talk with others here, we will have to discuss your claim to the board that IL-2 was a "fighter bomber."

SPOCK!

Skycat_2
04-15-2007, 05:40 AM
And we'll have to discuss your claim that there was such a thing as a P-47Bertha.

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 05:41 AM
If you wish to talk with others here, then we discuss your claim of IL-2 as "fighter bomber," then we may talk.

DIRTY-MAC
04-15-2007, 05:46 AM
Republic P-43 Lancer in Chinese service

Read all about it here, its a great article

http://www.warbirdforum.com/richdunn.htm

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 05:59 AM
Thanks! <WARNING> They link to a huge PDF file, 500+ kb (not pages!)..

P-43::
You probably knew this already, but you'll need Acrobat Reader in order to view the manual. You can get the software by clicking here. It's free, but for most Windows platforms it's a 8.6 megabyte download.
You don't need Acrobat. I suggest downloading the Foxit PDF reader at the link below. The free version of Foxit Reader only reads PDF files, but far smaller, and lightening fast -- far faster loading and scrolling than offered by the "Acrobat."

FOXIT ~> http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

EDIT :: I guess you do need Acrobat to get into the file, but I save it and read it in Foxit. I have a 500 page PDF on German air defences and its painful to read in Acrobat. This P-43 article is not so large.

BillyTheKid_22
04-15-2007, 09:40 AM
http://www.simhq.com/_air6/images/air_218a_002.jpg



http://www.simhq.com/_air6/images/air_218a_003.jpg



http://www.simhq.com/_air6/images/air_218a_004.jpg



XP-72 Great nice!!!

Nimits
04-15-2007, 12:29 PM
SkyCat::
quote:
For that matter, I can't think of any that have modeled a P-47 with a working K-14 sight. It's a shame 1C got bored with the idea after the YP-80, because they had the gyroscopic sight's code figured out and probably could have just dropped the existing K-14 housing right into the boosted P-47D's cockpit. Add a HVARs loadout and we'd have something more interesting than a carbon copy of the D-27's model with a hotrodded FM:

The IL-2 has lots of rockets, years before there was any P-47Bertha, Dora, or Otherwise. If you really need it, TEH LOMAC or TEH FALCON superHUDjetsims offer fancy digital super-gunsights, and even a fancy MFD, and it too is all Digital.

Problem Solved.

"Thanks Lexx"

What the heck does the IL-2 or Falcon 4.0 have to do with including accurate later war versions of the P-47 in 1946?

BTW, there is no such think as a P-47 "Bertha" or P-47 "Dora," anymore than there is a Me-109 Frank or a Fw-190 Alpha . . .

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 02:20 PM
Nimitz::
What the heck does the IL-2 or Falcon 4.0 have to do with including accurate later war versions of the P-47 in 1946?
You will have to ask SkyCat last page about "fighter bombers."

If you wish to talk about "accurate," we may talk.


SPOCK! Nimits

horseback
04-15-2007, 02:21 PM
I think that for most knowledgable afficianados of the P-47, the major issues with Oleg's interpretation are by far the crudest cockpit model in the sim (yes, I know that it was a 'gift' from a modeler not part of Oleg's team, and while I feel guilty about pointing it out, it's still damned ugly and hard to use), and the grotesquely fragile (and possibly oversized 'engine box') Damage Model of the R-2800, which just coincidentally affects the Corsair and Hellcat adversely as well.

I've been around since nearly Day One on that debate, and I remember the sheer volume of complaints and documentation it took to get the Jug's FM up to its current (& still somewhat nerfed) level. Focke Wulf drivers could get around most of its questionable modeling by using Prop Pitch instead of the default automatic controls, but the full-switch Jug flier is stuck.

He can't see his instrument panel clearly or easily (even in Wide FOV, you have to look much further down than on any other cockpit model), and the headon pass so beloved of the RL Jug driver must be studiously avoided, lest anything denser than a spitball strike anywhere near that engine.

Oleg and Co may point to the fact that they are only going from the P-47's record with Soviet forces, but in light of the record in Western Europe against the same opponent, the VVS' inability to to make effective use of it in the ground attack role speaks more about their tactical inflexiblity than about the P-47's limitations.

cheers

horseback

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 02:49 PM
horseback::
I've been around since nearly Day One on that debate, and I remember the sheer volume of complaints and documentation it took to get the Jug's FM up to its current (& still somewhat nerfed) level. Focke Wulf drivers could get around most of its questionable modeling by using Prop Pitch instead of the default automatic controls, but the full-switch Jug flier is stuck.
Other planes' cockpits suffer as well, and have never been fixed, to my knowledge -- I don't have 46 and I probably never will. The Yak-3 with reversed compass faces hidden by gun sight padding make realistic flying almost impossible, and Yak-9 dark stained gunsight glass that hide a target on summer map are two examples. If you wish to talk here about cockpit faults, we can talk.

I agree about P-47 damage modelling. I once did a test with AI TB-3 set to takeoff, with various planes flown by the player starting on the ground near the TB-3. The P-47 was consistently the *fastest* to set afire with the AI's tiny guns on the TB-3, brewing up even before Ki-84, I recall. Maybe that's changed since two years ago, maybe not.

So, Oleg still makes "accurate" flight models, and damage models? I'd say no. Fun flight models, yes! I have no problem with that. For the hardcore, this is a good reason for opening aircraft to 3rd Party modders. Don't like Oleg's P-47? Stop Whining and add it yourself.

The way I see it, the P-47 was simply never important to the developers. And, its not important to me, and the P-47 in 1944 Microsoft Theater is "boring" in the fact that all The Sims covered it. If you like, you can send Microsoft an Emil and ask them to develop a 1944 Mircrosoft Theater sim with "accurate" P-47.

Or, wait for BoB And Beyond and you can make your own P-47Bertha, Dora, or Otherwise, as Oleg will be opening aircraft to modding. I most want a SAC F-47Nimits (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) escort fighter, but not for the Microsoft Theater. If you make one -- Thanks!

Cheers! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 02:55 PM
horseback::
Oleg and Co may point to the fact that they are only going from the P-47's record with Soviet forces, but in light of the record in Western Europe against the same opponent, the VVS' inability to to make effective use of it in the ground attack role speaks more about their tactical inflexiblity than about the P-47's limitations.
Success in using P-39 against the Luftwaffe shows tactical flexibility in a combat theater far different than the "P47" Microsoft Front. We assumed you "knew" this.

Xiolablu3
04-15-2007, 04:48 PM
The P47 is was a pretty good fighter to say its so heavy and doesnt have cannons.

I love the late models with the bubble top.

It does require definite 'energy fighting' and 'B&Z' because its never going to be a turnfighter/dogfighter being so big and heavy when its up against nimble Bf109's.


It also has a verypooor climb, however its dive is/was fantastic.

The P47 flight model in IL2 at prresent is surely as good as such a heavy big fighter could ever be? I dont get what the complaints are about.

Wasnt it the heaviest single engined fighter of the war? Thats not a good characteristic for a dogfighter.

Skycat_2
04-15-2007, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Nimitz::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What the heck does the IL-2 or Falcon 4.0 have to do with including accurate later war versions of the P-47 in 1946?
You will have to ask SkyCat last page about "fighter bombers."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, since you're going to keep hammering me on this ridiculous non-issue ...

1. I concede that the use of 'fighter bomber' was wrong when applied to the IL-2 Sturmovik. I believe it is generally described as a 'close support aircraft,' 'ground attack aircraft' or just 'attack aircraft.' In the case of the IL-2T it is also called a 'torpedo bomber.'

2. My use of the term in that context was paranthetical, not technical. I think most people can at least accept that the Thunderbolt, when used in the role of tactical or close support, is performing a role very similar to what the IL-2 was designed for.

3. When performing in the tactical role, the Thunderbolt was considered a fighter bomber. Since the P-47 is my favorite WWII plane because of its ground attack capabilities, I mingle the concepts of 'ground attack' and 'fighter bomber' in my mind. It's just semantics, nothing more.

4. The first instance you corrected my terminology was sufficient, and I would have kindly amended my statement if that is what you desired. However, you've decided to bring it up three more times after that, so I assume your intent is to undermine my credibility.

5. Since we're discussing my "claim to the board that the IL-2 was a fighter bomber" why don't we review the first few seconds of the "IL-2 Introduction" training track that is provided with Forgotten Battles:
"Welcome to the Il-2 Sturmovik, Cadet. You are now flying the most important Soviet warplane, as vital to our victory as bread and water. It can carry bombs and rockets like a bomber, and it can fly like a fighter. You can destory enemy tanks and vehicles, sink ships, strafe troops, and even shoot down enemy planes."

6. Since we aren't going to get any new P-47s anyhow, I don't understand why you're so opposed to my wish that we had. Yes, I get it that you are bored that every previous WWII air combat sim had Thunderbolts in the ETO, blah blah blah. Allow me to point out, though, that the P-47N was developed for the Pacific (which you said you came to like, but agreed was incomplete) but saw some action in Italy. Hmmmm, don't we have an Italy map now?

7. Belittling K-14 equipped Thunderbolts by suggesting the digital HUDs in LOMAC as an alternative is simply ridiculous. The K-14 became standard equipment in production 'D' models in 1944; I don't know how many of the 12,608 total 'D' models produced were equipped with this lead computing gunsight at the factory, but when I looked at the D-40 block serial numbers I figured it was about 663. I'll assume that there were also some field upgrades to earlier 'D' models as well. There were 1,816 total P-47Ns produced, and these had the K-14 as standard. I believe that the 130 P-47Ms produced were K-14 equipped at the factory.

8. While you personally may have no interest in the Thunderbolt, it was the most produced American fighter in history. A total of 15,683 aircraft were produced before production was closed out in December 1945.

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 07:46 PM
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/thumbs.gif Indeed, I am personally interested in a quality Flyable Thunderbolt, especially the Nimits, but not in this sim, not in Oleg's 1944 Microsoft Online Dogfight Theater -- not in Easter Front, not in The Meds, and not in the Pacific. I like crapplanes.

SkyCat::
7. Belittling K-14 equipped Thunderbolts by suggesting the digital HUDs in LOMAC as an alternative is simply ridiculous.
See below...

6. Since we aren't going to get any new P-47s anyhow, I don't understand why you're so opposed to my wish that we had.
I saw no wish. Calling IL-2 a "fighter bomber" in frustration of not seeing your favorite P-47 in an Easter Front focused releace is simply ridiculous, and belittling to others here.

Yough I'm not a 100% Happy gamer here either, don't have 46, don't plan on it. If Oleg finished off the "normal" Easter Front planeset, say 41, with flyable everything, then I'd have multiple 41 copies by now. That's my wish. Oh well. But I'm not so bitter about it. When Oleg or somebody gets around to a dedicated 1944 Western Front again, you'll have your P-47 with digital...K-14. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nimits
04-15-2007, 08:12 PM
Indeed, I am personally interested in a quality Flyable Thunderbolt, especially the Nimits, but not in this sim, not in Oleg's 1944 Microsoft Online Dogfight Theater -- not in Easter Front, not in The Meds, and not in the Pacific. I like crapplanes.

Indeed, I am personally interested in a quality Flyable Thunderbolt, especially the Nimits, but not in this sim, not in Oleg's 1944 Microsoft Online Dogfight Theater -- not in Easter Front, not in The Meds, and not in the Pacific. I like crapplanes.

SkyCat::
quote:
7. Belittling K-14 equipped Thunderbolts by suggesting the digital HUDs in LOMAC as an alternative is simply ridiculous.

See below...

quote:
6. Since we aren't going to get any new P-47s anyhow, I don't understand why you're so opposed to my wish that we had.

I saw no wish. Calling IL-2 a "fighter bomber" in frustration of not seeing your favorite P-47 in an Easter Front focused releace is simply ridiculous, and belittling to others here.

Um, calling the Il-2 a "fighter-bomber" is not an insult, to you are the Il-2 . . .

Seriously, (and I do not mean this as an insult), but are you intoxicated or on painkillers, or just trying to be silly? Because you are not making any since right now.

BfHeFwMe
04-15-2007, 10:12 PM
The Il-2 series 3 was indeed designed as an escort fighter.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/MusWarBolt.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 10:36 PM
Bf::
The Il-2 series 3 was indeed designed as an escort fighter.
Yes, a move of desperation after June 1941, and a failed one. You know this. This was no "fighter bomber." We assumed you knew this.

Nimits::
Seriously, (and I do not mean this as an insult), but are you intoxicated or on painkillers, or just trying to be silly? Because you are not making any since right now.
Wanna talk here without little gamer snot? eh?

Nimits
04-15-2007, 10:52 PM
Wanna talk here without little gamer snot? eh?

err whatever . . .

BfHeFwMe
04-15-2007, 10:58 PM
Ha, it certainly doesn't fail in game. Can kick the snot out of Emils handily. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

LEXX_Luthor
04-15-2007, 11:12 PM
mmm, I didn't think of that. In game its the best fighter bomber of them all except...IL-10? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

luftluuver
04-16-2007, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
'snip'.... -- not in Easter Front.....'snip'

Yough I'm not a 100% Happy gamer here either, don't have 46, don't plan on it. If Oleg finished off the "normal" Easter Front planeset, say 41, with flyable everything, then I'd have multiple 41 copies by now. That's my wish. Oh well. But I'm not so bitter about it. When Oleg or somebody gets around to a dedicated 1944 Western Front again, you'll have your P-47 with digital...K-14. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
What is an Easter Front?

Skycat_2
04-16-2007, 06:50 AM
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5m2CcCNGXXwAgaGjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN 0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=12fransgn/EXP=1176814082/**http%3A//www.leelefever.com/archives/ali%2520g%2520jewels.jpg
Easter is round the back of Wester.