PDA

View Full Version : janes p47 vs il2 p47



GoodKn1ght
01-01-2004, 01:23 PM
Did anyone think the p47 was a lot better in janes than in fb? Maybe its just my imagination but it seems a lot worse in this sim. Can anyone speculate as to why or does anyone disagree?

GoodKn1ght
01-01-2004, 01:23 PM
Did anyone think the p47 was a lot better in janes than in fb? Maybe its just my imagination but it seems a lot worse in this sim. Can anyone speculate as to why or does anyone disagree?

VVS-Manuc
01-01-2004, 01:58 PM
would it be better to ask, which P-47 is more realistic?

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-01-2004, 02:02 PM
Also, the P-47 bubble top version(s) generally had worse performance then the razor-back version(s). Try flying the P-47D22 or D10 sometimes. They should be a bit faster and certainly got more roll-rate. And you have to take convergence range really serious.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

Aardvark892
01-01-2004, 02:03 PM
An uninformed opinion is about to follow... hang on!

The FB P-47 is more realistic in every way.

I say uninformed 'cos how the heck could I know how realistic it is! Has anyone here flown a P-47 in combat? FB just seems "mo' better".

SSgt Tim Schuster, USAF
8th MXS Inspection Section
Kunsan AB, ROK

http://www.il2skins.com
http://www.uberdemon.com
http://www.mudmovers.com
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com
http://www.gibbageart.com

credit for MiG-3U skin avatar goes to wwwdubya

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Aardvark892/PC_Stealth2.jpg

RedDeth
01-01-2004, 02:12 PM
wasnt the jug in janes ww2f the M model? the m is ten times better than whats in fb

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

SkyChimp
01-01-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
Also, the P-47 bubble top version(s) generally had worse performance then the razor-back version(s).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it didn't.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

1.JaVA_Razer
01-01-2004, 02:36 PM
FROM WHAT I HEARD!!!!
the boll canopy's gave worse performance. And the razorbacks where better. But I have no idea on what,how,where,when?

But I think it's a shame we have a "bad" P 47 version I want such and M version http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It would be nice to have a good performing P 47

SkyChimp
01-01-2004, 03:17 PM
I've never seen any evidence that any Razorback performed better than any bubble top versions. Their performance numbers certainly don't reveal it. Some performed as well, but better? Maybe they had a little better directional stability.

BTW, I flew Janes WWII Fighters for years. I hate to say it, but I think it's closer to correct than the FB version is.

And here is something even more provacative -- the P-47D-25 in CFS3 performs closer to historical numbers than the P-47D-27 in FB, especially roll rate, which is pretty accurate in CFS3.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

kyrule2
01-01-2004, 03:30 PM
Like chimp said, the only real difference was in directional stability. This is why the late 47 had a fin fillet (don't know the correct word) which sort of acts like a dorsal fin on a shark. It was generally put at the top of the rear fuesalage section and extended up into rear stabalizer. The P-51D also had this as did the Tempest (revised rear fuesalage/broader rudder). All of which had 'bubble tops.' I don't believe there was any significant performance drop in terms of speed, climb, roll, etc.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

LeadSpitter_
01-01-2004, 03:37 PM
Chimp I couldnt agree with you more. Thats what happens when tucker hatfield speaks with vintage warbird pilots for the p47. especially in the stick pressure and max dive stick pressure before breakup.

Il2 fb is still a much better looking game

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

DaBallz
01-01-2004, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Like chimp said, the only real difference was in directional stability. This is why the late 47 had a fin fillet (don't know the correct word) which sort of acts like a dorsal fin on a shark. It was generally put at the top of the rear fuesalage section and extended up into rear stabalizer. The P-51D also had this as did the Tempest (revised rear fuesalage/broader rudder). All of which had 'bubble tops.' I don't believe there was any significant performance drop in terms of speed, climb, roll, etc.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fin extension is probibly the best description, but fillet works for me. The extension may have even enhanced the speed a bit because of the enhanced stability with no increase in "wetted area".

The Jane's P-47 is a fantastic airppane, fantastic in the literal sense. All planes in Jane's WII Fighters are over modeled and perform remarkably similar. Top speeds on the deck are within 2 or 3 mph, climb is close and turn rate is close except for the Spit which is like turning a hinge, fantastic again.

Jane's was a cool game but the flight models were hoplessly exaggerated, the P-47 and Spit most notably.

Da

F19_Ob
01-01-2004, 05:28 PM
One thing that comes to mind when I think about the performance of ww2 planes is this:


It is a big difference in knowledge between real pilots in ww2 and the FB community.

The real pilots then, didnt have perfect and testable performance charts bcause any test would be in real combat, and I bet my head on that many 109 and fw190 pilots were scared as
hell when they saw p47's comming after them when they tried to get the bombers down, and they wernt at all sure if they could outmaneuver these fellas.

In fb I know I can outmaneuver the p47 in a 109 or at least get away and I can calmly fly against it. So... I had this knowledge in advance before I went to combat, and thats quite a difference.


Maybe many planes got credit for being more dangerous than they were.

Many have claimed that the P51 D was the best
plane...but still it wasnt that good of a turnfighter and quite dangerous to fly in slower speeds.

There are in my opinion so many variables to count in before u can say " this plane was that good and the other not so good"

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
01-01-2004, 09:49 PM
nah, they would be told that sort of stuff in training

horseback
01-02-2004, 01:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
nah, they would be told that sort of stuff in training<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Who KNEW that stuff? Actual aircraft performance of the aircraft on the front was constantly changing, and those changes' purposes and capabilities were often classified. For instance, the P-47C originally arrived in the UK with a flatter keel line than most of us would recognize and once the need for a 'belly' tank was seen, the bulged keel we all know and love was in place in less than six months. Five months after that, and the 56th FG was getting the first "paddleblade" props, which radically improved performance without a visible change in the aircraft to someone who only saw it flying.

What about the Mustang? The LW must've soiled themselves laughing at the idea of Mustangs operating over 20 thousand feet in November of '43. I doubt they took seriously the idea that the Yanks would put a British engine in their airplanes. They were taking it seriously by the following March, though.

Captured a/c usually had some kind of damage to contend with, and were pretty scarce, not to mention well behind the development curve by the time they could be repaired and flown. Comparison tests with captured/rebuilt aircraft were made, and the results passed on to the concerned parties, but they had to be taken with a grain of salt, because only rarely did anybody get their hands on a pristine, fully operational, top-of-the-line enemy fighter.

There weren't a lot of opportunities to pass on those kinds of tips in training, because by the time you got into combat, the information could be obsolete. You had to depend on your flight leaders and group intelligence personnel to get the current info to you.

For us, the info is static; we have relatively complete information on the relative strengths of the aircraft in this game, and it doesn't change much. But many of us have been playing Il-2 or FB longer than the overwhelming majority of WWII aircrewmen's combat careers, and they had to deal with a dynamic, constantly changing battlefield.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-02-2004, 01:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And here is something even more provacative -- the P-47D-25 in CFS3 performs closer to historical numbers than the P-47D-27 in FB, especially roll rate, which is pretty accurate in CFS3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try a pirrouette too. Start up, give full throttle and at about a speed of 20 to 40 KTS, push full rudder. Continue to press it until you are fully lined up with the runway again.

VOILA

A perfect pirrouette. Not just a sharp circle but, a real pirrouette. Now how real is that? It made me believe that the P-47 was one of the most f@cked up planes in CFS3. And together with many other factors, it made me quit CFS3 after a week.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

pinche_bolillo
01-02-2004, 03:30 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedDeth:
wasnt the jug in janes ww2f the M model? the m is ten times better than whats in fb

it was a P-47D model red, not an M model. it is not that the 47 was over modeled at janes so much that the spitfire IX and P-38 were so undermodeled. at janes world the 47D could out climb the spit IX..........hum last I checked the the spit IX climbs 800 fpm faster than the 47D. the 47D could stay with the 38J in a climb......hum same that can be said for the real spit vs the real 47D can be said for the 38J vs 47D......the 38J should easily out climb the 47D at all altitudes. by around 800fpm same as the spitfire IX.

at janes world the only 109 model we had was the 109G6,,,,,,,,,,,well all you had to do in the 47D was to run away from this plane or get the 109 moving really fast and you could then out turn the 109 with the 47, the 109s here turn really well, even at high speed, something I believe is modeled wrong. before some 109 driver thinks the 109 turns poorly, well try using some trim while you turn and see just how well the 109 performs.

the 38 should have been able to get on the 47Ds tail in 2 turns or less (rahter quickly that is) but not at janes world, the 38J turned worse than the 47D

47D had the best guns.........I wont comment on this for fear of being a 38 whinner again

the 47d and 190a8 were similar performers, the 190 rolled better while the 47 climbed better, the 190 had a slight advantage in turn. the two planes were about equal as long as both planes were flown to their strengths vs the enemy a/c's weakness. historicaly the 47D vs 190A seems to be a close match, both planes had similar performance (except for the speed advantage of the 47) while the 190 had a slight edge at low altitude, they were equal at medium altitude, and the 47 had a good advantage above 20,000ft, but I personally rarely flew above 12,000 ft at janes. most fights were low

also at janes it was very difficult to fly above 33,000ft in any plane. strange fm.

planes at janes flew like mac trucks, planes at fb are much more maneouverable, thus at fb you can effect a jink and make the enemy blow all his ammo and never hit you. you can also be in a less maneouverable plane and escape from it, granted he may gain advantage in another minute or two, but by that time help may have arrived. at janes this was almost impossible to do. once an enemy plane was on you and in gun range he usually blasted you, gunnery was 20x easier at janes than fb, and the planes at janes took 1/4 the damage.

the 30mm cannon is many times more powerful here than at janes, and about half the planes I encounter in this game carry 1 or 2 of these cannons. I think the 30mm is much more accurate here than at janes.

janes 47 seemed to be modeled with all its strengths while every other plane seemed to be modeled with all its strengths taken away, thus making the 47 a very effective plane at janes.

DaBallz
01-02-2004, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And here is something even more provacative -- the P-47D-25 in CFS3 performs closer to historical numbers than the P-47D-27 in FB, especially roll rate, which is pretty accurate in CFS3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try a pirrouette too. Start up, give full throttle and at about a speed of 20 to 40 KTS, push full rudder. Continue to press it until you are fully lined up with the runway again.

VOILA

A perfect pirrouette. Not just a sharp circle but, a real pirrouette. Now how real is that? It made me believe that the P-47 was one of the most f@cked up planes in CFS3. And together with many other factors, it made me quit CFS3 after a week.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get out your stop watch, load WWII Jane's Fighters
and do some time to climb runs. ALL planes in Janes are over modeled by about 250% in climb, the P-47D was a joke, the turning of the Spit and the climb of the P-47 were extremely over modeled.

Jane's flight models were arcade at best.
As I remember, you AFJ guys insisted Flight model 4 was most realistic, even FM5 was a joke, extremely easy.

Jane's was fun, great for it's day, but FM hacking was rampant and the arcadish flight models were laughable.

Da