PDA

View Full Version : Dogfight With Late Model P47?



MisterMark
05-31-2009, 11:18 AM
Ok so you have climbed to 16000 ft and you have spotted a lone dora, A9 or some 109 variant below you. You make a few slashing passes and only do minimal damage.

You are now losing some energy and have now committed dogfighting at the deck. What tips do you guys have on fighting against these plane under 10000 feet with a late model P47?

Thanks,

Mark

JtD
05-31-2009, 11:37 AM
A-model Fw don't stand a chance. As long as you don't fly in front of them, you get to bag them. Except for some stick jerking to throw off your aim, there's little they can do.

Against late 109's you shouldn't get into a close dogfight, in sustained turn and climb they will gain on you. However, they are very vulnerable, so all you need is _one_ decent firing solution. You will get it, as long as you don't blow all your energy or position advantage in vain. Don't follow it into every maneuvre, stay rather loosely behind and above him. Move in on the kill when you see the chance. The 109 can't do fancy moves to completely spoil all your possible shooting solutions.

Imho the D-9 is the hardest possible target. Fast, with a decent climb and good high speed maneuverability, tough and a decent turn, it can give you quite some grieve. Frankly, I'd disengae in a shallow full throttle climb when I find most of my advantage gone. Don't wait until all of the advantage is gone. Don't mind the overheat message, keep up the throttle.

ElAurens
05-31-2009, 11:52 AM
Never had problems with FWs of any type at low level with the late 47s.

JtD pretty much nailed it.

Stay slightly above them, don't match them move for move, and give them a good squirt in convergence and they are toast.

danjama
05-31-2009, 12:10 PM
Don't be stupid enough to give up your energy in the first place! Bad move in the 47, although it may edge the 190's in turn radius down low, against an undamaged 109 you have no chance and better pray for your wingman to show up!

general_kalle
05-31-2009, 02:09 PM
you kinda wonder how the 56th maneged to get such a great score against FW190 and Me109's

TinyTim
05-31-2009, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
you kinda wonder how the 56th maneged to get such a great score against FW190 and Me109's

One thing often overlooked here is that Me-109s and Fw-190s many times gave up their tactical position so they could attack bombers.

danjama
05-31-2009, 03:29 PM
Now for another 10 pager on how ownage the US pilots were against the ****ty rookie german pilots over western front 1944-5

ElAurens
05-31-2009, 03:38 PM
I certainly not going there.

I'm talking about in game.

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

Metatron_123
05-31-2009, 04:41 PM
The average American brain is simply bigger than the average Kraut brain, it has nothing to do with the airplanes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

TS_Sancho
05-31-2009, 05:47 PM
Keep the fight above 20,000 ft where the P47 reigns supreme and the FW antons start gasping for air. 16,000 ft should be more of a minimal combat altitude/hard deck if you want to stay untouchable in air to air combat. d

If you insist on dogfighting the Jug down low your only advantage is to use the 47's awesome dive speed and superior high speed control to engage/disengage your opponent although as soon as you run out of altitude you run out of advantage. Better to keep the fight up high where the P47 does everthing better or choose a different aircraft like the spitIXLF, MustangIII or LA7 which are tailored to low/mid altitude performance.

The eight 50's on the '47 are devastating when they hit in their convergance box and you also have the ability to set the inner and outer guns to hit at different convergances for example I use 150/200 meters which gives a deeper lethality cone than all your firepower concentrated at one set distance. The 50's dont blow aircraft to little pieces like cannon rounds so be patient. Dive down and get a good solid hit then use your E to disengage, it might take a couple of minutes but if your shooting correctly you'll get the EAD.

50 inches of manifold pressure at 2700 rpm's with the cowl flaps closed and you can run all day without overheating. Other than that what the other guys said is good advice. It takes a good make believe pilot to get the most out of the Jug so practice makes perfect applies.

na85
05-31-2009, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Never had problems with FWs of any type at low level with the late 47s.

JtD pretty much nailed it.

Stay slightly above them, don't match them move for move, and give them a good squirt in convergence and they are toast.

Really?

If I see a P47 anywhere under 3km I start thinking about the 100 points I'm about to get.

BillSwagger
05-31-2009, 07:29 PM
Try not to dive from above them. Dive behind them and level out just below their six from a couple kilometers back (2.00) You should be leveled out exceeding 550mph (IAS).
You should be able to get a better shot on them, and any evasive maneuvers they pull will be easier to correct from lower behind (as oppose from higher behind).

You will also bleed less energy this way if you extended properly.

Under 10k, the p-47 still shines as long as you keep your energy up. There isn't a plane you couldn't out run from that altitude.

If you find yourself repeatedly get caught low and slow in a late 47, then you aren't doing something right. Don't over commit. Sometimes a little separation from the target is safer so you can use your energy and speed for another pass, rather than getting tangled in a dogfight that bleeds your energy.

Flight_boy1990
05-31-2009, 08:34 PM
I see a lot of tactical minds here...
The thing that "FW-190 A can't stand a chance" made me laugh! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I wounder when i'll meet anyone of you in the servers... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But as "na85" said:

"If I see a P47 anywhere under 3km I start thinking about the 100 points I'm about to get."

In my case,if i see a P-47 below 6500m,i'm starting to think about the 100 points i (or some of my wingmens) will get.

na85
05-31-2009, 09:05 PM
I didn't mean what I said as a cocky sort of "I'm so good look at me" statement... I was just trying to say that the 47 in game is a dog down low, and with only 3 or 4 km to dive down from it's not easy to escape.

Choctaw111
05-31-2009, 09:05 PM
The P47 late is very good above 20,000 feet and pretty much dominates up that high. It seems that the higher you go, the better it performs.

BillSwagger
06-01-2009, 12:26 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
I see a lot of tactical minds here...
The thing that "FW-190 A can't stand a chance" made me laugh! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I wounder when i'll meet anyone of you in the servers... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But as "na85" said:

"If I see a P47 anywhere under 3km I start thinking about the 100 points I'm about to get."


Yeah, the FW-190 series has its advantages being one of the easier planes to handle. If you are new, i would recommend this plane. There's no prop pitch, supercharging or mixture to worry about.
Just hit throttle and go. It also has superior fire power so you really only have to land one or two shots on a target and he's done.

The P-47 is also a great plane to learn on because of its superior dive speed and relatively stable controls. It won't flip on its back unexpectedly like some other planes do. Its also a tougher plane to shoot down if you learn to use it right.

Lately ive been trying out the F4U-1c which has similar flight characteristics of the p-47. it has the modern 20mm, which do a better job on batting down bombers which i find similar to the fire power of the 190 and 109 series.
You get to also operate the 3 stage super charger and prop pitch which is a lot like real flying.

Xiolablu3
06-01-2009, 03:40 AM
Dont dogfight in the P47, energy fight and B&Z, shes MADE for that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TinyTim
06-01-2009, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Yeah, the FW-190 series has its advantages being one of the easier planes to handle. If you are new, i would recommend this plane.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Gadje
06-01-2009, 03:51 AM
If it comes to a knifefight between Late P47 and Antons/Dora's with similar E its close enough to be decided by pilot skill. If pilots are well matched in my experience its usually a long, hard fight.

Against late 109's on the deck, the Axis fighter has an advantage but if its even medium alt and the p47 can keep the fight fast, he has a good chance.

Again pilot skill is likely to decide things as these late war aircraft are closely matched at angle fighting.

Usually the pilot who can remain patient, fly on the edge and keep the plane under control wins. Pushing these planes on the edge is problematic, some are better than others but all can bite you with little warning.

Quite a few pilots of energy fighters like these are inexperienced or unwilling to fly this way, only flying 'by the book'. Generally this is wise but probably explains why posters in this thread from both sides say how easy it is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You can add the P51, MustangIII, Tempest and P38 in the mix too. None are designed for fighting this way and its not a sensible way to fly them but if it happens they can make for great fights.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
06-01-2009, 09:40 AM
On certain maps online, I've noticed the majority of pilots fly/fight under 2000M, despite the fact that most late war designs were better fitted for the altitude battle. I enjoy flying higher for the added realism as sometimes lower fights remind me i'm still playing a video game. In part because it be a cluster (bleep) down low with everyone jumping on the same kill, but also being up high gives you more options in battle, and you can get a sense of some fighter tactics to use and what better suits the plane that you're in.

It is definitely more of a chess match in the sense that a wrong set of moves can put you in bad spot quickly. Even if i lose, its still funner for me to be up higher in an altitude/energy fight. I guess it comes down to taste.

Fw 190= budlite

p-47 = guiness

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

freakvollder
06-01-2009, 10:41 AM
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com...php/P-47_Thunderbolt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/P-47_Thunderbolt)
i think this can help! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
06-01-2009, 10:54 AM
p-47 with 5 minutes of WEP??

Is it bad taste to post another games info here?

I know you are trying to help, but that info holds little weight on this forum.

stalkervision
06-01-2009, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
p-47 with 5 minutes of WEP??

Is it bad taste to post another games info here?

I know you are trying to help, but that info holds little weight on this forum.

No, not at all... go for it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
06-01-2009, 11:14 AM
I completely disagree with the statements that mark the P-47D_late as a poor low altitude aircraft or a bad dogfighter. In fact, almost all improvements over the early D-10 model are improvements for low to medium altitude dogfights. There's not much the D_late can do up high the D-10 can't do. However, there's a lot it can do down low a D-10 can't do.

And I stand by what I said about the A model Fw's - they don't have a single effective maneuvre to get rid of a P-47D_late on their high 6. At 10000 feet, all of them are outrun, outclimbed, outturned and outdived. All they can do is try to spoil your aim and make you overshoot. If the pilots make no mistakes and there is no outside interference, the Fw will go down.

Buzzsaw-
06-01-2009, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by freakvollder:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com...php/P-47_Thunderbolt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/P-47_Thunderbolt)
i think this can help! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The P-47 in ACES HIGH is modelled very differently from the one in IL-2. The advice in this article is coloured by that.

Buzzsaw-
06-01-2009, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I completely disagree with the statements that mark the P-47D_late as a poor low altitude aircraft or a bad dogfighter. In fact, almost all improvements over the early D-10 model are improvements for low to medium altitude dogfights. There's not much the D_late can do up high the D-10 can't do. However, there's a lot it can do down low a D-10 can't do.

And I stand by what I said about the A model Fw's - they don't have a single effective maneuvre to get rid of a P-47D_late on their high 6. At 10000 feet, all of them are outrun, outclimbed, outturned and outdived. All they can do is try to spoil your aim and make you overshoot. If the pilots make no mistakes and there is no outside interference, the Fw will go down.

In most situations where the P-47DLate is available, there are also 190D9's available. And the D9 is easily a better dogfighter under 10k than the P-47.

So you need to be careful before committing yourself low.

The P-47D10's and D22's are outclassed by the 190A's down low, so the same applies when you fly against them.

It's unfortunate that no one in AAA has modelled a Paddle Bladed, 64 inch MAP version of the D-10 or D-22, since these power settings and props were common after the first week of January '44.

There should also be D-22 modelled with the Paddleblade prop at 70 inches MAP and 150 octane. The Razorback P-47 remained in service right into 1945, and in fact were the majority of the aircraft in the P-47 Squadrons right up to October of '44.

The D-22 had exactly the same R-2800/59 engine as there was in the D-27, and when 150 octane became available, these aircraft ran the higher boost as well.

Should be very simple to do the mod. Just requires the engine/prop that the D27 and D27 late have.

A D22 with paddleblade, and MAP 70 inches would be the best dogfighter of the P-47's since the Razorbacks were a little lighter and more stable in hard maneuvering situations.

Personally I have a soft spot for the D10, and some of my moments of greatest satisfaction are when I am able to get a low level dogfight kill in this aircraft versus something like a 190A5 or A6.

K_Freddie
06-01-2009, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
And I stand by what I said about the A model Fw's - they don't have a single effective maneuvre to get rid of a P-47D_late on their high 6. At 10000 feet, all of them are outrun, outclimbed, outturned and outdived. All they can do is try to spoil your aim and make you overshoot. If the pilots make no mistakes and there is no outside interference, the Fw will go down.
It depends who you come up against.. the P47 is generally dead up to heights of ~20,000ft with a good A9 pilot. The FW pilot just flies like the P47 would and there's more than a match.
The FW still maintains it's maneurvability (at any speed) up at these heights.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

K_Freddie
06-01-2009, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
All they can do is try to spoil your aim and make you overshoot.
But.. that's all they need to do... and the 'brick' does it fairly easily
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

TS_Sancho
06-01-2009, 04:17 PM
And I stand by what I said about the A model Fw's - they don't have a single effective maneuvre to get rid of a P-47D_late on their high 6. At 10000 feet, all of them are outrun, outclimbed, outturned and outdived. All they can do is try to spoil your aim and make you overshoot. If the pilots make no mistakes and there is no outside interference, the Fw will go down.

I fly both Antons and P47's often online. Although in the end it all comes down to pilot skill and who has the E advantage if I catch a P47 below 10,000 ft I usually count on a 100 pts being added to my score as well.
The FW has a better instantaneous control response at low/medium alt at cruise/combat speed. I breath a sigh of relief if caught low and slow in an FW anton if I ID the guy shooting
at me to be in a P47. P47 is a great plane but is outclassed as a low/med alt air superiority platform by tyhe FW's (in my humble opinion and experience online in IL2)

TinyTim
06-01-2009, 06:23 PM
Well guys, JtD is describing situation when P-47D_<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Late</span> (not any other version of the Jug) is having an <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">E advantage</span> (not any other situation) over a Fw-190A.

In this very case I'd agree with him completely.

BillSwagger
06-01-2009, 08:54 PM
The guns seem a little weak to me, but other than that, the P-47 late is a great plane, and from experience online, it usually takes 2 or 3 opponents to corral me into a position where i'm shot down.

On the rare occasion i have a wing man, two p-47 lates can shut down a section of the map and have an easy time trading off on their attack dives, with several opponents trying to compete.


In 1 v 1, i find it easy to dominate most aircraft, including the Dora model FW, IF i'm disciplined enough to stay above 2000M. 90 percent of my kills are from above 2000m, where 90% of my losses are below 2000m. Truth be told, its actually tougher to get a kill in the P-47.
What i find happening a lot, is i get on the guys six and dust him a few times with the 50s, but the attack ends and I either must follow him to the deck to get a kill, or abort so I don't lose my energy and leave myself easy pickins for another plane.
You'll always hear me cry about the guns. I get in a P-40 and planes literally explode with the same amount of time site is on target.

you mentioned modding, id start with the guns.

Buzzsaw-
06-01-2009, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
you mentioned modding, id start with the guns.

AAA does not accept modifications on existing Aircraft guns/FM/DM.

That would open up a whole can of worms, with deathrays and invulnerability mods not far behind.

They will accept newly created aircraft, with different FM's, based on accurate data and armed with gun values taken from the existing aircraft. (although there have been disputes re. how this modelling has finalized in the case of aircraft such as the 190A3, Tempest +11/+13 and Me-410)

TS_Sancho
06-01-2009, 09:27 PM
you mentioned modding, id start with the guns.

If your having problems getting killshots in the P47 its the gunnery and not the guns that is at fault.

BillSwagger
06-01-2009, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you mentioned modding, id start with the guns.

If your having problems getting killshots in the P47 its the gunnery and not the guns that is at fault. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me clarify, as firing into a target, and actually hitting the plane gets more immediate results in a p-40 vs a p-47.
ie, wing comes off, engine fires, or explosion,...where the 8 .50s might puncture a tank or make the engine smoke, the enemy is stable able to fly and maintain reasonable combat capability, with the same amount of target time.

Am i more accurate in a P-40??...possibly.
but the fact that 8 .50s is putting out over double the ammo load i find that a little mystifying and especially when shots are connecting well in both aircraft at the same convergence.

Id Frap it and post it, but you can give it a try and share your experience.

I agree, that gun mods would screw up the game, but this issue with the 8 .50s seems to be a recurring issue with many players.

I'm told : its not the plane, its the pilot.
So i say: okay, hop out of that FW and fly a P-51....

response: lol....



thanks for the replies.

Buzzsaw-
06-01-2009, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you mentioned modding, id start with the guns.

If your having problems getting killshots in the P47 its the gunnery and not the guns that is at fault. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly. The .50 cals are not modelled as being loaded with API rounds, which means they are far less effective at setting fires etc.

Do a search on this forum and you will find a long thread dealing with the issue.

Bremspropeller
06-02-2009, 02:43 AM
(although there have been disputes re. how this modelling has finalized in the case of aircraft such as the 190A3, Tempest +11/+13 and Me-410)


This week's "usual BS" from you, or is there more in the pipe up to come?

robtek1957
06-02-2009, 08:49 AM
Afaik the p-40 is a more stable gun-platform than the p-47 -> tighter hit-zone, less scattering -> more effect.

blairgowrie
06-02-2009, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(although there have been disputes re. how this modelling has finalized in the case of aircraft such as the 190A3, Tempest +11/+13 and Me-410)


This week's "usual BS" from you, or is there more in the pipe up to come? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy does it Brems.

JtD
06-02-2009, 11:07 AM
I've had some of my quickest and most devastating kills scored with the P-47, record would be killing a 109 with 16 rounds spend. 2 per gun. Tipped the trigger and it was gone.

Only time when I get annoyed with the hitting power is when I forget to shoot all 8 of them. The P-40 btw. has 6 guns, so it's just a 33% increase in firepoower not 100%.

BillSwagger
06-02-2009, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I've had some of my quickest and most devastating kills scored with the P-47, record would be killing a 109 with 16 rounds spend. 2 per gun. Tipped the trigger and it was gone.

Only time when I get annoyed with the hitting power is when I forget to shoot all 8 of them. The P-40 btw. has 6 guns, so it's just a 33% increase in firepoower not 100%.


Depends on the p-40, but i think the E and M models only have 4 guns (not even sure of the caliber) which were the ones i was using online. The 6 gun variant of the P-40 (tomahawk) is the preferred P-40 if available.

I do have my moments in the P-47 as well, where i hit a guy and he comes apart pretty easy. Thats what should happen most of the time, but it doesn't. I'm not talking about grazing a guy or only scoring a glancing blow. These are square shots right where they should be.
I've also exploded the wing of a B-29 in a P-47 online, by hitting an engine at convergence, i think. Its only happened once, so i haven't been able to figure out how i did it, but "awesome" came to mind.

More often than not, i'm lead on a chase after hitting him repeatedly, that ends with me on deck, which is a vulnerable place to be in a P-47. I try to avoid those traps even if it means not getting the kill.

I've seen the other threads that mention the use of API rounds, so its not a secret that something is backwards here.

All due respect to the great opponents in this game, i still think its tougher to score a kill in a P-47, than probably should be.

Doesn't keep me from dominating the sky...lol...I just dont always get the credit for it.

na85
06-02-2009, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

....

I do have my moments in the P-47 as well, where i hit a guy and he comes apart pretty easy. Thats what should happen most of the time, but it doesn't. I'm not talking about grazing a guy or only scoring a glancing blow. These are square shots right where they should be.

....

All due respect to the great opponents in this game, i still think its tougher to score a kill in a P-47, than probably should be.

So....

You CAN score good kills where the enemy comes apart but can't do it all or most of the time, which tells you that the problem is not your gunnery, but the damage modelling on the .50's?

K_Freddie
06-02-2009, 03:06 PM
A question about the 50s not having APs - does Oleg admit to this ?
Maybe you mean 'Incendaries', with regard to making fires

I find it strange as I've sawn off a FWs wing with little effort, while in a P51, even when it was well within my convergence.

I think the real problem comes down to the expectation that the '50' won the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, when quiet obviously.. it didn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ..and the fact that you're just not hitting the 'damage boxes' assigned to each a/c.
Oleg mentioned these boxes yearzzzzzz ago.

The 20mm is also not immune to these boxes, as I've also riddled an a/c with a FW, only to see it still 'flying'.. full of holes.

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

TinyTim
06-02-2009, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
I think the real problem comes down to the expectation that the '50' won the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, when quiet obviously.. it didn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ..and the fact that you're just not hitting the 'damage boxes' assigned to each a/c.
Oleg mentioned these boxes yearzzzzzz ago.


Freddie, please take a look at these two. Hitting only damage boxes, fuel tanks specifically.

Setting fuel tanks on fire with MG-17 light MG. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ikqYKsJNs)

Setting fuel tanks on fire with M2 .50cal heavy MG. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIeBZpXXI2A)

BillSwagger
06-02-2009, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

....

I do have my moments in the P-47 as well, where i hit a guy and he comes apart pretty easy. Thats what should happen most of the time, but it doesn't. I'm not talking about grazing a guy or only scoring a glancing blow. These are square shots right where they should be.

....

All due respect to the great opponents in this game, i still think its tougher to score a kill in a P-47, than probably should be.

So....

You CAN score good kills where the enemy comes apart but can't do it all or most of the time, which tells you that the problem is not your gunnery, but the damage modelling on the .50's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If im a crappy shot, then i will be a crappy shot in ever plane i fly.
Maybe my expectations of the .50 cal are too high, but i find it frusterating when two .50 cal guns require less or equal time with target in site as 8 .50s. It is a noticeable fact, but its easier to attack the individual user than a portion of the gaming platform.

Something tells me we can all go around and around with this, but its not likely to change, so we should save are kilobytes for something else.

Aside from the obvious ammo load and caliber differences, the 190D and P-47 are evenly matched and i respect both planes if i'm flying against them.

na85
06-02-2009, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

If im a crappy shot, then i will be a crappy shot in ever plane i fly.

Not so. I'm a fair shot with the MG151/20 but my shooting with the ShVAK leaves much to be desired. I'm a crappy shot with the russian weapons but I shoot well with the german cannons.


Maybe my expectations of the .50 cal are too high, but i find it frusterating when two .50 cal guns require less or equal time with target in site as 8 .50s. It is a noticeable fact, but its easier to attack the individual user then the entire gaming platform.

Could you provide an example? Are the 2x .50's nose mounted?

BillSwagger
06-02-2009, 03:52 PM
i was using the P-40.

It has 2 nose mounted 50 cals and 4 30 cals in the wings.

I'm also referring to shots at convergence, not grazes or glancing blows, although i understand that it is easier to be more accurate with nose mounted guns, but this is not the issue of my argument. The 8 50s simply wound a bird, but the kill takes a bit more effort.



I just saw tiny tims post, and i really dont think there's a need to carry on. Video says more than i could ever try to explain.

ElAurens
06-02-2009, 05:11 PM
Those who have looked at the ammo belting of the .50s in the game know that it is not what USAAF aircraft used. It is the belting used in the nose of P39s flown by the VVS.

When the proper ammo belting arrives, and they are on the way, the .50 Browning will behave in a more historical manner.

The early model P40s in game, P40B and C and Tomahawks and the Hawk 81 A2, actually have .303 British weapons in the wings, the same guns in the Hurricans in game, These are belted with API ammo and are far more effective than the .50BMG on Japanses aircraft as they actually well set them on fire.

Wait for new slot aircraft if you want real .50 performance.

danjama
06-02-2009, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Wait for new slot aircraft if you want real .50 performance.

Translation:

Wait for new slot planes if you want 50's that act how we always wanted them to and kill tigers and rip off Run90 wings....

ElAurens
06-02-2009, 07:20 PM
NO sir.

They just have the correct ammo belting, that's all.

No change in weapons power, accuracy, rate of fire, dispersion, etc...

Of course if you think the current belting is historically accurate you are welcome to disagree, but "you is wrong, be sure".

The .50 Browining weapon itself is just fine.

You still have to hit what you are aiming at.

I assure you Danjama, that if the Spitfire's 20mm, and .303 ammo belting was as incorrect as the USAAF .50 Browning, you would be as angry as most of us Yanks are.

danjama
06-02-2009, 08:12 PM
Well i'll try it out for sure, but i just think we should all be used to it by now....

jamesblonde1979
06-03-2009, 05:59 AM
Absolutely no trouble de-winging enemy aircraft here, keep the pipper on the target for a full second near convergence range and those fifties do the job quite nicely.

BillSwagger
06-03-2009, 06:00 AM
can you explain what you mean by the belting??
and how that would improve or change the performance of the wing mounted 50s??
Specifically the 6 and 8 gun platforms.

DKoor
06-03-2009, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I'm told : its not the plane, its the pilot.
So i say: okay, hop out of that FW and fly a P-51....

response: lol....



thanks for the replies.
You can continue with your tune but everyone that played this game for prolonged time knows that .50cal killing power is just fine.

For instance, I massacred four low flying FW-190A JABOS (FW-190A8's loaded with bombs) in this track, every pass one FW is on fire;
http://www.esnips.com/doc/0de7...48839/Power-of-50cal (http://www.esnips.com/doc/0de7e3f5-b790-44ad-bb5a-e9b6dc648839/Power-of-50cal)

Another track of P-51D dealing with four Ai controlled FW-190's on ACE settings;
http://www.esnips.com/doc/3e9e.../DKoor51D-4x190A-408 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/3e9e1ca5-28cc-45ea-8384-64415e3a7ace/DKoor51D-4x190A-408)

Brain32 in action, flying a P-51D and shooting down two FW-190's in process;
http://www.esnips.com/doc/3da0...in32P51D-2xEA-WC-402 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/3da0781e-4835-44fd-9183-094bd0ec9f9c/Brain32P51D-2xEA-WC-402)

So in the end your only problem is that you are lazy to learn to shoot and explore the issue further but not lazy enough to come to IL-2 GD to whine about it.

DKoor
06-03-2009, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by na85:
Not so. I'm a fair shot with the MG151/20 but my shooting with the ShVAK leaves much to be desired. I'm a crappy shot with the russian weapons but I shoot well with the german cannons.
Yes, it is in fact true that if you fly some planes more than other you become better in aerial gunnery with them, solely because you know how to use them properly (and their weapons).
For instance I couldn't really hit with ShVAK until I spent some time flying Yaks and Lavochkins.

Of course regardless of the time you fly some airplanes, some weapons will always be more suited for some tasks than another...

Good example being sniping with nose mounted VyA-23; you can hit and kill target 600m away quite often (relatively speaking, considering the distance) while it's a mission impossible for HMG/LMG, if not for hitting power than for convergence settings.

BillSwagger
06-03-2009, 10:33 AM
lol...Not to be a jerk, but i'm not downloading these and watching them.

The 8 .50s appear, to me, to be hindered. You are welcomed to disagree, but attacking my skill or knowledge of the game isn't going to change my opinion. My observations are based on my experience with the game both flying offline and online missions. This isn't to say they are never effective, but much of the time the kill requires several more passes and goes beyond what i think is historically accurate.

I enjoy the game and the community and i fly a variety of aircraft and would be happy to chat it up over another airplane, but i think this 50 cal thing is a dead issue. see tiny tims post.

I would like to know how the belting would change the performance of the guns, since they wouldn't hit harder.

ElAurens
06-03-2009, 10:43 AM
Billswager, the "belting" is the ammo load out of the aircraft. The .50 is a belt fed weapon.

The current load out contains no Armor Piercing Incendiary rounds, or in some cases only one out of 5 rounds.

A much more common loading would have been 4 API followd by a APIT (tracer). Especially later in the war and in the Pacific in partiular.

With no other changes other than the type of ammo used in the game the .50 Browining is a transformed weapon.

You still have to hit your target.

It's not a Golden BB one shot killer.

It just brings the .50 up to historical levels of terminal performance.

DKoor
06-03-2009, 12:04 PM
I agree with ElAurens completely there because long time ago I realized the difference between .303cal and .50cal regarding settings targets on fire... .50cal is noticeably less capable to do so, which I sincerely doubt was the case IRL.
Tigertalon made several excellent examples (videos) just how it is easy to set things on fire with .303cal (7,62mm) vs .50cal.
Different (read: correct) ammo belt is probably the answer.

Many other aircraft had the problems with this issue, to name a few, nose mounted MG151/20, T9 (37mm, mounted in P-39, now spoerts HE rounds, while previously it had AP rounds good for ground attack but bad for A2A combat) etc.

DKoor
06-03-2009, 12:19 PM
Don't know if anyone mentioned it, BTW but P-47's in the game have 26min of methanol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

TS_Sancho
06-03-2009, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
lol...Not to be a jerk, but i'm not downloading these and watching them.

The 8 .50s appear, to me, to be hindered. You are welcomed to disagree, but attacking my skill or knowledge of the game isn't going to change my opinion. My observations are based on my experience with the game both flying offline and online missions. This isn't to say they are never effective, but much of the time the kill requires several more passes and goes beyond what i think is historically accurate.

I enjoy the game and the community and i fly a variety of aircraft and would be happy to chat it up over another airplane, but i think this 50 cal thing is a dead issue. see tiny tims post.

I would like to know how the belting would change the performance of the guns, since they wouldn't hit harder.

This has been a huge debate for some time. Do a forum search on 50 cal. and you'll get hundreds of pages from over the years. I think the final consensus is that there is an armor piercing incindiary round missing from the U.S. 50 cal belting but their is a explosive value given to one of the rounds in the belting sequence that shouldnt exist.

I've played most of the world war two flight sims and all the forums are full of complaints that the 50 cals are porked which leads me to believe that barring a global game programing conspiracy to purposely gimp the U.S. 50 cal peoples expectations are that they should hit like the german mg/151 20 mm's which is simply not the case.

Its all about weight of fire on target and hitting in the convergence box which is critical to the effectiveness of machine guns and is very difficult for most pilots to achieve consistently.

There was a post recently suggesting setting the convergence on the P47 to 273 meters (which is the historical factory setting and where the fixed sight is tuned) and that you need 1.6 seconds of accurate fire on target on average to get a guaranteed kill.

Pretty please lets not start messing with the weaponry. What we have right or wrong is at least universal( I believe the belting issue has been proven to be incorrect).The current general mod policy on weapons/damage/flight being untouchable has surprisigly kept IL2 from going the way of CFS. We've still got another year to wait for SOW and it would be a shame to ruin the online equal play in IL2 by starting down that path. First the belting change to "historical" values next the velocity of the german machine gun rounds are increased to "historical" values and it goes down hill from there.

Back on topic....P47 8 50's are very effective, even if they dont start fires as well as they should. If your having trouble with stability remember the razorbacks are more stable in the yaw axis than the bubbletops (although the bubbletops trim well, you just have to stay on top of them) and there is no substitute for airtime under your behind so practice makes perfect.

Xiolablu3
06-03-2009, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
I think the real problem comes down to the expectation that the '50' won the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, when quiet obviously.. it didn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ..and the fact that you're just not hitting the 'damage boxes' assigned to each a/c.
Oleg mentioned these boxes yearzzzzzz ago.


Freddie, please take a look at these two. Hitting only damage boxes, fuel tanks specifically.

Setting fuel tanks on fire with MG-17 light MG. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ikqYKsJNs)

Setting fuel tanks on fire with M2 .50cal heavy MG. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIeBZpXXI2A) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That says it ALL in my opinion. Excellent test TT.

Noone can watch that test and say that something isnt a bit wrong with the .50's. I KNOW that they are OK weapons, and I can kill fine with them, but when the Mg17's are more deadly than the 50 cals there is something wrong.

By the way TigerTalon, what is your PC specs? It looks like its low in spec, very hard to aim with a framerate that low...

I may have some old kit here that you can have which would boost your framerate...contact me

Buzzsaw-
06-03-2009, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Don't know if anyone mentioned it, BTW but P-47's in the game have 26min of methanol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Not methanol, just water.

Water in fact provides plenty of benefit when injected by itself. The methanol is an anti-detonation agent, since it only combusts at very high temperatures.

MW-50 was a mix of 49.5% water, 50% Methanol, and .5% anti corrosion agent.

Water does two things:

1) When it enters the combustion chamber, it is instantly evaporated which reduces the heat in the chamber, thus reducing the chance of detonation.

The H20 breaks down, releasing the oxygen molecules which are then able to be used in the combustion process. There is an inherent problem at very high engine speeds, of not enough oxygen entering the chamber to provide that required for efficient combustion. The mixture of fuel and air is usually too rich.

The extra oxygen added from the water breakdown improves combustion.

The Hydrogen is simply consumed in the combustion and may in fact add a little energy to the equation.

R_Target
06-03-2009, 05:35 PM
Pratt & Whitney authorized the following mixtures for ADI on the R-2800:

a) methyl alcohol 50% water 50%

b) methyl 60% water 40%

c) methyl 25%, ethyl 25%, water 50%

d) methyl 60 parts, water 40 parts, oil one part

TinyTim
06-03-2009, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
By the way TigerTalon, what is your PC specs? It looks like its low in spec, very hard to aim with a framerate that low...

I may have some old kit here that you can have which would boost your framerate...contact me

Hey mate, thanks for the kind offer, very nice of you. Thing is, I only got such low fps when recording a clip, game alone runs (relatively) fine (on an average, 3 or so years old machine). I'm a complete newb when it comes to video capturing, converting, codecs etc., so I'm pretty proud of the result. First clips I tried to capture were even lower fps, and literally giga-ntic in size, so I guess video capturing is a very CPU hungry process and my illiteracy on the subject prevented me from finding the bottleneck effectively.

Anyway, on .50cal topic there seem to be two camps, not fully understanding eachother. First camp is stating that .50cal ammobelting in IL2 is wrong (compared to RL), with second camp blindly repeating:"Learn to shoot" for I don't dare to remember how many years now. It's like if Oleg accidentally switched the flight models of a Gladiator and a Mustang, you'd surely get a "Stop whining an learn to fly!" response from someone for pointing the error out.

One team speaks about historical accuracy, the other about how to use the weapon in game - two nearly completely unrelated topics.

M_Gunz
06-03-2009, 09:43 PM
Hey Tim, try making video during track playback.

Buzzsaw-
06-04-2009, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Pratt & Whitney authorized the following mixtures for ADI on the R-2800:

a) methyl alcohol 50% water 50%

b) methyl 60% water 40%

c) methyl 25%, ethyl 25%, water 50%

d) methyl 60 parts, water 40 parts, oil one part

Salute

Well, you learn something new every day.

Thanks for that information. I had always read that the contents of the tank was exclusively water.

Buzzsaw-
06-04-2009, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
I think the real problem comes down to the expectation that the '50' won the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, when quiet obviously.. it didn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ..and the fact that you're just not hitting the 'damage boxes' assigned to each a/c.
Oleg mentioned these boxes yearzzzzzz ago.


Freddie, please take a look at these two. Hitting only damage boxes, fuel tanks specifically.

Setting fuel tanks on fire with MG-17 light MG. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ikqYKsJNs)

Setting fuel tanks on fire with M2 .50cal heavy MG. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIeBZpXXI2A) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That says it ALL in my opinion. Excellent test TT.

Noone can watch that test and say that something isnt a bit wrong with the .50's. I KNOW that they are OK weapons, and I can kill fine with them, but when the Mg17's are more deadly than the 50 cals there is something wrong.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you can do the same thing with the British .303's.

Way back when Oleg was still interested in the game, he made the changes to the MG151/20 belting, on the basis of evidence provided by the blue side partisans.

Its time that Blue got onside and accepted there are issues with the .50 cals which also need to be addressed.

BillSwagger
06-04-2009, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


The H20 breaks down, releasing the oxygen molecules which are then able to be used in the combustion process. There is an inherent problem at very high engine speeds, of not enough oxygen entering the chamber to provide that required for efficient combustion. The mixture of fuel and air is usually too rich.

The extra oxygen added from the water breakdown improves combustion.

The Hydrogen is simply consumed in the combustion and may in fact add a little energy to the equation.


I could be wrong about the oxygen, but from what i know about h2o, don't you need another catalyst or chemical other than just heat/compression to separate water molecules. The way they get hydrogen fuel involves a similar process with buffer agents and electrical currents.

The water vapor does add density to the mixture, which further increases the compression ratios. More compression means more heat, and fuels will ignite before the proper stroke/timing of the engine has passed which can cause a lot of problems.

From what i've read on WEP, it seems to simply prepare and allow the fuel to be burned at higher RPM and compression ratios with out damaging or overheating the engine.

na85
06-04-2009, 01:44 AM
Any chemical compound will break down if you add enough energy to it.

Heat is just thermal energy, and it excites the water molecules, apparently in this case until they break apart. In so doing, they absorb a tremendous amount of heat energy which has an overall cooling effect on the combustion chamber.

BillSwagger
06-04-2009, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by na85:
Any chemical compound will break down if you add enough energy to it.

Heat is just thermal energy, and it excites the water molecules, apparently in this case until they break apart. In so doing, they absorb a tremendous amount of heat energy which has an overall cooling effect on the combustion chamber.

So in essence, the water burns in the engine.

I wonder how much energy it takes to do that.

thats actually pretty amazing when you think about it.

P51er
06-04-2009, 03:47 AM
Well here's the problem, you lost energy and you're now committed to dogfighting on the deck. That was a mistake and if you get shot down, you deserve it.

What tips do I have on fighting these planes under 10000 feet with a late model P47? Don't do it in the first place. ESPECIALLY not vs. the Dora. You need to get better judging your relative energy states so that you can maintain your advantage in the Jug. You have to recognize that most evasive maneuvers involve bleeding off quite a bit of E, so there's no reason that your slashing attacks should have put you in a position that you're now committed to the fight. Also realize that the closer you get to the deck the worse your plane performs. A good FW pilot is going to sucker you down to the deck, try to get you to bleed a little E, and get you into a rolling maneuver where your 47 will almost-but-not-quite get a firing solution. So then what? You dirty it up in an effort to prevent the overshoot blowing any advantage you might have left? You follow through and hope that the FW doesn't do what FWs do and hang up behind you blasting with 20mms? This is not a great situation for you unless you're a much better pilot than the guy you're fighting, and if you always are you wouldn't be asking this question.

That out of the way, if you absolutely must fight late model FWs on the deck in your P47, your only real advantage is your sustained climb rate, so make your pass, climb for a while, make your pass, climb for a while. Eventually you're bound to hit something important. That is if you're not really committed to the dogfight. If you are, you're going to have to out-pilot the other guy, because there's no maneuver I can point out to you that the 47 can perform but the FW can't match down here.

TinyTim
06-04-2009, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Way back when Oleg was still interested in the game, he made the changes to the MG151/20 belting, on the basis of evidence provided by the blue side partisans.

Problem with Mg151/20 was that there were (and probably still are) actually two different ammobeltings for Mg-151/20 in the sim. Oleg wasn't ignoring the complaints, he was indeed constantly increasing the power of the MinenGeschoss round till it reached absurd levels (comparable to power of the Mk108 round), but he mistakenly did so only in one belting, the one used only in the utter minority of the planes (He-162 and some others), while cannons in 190 and 109 stayed pretty anemic with no MG shells whatsoever. Problem was solved only when the community found out there are actually two beltings for the Mg151/20 in the sim which both need to be adressed. Anyway, I don't consider myself a blue partisan, now advocating correcting of .50cal belting... I do so with .50cals and I did so with MG-151/20 because it's not a question of colour, it's a question of right and wrong (from historical perspective). Not everyone is a part of color-camps.

Back on topic - I don't believe the destructive power of .50cals would change much in the western front with correct ammobelt for .50cals. Maybe only some Heinkels would catch fire rather easily than they do now (very rarely). However, it would play a major difference in the (early) Pacific theatre, where unsealed fuel tanks were a big problem for the Japanese planes, which tended to burn when hit. Look at an Betty or Kate for example, with having an unprotected fuel tank in a large part of wing. Now you have to pump them until some other fatal failure (controls, pilot, engine, structural disintegration,...) in most of the cases.

P51er
06-04-2009, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Way back when Oleg was still interested in the game, he made the changes to the MG151/20 belting, on the basis of evidence provided by the blue side partisans.
Back on topic - I don't believe the destructive power of .50cals would change much in the western front with correct ammobelt for .50cals. Maybe only some Heinkels would catch fire rather easily than they do now (very rarely). However, it would play a major difference in the (early) Pacific theatre, where unsealed fuel tanks were a big problem for the Japanese planes, which tended to burn when hit. Look at an Betty or Kate for example, with having an unprotected fuel tank in a large part of wing. Now you have to pump them until some other fatal failure (controls, pilot, engine, structural disintegration,...) in most of the cases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think that's back on topic, might I suggest re-reading the topic?

TinyTim
06-04-2009, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by P51er:
If you think that's back on topic, might I suggest re-reading the topic?

Touche!

Xiolablu3
06-04-2009, 06:32 AM
Still interesting regardless..

DKoor
06-04-2009, 06:50 AM
In case of attacking a G4M with earlier U.S. planes I still recommend hitting wing with few rounds enough to start a fuel leak, G4M will go down by itself.
Danger of further attacks is high, and if you are away from bases chances are that G4M will never make it.

At least that used to work.

Gadje
06-04-2009, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by P51er:
Well here's the problem, you lost energy and you're now committed to dogfighting on the deck. That was a mistake and if you get shot down, you deserve it.

.. there's no maneuver I can point out to you that the 47 can perform but the FW can't match down here.

Much of what you say is true but no matter how careful you are these things happen. You can choose to dive/run and that may be your best option but engaging is an option too. And for two main reasons.
As you say the 47 has no obvious aircraft advantages low but IMO the 190 doesn't hold much either so it will still be a close fight if pilot skill is even.
Secondly its a common mistake in my experience for energy fighter pilots to attempt to extend where its simply too dangerous because of the point above. If you go for angles and they attempt a climbing extend they will be in trouble unless they have a good E advantage to begin with.
Thats why IMO learning to angle fight in all these energy fighters although not a tactic that's ideal it is worth learning.

JtD
06-04-2009, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Only time when I get annoyed with the hitting power is when I forget to shoot all 8 of them. The P-40 btw. has 6 guns, so it's just a 33% increase in firepoower not 100%.


Depends on the p-40, but i think the E and M models only have 4 guns (not even sure of the caliber) which were the ones i was using online. The 6 gun variant of the P-40 (tomahawk) is the preferred P-40 if available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You think wrong, all P-40 in game have 6 guns, the E and M model have 6x.50 while the others have 2.50 and 4x.30(3).

WRT to .50 power, check this (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/eighthits.ntrk).

No, they are no MK108, but they work fine.

The P-47D_late can outclimb any Fw-190A at any altitude provided they carry an amount of fuel that allows for similar endurance. That's something the Fw can't match. This is also why you don't have to follow the Fw through every single move it makes, if you get too close you just pull up and secure a superior position to come back down on him when it suits you best. Pulling up from a reasonable distance alos means you won't overshoot and end up in front of him.

DKoor
06-04-2009, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Gadje:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P51er:
Well here's the problem, you lost energy and you're now committed to dogfighting on the deck. That was a mistake and if you get shot down, you deserve it.

.. there's no maneuver I can point out to you that the 47 can perform but the FW can't match down here.

Much of what you say is true but no matter how careful you are these things happen. You can choose to dive/run and that may be your best option but engaging is an option too. And for two main reasons.
As you say the 47 has no obvious aircraft advantages low but IMO the 190 doesn't hold much either so it will still be a close fight if pilot skill is even.
Secondly its a common mistake in my experience for energy fighter pilots to attempt to extend where its simply too dangerous because of the point above. If you go for angles and they attempt a climbing extend they will be in trouble unless they have a good E advantage to begin with.
Thats why IMO learning to angle fight in all these energy fighters although not a tactic that's ideal it is worth learning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

P-47D_LATE certainly isn't a fighter that represents a cannon fodder to any kind of FW variant. No matter the alt.

If you look at it the opposite way, I doubt that any FW veteran will say that it is recommended that the P-47 is engaged down low at equal terms.
Bf-109 is whole another deal tho... on equal terms on deck 109 holds all important cards IMHO.

It always boils down to one simple thing, in the moment when fight starts all it matters is who is faster and higher. Usually decides battles too if they are fought till the demise of one or another plane.

ElAurens
06-04-2009, 10:44 AM
When I was discussing "low" alt fights with D9s, I meant down in the "Oleg trees", leaving rooster tails on the rivers we crossed, dodging the odd farm house kind of low. I was ground pounding and got caught by a 190D9 below 1000 ft. It was on the Slovakia map. He ended up a smoking hole, and I flew home.

I've bagged 109K4s in the same circumstance with the P47 Late and the P40M.

There are a lot of guys out there who firmly believe that the simple act of strapping on a German aircraft makes them a God.

This is patently untrue.

DKoor
06-04-2009, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
There are a lot of guys out there who firmly believe that the simple act of strapping on a German aircraft makes them a God.

This is patently untrue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TS_Sancho
06-04-2009, 11:22 AM
So in essence, the water burns in the engine.

I wonder how much energy it takes to do that.

thats actually pretty amazing when you think about it.

This is the reason that old leaky steam boilers are so dangerous. The atomised steam comes into contact with an ignition source and....boom!

TS_Sancho
06-04-2009, 11:30 AM
Truly golden wisdom...


It always boils down to one simple thing, in the moment when fight starts all it matters is who is faster and higher.

R_Target
06-04-2009, 12:36 PM
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 ElAurens:
There are a lot of guys out there who firmly believe that the simple act of strapping on a German aircraft makes them a God.

This is patently untrue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roflcopter.

Gadje
06-04-2009, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Truly golden wisdom...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It always boils down to one simple thing, in the moment when fight starts all it matters is who is faster and higher. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being higher and faster is a lot easier route to success than learning how to overturn an energy advantage, thats for sure!. But to say 'all it matters' that is untrue.
I've seen plenty people higher than me make mistakes and lose energy and their virtual life or less arrogantly I've been above people who were a total nightmare to make that advantage tell. Some of whom beat me E advantage or not.

Height/energy is life but that doesn't mean that learning how to deal with a disadvantage isn't worthwhile or the fight is already decided. It's not.

M_Gunz
06-04-2009, 01:25 PM
It's amazing that the US Navy can run live steam way past any temperature seen in any combustion engine without
the water breaking down at all and yet people believe that it does so in a car engine.

There is a lot of disinformation flying around that scam artists use to take advantage of people. You can buy
books, plans and directions to what amounts to perpetual motion machines based on those and people desperate to
find some way out of the energy crisis will buy, try, and some even swear to getting results from them out of
stubborn denial or just the scheme paying back for every other sucker they get to buy into the con.

A little reality and then a closer look. BTW, it takes more energy to break water apart then you ever get back IRL.
You might think that you can beat entropy but good luck proving it!

A site where they state the temperature required to disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen in plain terms (http://www.underwater.com/archives/arch/036.01.shtml)


The temperature required to disassociate hydrogen molecules from water is only about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

That is at underwater pressures, at standard pressure the temperature required is about 2,800 degrees F, but SOME
molecules will disassociate just due to not all molecules in a sample of a certain average temperature actually being
at the same energy. Some number in the fraction of a percent with a LOT of zeros before it will be at such high
energies as to break up. To give some idea of how many, there are just over 6 x 10^23 water molecules in 18 grams of
water and it's some very minute fraction of that. Yup, could be a billion at once but figure out what volume of
water a billion (10^9) molecules is, there are over 10 million-million-billion water molecules in 1cc of water.

Another site that takes deeper understanding of chemistry and physics to understand (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-03/1048779104.Ph.r.html)


In other words, the breaking up of water into its constituent atoms is a
two step process. The first step involves pulling off the first proton to
leave a "hydroxyl radical" (represented as OH). This requires a
wavelength of 243 nm. Translating that into temperature is a little
harder as it requires that we define temperature and that means that we
need to consider the vibrational modes of the molecule. That is more
difficult than space would allow, so simply put, it is 243 nm or 117.59
kcal/mol.

The second stage of turning H2O into 2H + O is the breaking up of the
hydroxyl radical which occurs at a slightly different energy and
wavelength (281 nm; 101.76 kcal/mol).


If you understand that many kilocalories per mole as a heck of a lot of energy
to turn a small mass of water into hydrogen and oxygen then you can follow
that yes a very small amount may disassociate in the engine, less than a drop
per gallon at temperatures you would find in a supercharger and engine system
but OMG nothing to speak of as making a difference you can measure.

BillSwagger
06-04-2009, 01:34 PM
Higher and faster beats low and slow any day.

I can be lower and maybe even slower than my opponent depending on the aircraft. there are several ways to dodge an aircraft bearing down on you. It can even set up a reversal that most people still fall into including myself because faster planes often over shoot and are harder to turn tightly with out blacking out. If you are low on speed, you are a duck at any height.

It really does come down to pilot skill, as there are several other planes that i've met at medium to low altitude in a p-47 and the encounter always depends on the versatility of the pilot. Most of you roll left, some always pull up, and a lot of FWs do a half roll into a negative G turn and then cut back into a steeper high G turn. 109s generally dive, but sometimes they go up first then jerk downward, which throws off my initial shot.

There was one pilot i dont recall by name, who was in an FW190 and me in a D-22 variant. He had a lot of energy but we were at the same height. He was not a rookie, as he didn't attempt to go head on with me, as a lot of newer pilots tend to do. Thats also another way of assessing the skill of the pilot when you first encounter them.

BillSwagger
06-04-2009, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
.... less than a drop
per gallon at temperatures you would find in a supercharger and engine system
but OMG nothing to speak of as making a difference you can measure.


So higher compression and heat wouldnt cause water to burn in a P-47 engine with WEP on??



You say breakdown, but it is in fact burning right?? or is that a wives tail?

It seems probable considering the mixture of alcohol and the oil additives, but it is water...so it wouldnt surprise me if left the engine as exhaust.

WTE_Galway
06-04-2009, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
.... less than a drop
per gallon at temperatures you would find in a supercharger and engine system
but OMG nothing to speak of as making a difference you can measure.


So higher compression and heat wouldnt cause water to burn in a P-47 engine with WEP on??



You say breakdown, but it is in fact burning right?? or is that a wives tail?

It seems probable considering the mixture of alcohol and the oil additives, but it is water...so it wouldnt surprise me if left the engine as exhaust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lets be logical about this .. if it did breakdown and "burn" what would all this wonderful extra oxygen likely combine with ? The very same free Hydrogen atom that was just created when it broke down. The net result being .. nothing changed.

Clearly popular pseudo science.

Viper2005_
06-04-2009, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Don't know if anyone mentioned it, BTW but P-47's in the game have 26min of methanol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Not methanol, just water.

Water in fact provides plenty of benefit when injected by itself. The methanol is an anti-detonation agent, since it only combusts at very high temperatures.

MW-50 was a mix of 49.5% water, 50% Methanol, and .5% anti corrosion agent.

Water does two things:

1) When it enters the combustion chamber, it is instantly evaporated which reduces the heat in the chamber, thus reducing the chance of detonation.

The H20 breaks down, releasing the oxygen molecules which are then able to be used in the combustion process. There is an inherent problem at very high engine speeds, of not enough oxygen entering the chamber to provide that required for efficient combustion. The mixture of fuel and air is usually too rich.

The extra oxygen added from the water breakdown improves combustion.

The Hydrogen is simply consumed in the combustion and may in fact add a little energy to the equation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but this is utter B/S.

The products of combustion of hydrocarbon fuels are Carbon Dioxide and Water.

Consider the enthalpy of formation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S..._change_of_formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_formation)

You will see that Water has an enthalpy of formation of -241.82 kJ/mol, which it achieves with a single Oxygen atom, whilst CO2 only manages -393.5 kJ/mol from a pair of Oxygen atoms.

Oxygen will therefore preferentially bond to Hydrogen rather than to Carbon.

The temperature of a hydrocarbon flame can therefore never exceed the maximum temperature at which gaseous Water is stable because above that temperature the chemical reaction releasing energy cannot proceed. It therefore follows that Water does not break down when it is injected into a piston engine (or a jet engine for that matter).

The purpose of water injection in piston engines is simply to reduce the temperature of the working fluid during the compression stroke to prevent pre-ignition or detonation.

In a jet engine, you do it either to reduce compressor work or to allow you to inject more fuel, which allows you to both increase the mass flow and the Cp of the gas going through the turbine, and thus to increase the work output.

The engineering purpose of the Methanol in ADI is to prevent the water from freezing at altitude. Methanol is used instead of Ethanol to prevent the ground crew from drinking it. The Methanol may burn, but the overall effect of ADI is to reduce temperature - indeed additional fuel is usually injected when ADI is used in order to take advantage of this.

Viper2005_
06-04-2009, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
There are a lot of guys out there who firmly believe that the simple act of strapping on a German aircraft makes them a God.

This is patently untrue.
But amusing for the spectators... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

TS_Sancho
06-04-2009, 10:59 PM
I stand corrected regarding the nature of a steam explosion, thank you all for the education.

JtD
06-05-2009, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
There are a lot of guys out there who firmly believe that the simple act of strapping on a German aircraft makes them a God.

There are a lot around who think this false claim to be true. It's usually the same guys who think they need to brag on how they were able to defeat a German plane in a US one.

Truth is, on a balanced server with one side being German, about half the players should fly German. No matter how good they think the aircraft are.

DKoor
06-05-2009, 06:04 AM
In the end aircraft are the ones that matters the least...
On such server settings (close to real thing as possible), it boils mostly to a players experience; i.e. how much capability does he posses to conduct all that airmen wisdom in his flying... always be above your enemy, never let your speed get below 250mph (PTO), check your six on regular basis, good SA, stick to the objectives, always fly in group (or at least with a wingie) etc. etc.
(Open servers, servers which allow non-historical planesets and easier diff settings are a whole another deal... plane performance is much more influential for the final combat outcome in such setups.)

For such reason I find people very funny when they vouch for one or another "color" against the other "color"... like that's something to be proud off.

Some guys must be aware of the fact; you are either interested in flying a decent sim or you aren't, meaning that if you find yourself interested for one side whining mostly or God forbid - only for one side, while neglecting the other side or even trying to mock their valid arguments, then you are as blind as you can be and should be taken as such http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Pun intended to any who recognize themselves in the paragraph above. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
06-05-2009, 06:50 AM
You are right in that pilot quality is very important. But I think you're wrong to say that aircraft performance matters little. I tend to fly the fastest aircraft available and am thankful for every km/h they offer. A high cruise speed very considerably reduces the chances of getting bounced, and of course in co-alt situations speed very much determines the E-advantage. A high top speed and a high dive speed allow you for the most effective, safest and easiest escape maneuvre - a high speed run, be it in a dive or in level flight.

M_Gunz
06-05-2009, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
.... less than a drop
per gallon at temperatures you would find in a supercharger and engine system
but OMG nothing to speak of as making a difference you can measure.


So higher compression and heat wouldnt cause water to burn in a P-47 engine with WEP on??



You say breakdown, but it is in fact burning right?? or is that a wives tail?

It seems probable considering the mixture of alcohol and the oil additives, but it is water...so it wouldnt surprise me if left the engine as exhaust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There will be a certain number of water molecules breaking down if you want the -absolute- truth. Very few and the
atoms just recombining about immediately anyway in most all cases. The very numbers of molecules involved and the
bell-curve randomness of energy states guarantees that some few will but you'd never weigh how much on any balance.

Wives tale? I've seen such insignificant truths stretched by con artists to sell scams for money. Not cooked up by
wives but rather by either some who could look up and misinterpret passages in books or by some with actual education
and morals suited to lawyers, politicians, tobacco company researchers and the new field of denouncing global warming.
The "anything for a buck" type.

BillSwagger
06-05-2009, 09:39 AM
I originally thought WEP was for cooling the engine at higher output levels, but someone explained to me that water helps compress more air by cooling it first. I was puzzled but i was avoiding the argument.

Then i was told it added oxygen to mixture of the engine giving it more power and efficiency.

some people can be very convincing from their POVs.

TinyTim
06-05-2009, 10:02 AM
Some of you guys seem to have skipped chemistry in primary school. Water can't burn, it's a product of burning. If water would be used to supply more oxygen, it would be needed to undergo dissociation first, which is a very E costly process, and you'd only get a tiny fraction of this lost energy back with the additional oxygen you created with water dissociation. In short - you'd be in a great E minus (compared to an E you get if you only burn fuel). It's much easier and E cheaper to get additional oxygen from a bottle or from a compressor than from a water.

M_Gunz
06-05-2009, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I originally thought WEP was for cooling the engine at higher output levels, but someone explained to me that water helps compress more air by cooling it first. I was puzzled but i was avoiding the argument.

Then i was told it added oxygen to mixture of the engine giving it more power and efficiency.

That is all exactly true. The more oxygen comes from more air per volume going into the engine.
What is not is the idea of splitting the water itself (in any remotely measurable amount) to get more oxygen.

stalkervision
06-05-2009, 12:27 PM
water is directly injected into the air intake and used to cool down the pistons of racing engines quite often. It allows a higher compression to be run. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stalkervision
06-05-2009, 12:30 PM
this may be of some relevance to you all..

http://www.savagesquadron.com/...Thunderbolt_P47D.htm (http://www.savagesquadron.com/USpage/USFighters/Thunderbolt_P47D.htm)


Home page..

http://riceracing.com.au/water-injection.htm

M_Gunz
06-05-2009, 02:23 PM
I could see mixing alcohol with the water just to make sure it didn't freeze at high alt.

RegRag1977
06-06-2009, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
You are right in that pilot quality is very important. But I think you're wrong to say that aircraft performance matters little. I tend to fly the fastest aircraft available and am thankful for every km/h they offer. A high cruise speed very considerably reduces the chances of getting bounced, and of course in co-alt situations speed very much determines the E-advantage. A high top speed and a high dive speed allow you for the most effective, safest and easiest escape maneuvre - a high speed run, be it in a dive or in level flight.

This is absolutely true!

Plus "defending" with speed advantage makes team tactics very easy.
Faster speeds also allow you the most effective and easiest kills. Will ennemies try to follow yourhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif "escaping" wingman at high speeds?
Bad move: Quick separation, High Gs, and low stick force response make them totally predictable ( the only surprise is when they explode http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ) thus literally dead meat, you won't even have to concentrate too much on aiming.

Two good/average Mustang or P47 pilots at high altitude, or two good Anton pilots for instance at medium to low altitude can face very tough situations, they'll both make themselves a good comrade or even a friend, have fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif , experience immersion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif, win and go back home in formation.

Two disciplined average/good pilots in this situation make their section an elite section with 4 eyes, 2 brains, and two times more firepower, when even the best ace alone will fall against them, if he makes the stupid mistake to engage that said.

And this is really the best thing this game can offer IMHO