PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: p47 - power and acceleration



Recon_609IAP
06-18-2005, 08:22 AM
I have started flying the p47 d10 and d22.

I know it can't turn well, which is ok for me.

But, I had this idea that it was a more 'powerful' aircraft. I like to do passes then do gentle climbing turn - and it seems to just peeter out.

My primary opponent is the 190a5/a6 or 109g6.

Also - when I power up - I get the torque, but I don't get the sense at all of this aircraft picking up the burst of speed I would think.

Again- I view this aircraft as one with a powerful engine.

Am I wrong?

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-18-2005, 08:38 AM
I agree with you 100% on this matter. It seems to me that the patch has nerfed one of the P-47s biggest advantages, its E retention in a zoom. I flew the JUG daily since FB 1.0 and I dont think it has ever been this bad in the catagories mentioned above. Still dives like a champ but German planes catch it.

Joilet_Xray
06-18-2005, 08:49 AM
~S!

Recon I enjoyed flying with you and Rel and Bogun last night.

I wondered what happened to the '47, couldn't out dive nor out zoom the A6 anymore. In 3.04 I'd regularly out dive all messrs and Fws if I had enough vertical space..... and out zoom with right timing.....

It maybe headed for the hanger.

BPO5_Jinx
http://www.soaridaho.com/schreder/rs-15/n50gl.html

Recon_609IAP
06-18-2005, 09:03 AM
thanks Jinx, it's always good to see you in the skies with us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

few more observations - the p47 d27 seems to have the power I thought the d22 might have - but obviously it wouldn't be a good setup with '44 d27 vs 109lateG6 or 190A5/6 - but it certainly seems that the p47 is always weaker against it's appropriate year adversary.

So, either p47 was inferior to it's equivalent year German plane, or it needs a bit of a boost by Oleg.

I am aware from several readings that mechanics would tweak these factory p47s out - perhaps that is where the extra power is lacking?

I will study some sources and see if I'm just full of hogwash or not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
06-18-2005, 09:19 AM
Well if you are fighting at lower altitudes, then yes the P47 was inferior to the german oposition from same year. But higher it gets superior.

I wonce saw an interview of Brazilian P47 pilot that said (obviously not in english) " only a man wiht a death wish would bring a P47 to fight a german plane at theirs (german) best fight altitude "

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 10:59 AM
Recon, please don't take this the wrong way. I have a lot of respect for you and everyone else on last night's surver. However, if this is related to last night's DF, then I think you have seriously misinterpreted the results. Simply put, you did not play to your strengths last night while we did. Throw in a lot of luck for us last night and you have the results.

At no point could we zoom up after you when you kept your speed and refused to turn with us. When you did turn though, especially inside us (and therefore pulling more G's and losing speed much more rapidly) we could usually force an overshoot and give chase. When we did so, we couldn't quite make it but we could usually force an error through the pressure. Another thing to note is you were not fighting some decrepit biplane, these are just as (relatively) heavily-engined planes with tremendous acceleration.

As far as getting caught at the top of your gentle climbs though, I know that every time I did it, it was because I had actually started at better E. You either just failed to see me or assumed I was another one of the low E bandits below you. This is the curse of not seeing the high wildcard bandit in BnZ.

Finally, apart from the initial engagement, (where you handled yourselves very well btw) whoever got defensive invariably maintained a tight turn. This bleeds the E of not only the defender but also his wingman as he tries to help him. The P-47 has such a wide speed margin on the A5 AFAIK that I was quite surprised to see those contrail-inducing turns. In fact, I only saw one P-47 run for it all night long - he got away.

What you are describing by the way is exactly what the 190 suffers from versus the rest of the VVS menagerie. I'm sure you've seen us use those planes in FS relatively effectively - the trick is level rather than climbing extensions where our higher speed comes into play and we are less vulnerable to the high wildcard bandit.

Basically, you cannot use your performance last night as the yardstick for relative performance. We are competent pilots flying with good comms and comparable aircraft forcing you to fight on our terms and usually out-numbered 4:2 or 4:3 through local air superiority tactics. I think the relative performance of the P-47 to the 190 is pretty close to spot on. If we used the same reasoning, we would conclude that both the 109 and 190 were simply beyond outclassed from 1943 onwards. You were flying different planes than the usual VVS-fare but not using different tactics - still on the deck, still pulling hard for the shot, still trying to zoom climb out of trouble after you had already blown most of your E trying to gain angles.

What you might want to argue is that lighter-wing loaded aircraft in FB, in general, confer an unrealistic advantage since we can pull significant G's forever and a day so long as we stay below a particular G-limit. In the real world, pilots get tired very quickly doing that even if they are below the G-levels associated with GILOC. You've been flying the latter too long imo and need to readjust to the more sedate turn characteristics of the P-47.

Respectfully, Pritzl...

Joilet_Xray
06-18-2005, 11:25 AM
Good points Jet..... need more time with some trial horses.... 'hope to see you againhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S!

BPO5_Jinx

http://www.soaridaho.com/schreder/rs-15/n50gl.html

Buzzsaw-
06-18-2005, 11:32 AM
Salute

More complete HOGWASH from Luftwhiners replying to this post.

As usual, if a Nazi plane has been porked, they will whine till they're blue in the face, no matter how TINY the issue is.

These guys claim to be objective too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But when its vey clear an Allied plane has had the guts taken out of it, they come on with pseudo rationalisations as to why this mismodelled aircraft is now properly degraded and how the historical aircraft was incapable of flying in combat and basically fell out of the sky immediately one of the blue eyed boys and his uberplane glanced in its direction. (Funny how they ignore the 9-1 air to air kill ratio of the P-47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)

The fact is, no one flying the P-47 in 3.04 every complained about not being able to dogfight with 109's below 15,000 feet.

THAT WAS NOT THE ISSUE IN 3.04 AND ITS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

The point being made is in relation to the dive acceleration and energy retention of this aircraft, and why in 4.01 it has been completely degraded, when simple physics and ALL the historical data and anecdotes confirm the historical P-47 was a superlative performer in these areas.

We all know that the 190 could outdive most aircraft, including the 109s, but tests showed that the P-47 clearly outdived it.

The following test shows it only took 2,000 meters for the P-47 to catch a 190 in a dive.

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-2.jpg

The above test tells us exactly what a basic understanding of physics would indicate.

Ie. that a better accelerating aircraft such as a 190 will have an initial advantage in a dive, but only until normal top speed for level flight is reached. At that point, the P-47 starts to catch up very quickly and passes it.

We also know that the Luftwaffe aircraft had a lower maximum dive speed than the P-47. The 109's except for the K4 were rated at 750 kph IAS max, the 190's the same. The P-47 was rated at 800 kph, 880 for those with dive brakes.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 11:47 AM
Buzzsaw, butt out. You weren't there.

But since you are incapable of that. I refer you to the documents you listed yourself, in particular the section refering to "Turning and handling below 250mph". The speeds during most of these engagements were well below 250mph, closer to 150mph and ranged from angels 3 to the deck, well below 10,000 feet. Hanging on the prop was indeed how we got the upper hand. I made no assumptions or declarations regarding the modelling of the P-47 in general, I am not that presumptuous. I simply noted to Recon that this particular engagement did not play to the P-47's strengths and therefore should not be taken as a yardstick. The 190's were flown to their advantages and our teamwork was more robust - Red side even declared as much on public chat during the engagement. With reference to these facts, the results were predictable and jive pretty well with what would be expected of a reasonably accurate FM.

Now, had we flown at angels 4+ at high speeds, in equal numbers and coordination and still won, then yes, you would be correct in blaming the FM. Since that was not the case, you are so off-base it's not even worth discussing it.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 11:54 AM
Here's an example: (I wish I had a track)

I got jumped by a P-47 from about 3 o'clock. I turned hard into him and he turned harder to stay with me. Initially, he gained angles and I realized I was turning nose low and gaining speed, so I transitioned to a spiral dive allowing the P-47's speed in the dive to force the overshoot. He overshot, and even though I was on his tail, I could not gain. My wingman however, who had not bled E during the violent maneuver by staying right above the fight, was able to follow the 190 as he pulled up to try to reposition. Unfortunately, for the P-47, he never saw my wingman coming and Rudi was able to nail him quite easily as he hung motionless at the top of his zoom. If you expected a lower E aircraft to get away from a higher, faster plane by climbing, you need to reassess your grasp of air combat.

Buzzsaw-
06-18-2005, 11:57 AM
Pritzl

I know how you guys fly in combat, I've flown against you many times, and I know what your strengths and weaknesses are. (lots of weaknesses, some strengths)

And I also know how good a flyer Recon is, having flown against him. And I doubt very much he got into a low speed turnfight unless he was forced into it by the miserable and unexpected zoom performance of the current P-47.

I know from my own experience how the P-47 is flying now.

The fact is, tactics which should work, ie. attacking from an altitude advantage, maintaining speed, low G turns, DO NOT work anymore with the P-47, when they did work previously with 3.04.

This is not just your own little fight we are talking about, it is the spectrum of engagements when the P-47 is concerned.

The P-47 is seriously mismodelled right now in regards to its dive capabilities and zoom.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Joilet_Xray:
Good points Jet..... need more time with some trial horses.... 'hope to see you againhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Right back at you Jinx. It's always a pleasure to fly against honourable and competent opposition such as yourselves. We get our arses handed to us if we fight on your terms and vice-versa making it a real tactician's dream.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 12:14 PM
Buzzsaw, I'm going to keep this civil even if you won't.

I don't know why Recon and co. got sucked into low speed turning fights, ask him yourself. If I had to guess, it would be that someone got defensive, turned and kept on turning forcing his team-mates to do the same in an effort to save him. Happens to us too in the 190's. I know I'm frequently swearing off-comms at the friendly who's just got himself into trouble by blowing his because I know that means I'll have to blow mine to help him.

After the first engagement, which the P-47's won handily, in all the engagements of the night, we only met P-47's with an E advantage twice. In both cases it was a loner, (once Recon and the other Relentov iirc) facing off against 4 190's only 1km below them. One of us would go defensive bleeding the bandit's E while the others climbed away from the fight like mad. The low guy might not get the killing shot but he was as sure an instrument of the bandit's destruction as any of the other 3 who returned to the fight with superior E.

No plane, can guarantee you success against 4:1 odds, E or no E, plain and simple.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 12:16 PM
To sum up: If you want to argue the P-47's FM in general, be my guest and present your in-game and real world data. I promise I will not call you a jug-whiner. However, don't you dare take this engagement as representative. It wasn't.

Recon_609IAP
06-18-2005, 01:05 PM
First off, I highly respect JG1 and was glad to have them flying with us - they beat us up good and we didn't work well as a team.

We didn't do well last night, combination of JG1 flying well together as a team and that I don't typically fly a p47 very often and I'm not very experienced with it. Many times last night just as I would close in on a potential kill a jg1 teammate would swoop in and blow me away - so, hats off to them - I have no real excuse, I got beat up pretty good.

Let's not compare with last night - last night only caused me this morning to research it offline out of curiousity.

I'm just asking about power and acceleration at this point. I know Oleg doesn't respect Robert Johnson's Thunderbolt! book unfortunately.

As far as the comment about altitude - good point. In a dogfight it's difficult to mimic the way the p47 flew in real life - perhaps I should run a est with B17s and p47s at high alt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was just under the impression that the p47 was one of the US most successful aircraft in ww2 and when I look at it in this game with it's lack of power I wondered how that could be so in 1943.

Buzzsaw-
06-18-2005, 01:21 PM
Recon

If you are amenable, I am going to suggest that you do a series of tests to determine dive and zoom performance of the P-47.

The parameters would be as follows:

Dive

Crimea map, QMB, starting height 4000 meters, starting speed 400 kph, full fuel. Record track.

Aircraft drops nose into ZERO throttle vertical dive to 1000 meters, then pulls out.

The time is noted from the record track.

Now repeat with full throttle.

Compare P-47D10 with 109G6. With both full and zero throttle, the P-47 should have a superior dive time. At zero throttle, with no advantage for the 109's superior acceleration, the D10 should have a considerable advantage.

Zoom Test

Crimea map, QMB, starting altitude, 3000 meters, starting speed 400 kph, record track.

At zero throttle, the aircraft is pulled up into a vertical zoom and held till it reaches its maximum height.

I found with most aircraft it was best to pull up immediately into a vertical zoom, rather than gradually pull up using lower G's. I tried the more gradual method with the D10 but it was not an advantage.

Compare P-47 and 109G6. Again, with zero throttle, the P-47 should see better results with its greater inertia.

My results:

Dive times:

(noted at 1/4 speed playback in order to get exact times 1000 meter barrier was crossed)

Zero Throttle:

P-47D10: 1:17
109G6late: 1:17

Full Throttle:

P-47D10: 1:10
109G6late: 1:10

From these results, it would seem gravitational acceleration is not really modelled. And the P-47D10 obviously has no advantage over its much lighter opponent.

Zoom Results at zero throttle:

P-47D10: Maximum height gained: 650 meters

109G6: Maximum height gained: 680 meters

Obviously inertial effects are either not modelled, or there is a problem with how the P-47D10's model.

Anyone who wants the tracks, I can e-mail.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 01:37 PM
Thanks Recon. It was a rare instance when everything just clicked for us last night.

As for the P-47's lack of acceleration or otherwise, I must profess, I don't know one way or the other. In my limited tests offline, I found it a lot easier to fight the A5 at altitudes above angels 5. There I could out-turn and easily out-accelerate the FW. Furthermore, diving away was not an option for my AI adversary. At lower altitudes I had to be a lot more careful with my pursuit curves to get the upper hand. Of course the AI is not a good judge but in pure performance terms I find the 190/P-47 matchup quite faithful. Compared to other planes though, they both feel a little underpowered. However, this is subjective and I cannot submit it as reason to redress either of their FM's.

The real issues that bug me about the P-47 are the incredibly weak engine - only a few pings will take it out - and the attrocious visibility from the earlier models. While the poor visibility is traceable to engineerig-perfect models without the benefit of parallax vision, I can't understand the engine's glass-jaw syndrome.



Aside from that then let me throw a related 2 cents in:

All high-wingloading planes in FB appear to get off a tad worse than they should in FB from what i can tell. They bleed a hell of a lot of E when changing direction. By contrast a low wing-loading plane appears to get off lighter during similar turns. To some degree, this is understandable due to the higher Angle of Attack required by the higher wing-loading airframe. However, I wonder if there is some constant drag factor that is not related to AoA (i.e. other than induced drag) that is being underestimated or ignored. If it was, it would explain the rather marked difference in relative E-loss. 4.01 is better than previous versions with this, but still...

The other, and imo, more significant factor, is the leniency of the pilot modeling - pulling that many G's for that long is tiring. It might not black you out but is probably the reason that most planes in WWII progressed towards better E as opposed to better angles abilities.

ICDP
06-18-2005, 01:38 PM
With all due respect Buzzsaw unless you were on the server and witnessed the events unfold you have no right to call this guy a luftwhiner. You really are out of line using the term "Nazi plane" implying that only Nazis would fly them in the sim. I suppose you see yourself as being objective? These kind of rants and BS posts are hardly showing this to be the case.

Showing those test results prove absolutely nothing in this case because you have no idea how the events unfolded. Unless there was an instance that matches your test setup exactly then it is totally worthless.

I personally believe the P47 needs a boost in dive and zoom climb ability. I doubt calling individuals luftwhiners is the way to go about making a case for this.

Joilet_Xray
06-18-2005, 01:40 PM
~S!

JetBuff and Recon, if I see you gents online would like to trial horse abit using Buzzsaws copied protocol.

My previous web link was incorrect, maybe this one is better.

BPO5_Jinx
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

Recon_609IAP
06-18-2005, 01:47 PM
All my readings this afternoon were that the p47 was very tough aircraft and was made so to help it in it's ground attack roles. Considering only .07 percent never returned - and it more than double the missions of any other Allied aircraft in ww2, seems to me we die too often in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I did find this interview, which might explain my frustration with the d10/d22 vs the d27:

"CUNNINGHAM: How did your P47s compare to the German fighters?

GABRESKI: Well, Bob, it all depends on what P-47 you're talking about. The early P-47 - which was the basic airplane - had a very thin propeller, although it was a four-bladed propeller. It didn't have water injection. It didn't have all the niceties of the P-47D20 that came into the theater sometime in the latter part of, uh ... well, it was actually about March of 1944. So the improvement that we had (was) water injection, which gave you a power increase of from 52 inches of mercury to about 72 inches of mercury, which was a tremendous boost in power and performance. Then you had tremendous visibility with the teardrop canopy. You could cover your tail and look out freely without the crossbars kinda' restricting your vision. So I would say that the P-47I finally went down with on July 20, 1944, was one of the finest little airplanes that I have ever flown. It was more than a match for the Focke-Wulf 190. It was more than a match for the 109. I had absolutely no problem as long as I used water injection, and I used it quite frequently. We had water injection that would, with sustained power, keep us there for about three minutes up to five minutes, depending upon how you use it. But it gave us that tremendous edge that we needed against the German Luftwaffe."

Sounds like I should fly the d27 more often http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good data Buzz, I'm interested to know why dive acceleration is not modelled, even in this BoB FM we just got?

Recon_609IAP
06-18-2005, 01:51 PM
Interesting to see above data Buzz that the p47 easily outturned the 190

Recon_609IAP
06-18-2005, 01:56 PM
"The other, and imo, more significant factor, is the leniency of the pilot modeling - pulling that many G's for that long is tiring. It might not black you out but is probably the reason that most planes in WWII progressed towards better E as opposed to better angles abilities.
"

Excellent assessment -you mentioned this last night.

It would be quite an interesting game if it was such that the more G's a pilot pulled, the less he could pull later within a given amount of time. Would be very interesting to see how many would waste away their strength in one hard turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
06-18-2005, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Interesting to see above data Buzz that the p47 easily outturned the 190

Even more interesting is that the Fw190 out-turned the P-47 at low speed??? I wouldn't put too much weight on the turn comparisons though. Obviously the guy flying the Fw190 was not experienced with it. Staying away from the high speed stall would have been a priority.

It sure sounds like the water injection gave the P-47 a lot of power in both climb and dive. I have not read of one LW account of the P-47 that did not mention its clear superiority in dive. I don't find this to be evident in PF.

Perhaps the NE equipped Fw190s would have climb ability more similar to the P-47, but, there is no question that the P-47 had some serious power with the R-2800!

It's also interesting that the R-2800 started overheating and the BMW801D did not. I would have expected the opposite.

Thanks for posting that Buzzsaw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Let's hope Oleg takes another look at the P-47 series.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Interesting to see above data Buzz that the p47 easily outturned the 190
Yes, but only above 10,000 feet and/or 250mph. The "Remarks" section notes the 190's engine as running "very rough at all times", enough to vibrate the stick. Could this particular specimen's engine have been mishandled/improperly maintained?

Re: G-induced pilot effort, it would definitely be interesting to see some sort of detrimental effect on the pilot if a hard turn is held for a long time.

Recon_609IAP
06-18-2005, 02:30 PM
rgr.

I'm looking at this thread and realizing that I don't want it, didn't intend it to be a whine session for the p47. I wanted only to discuss acceleration and power - I see the d27 as a significantly more powered ac than the d10.

There are just several items that seem out of place:

1. the dive acceleration - I expect the 190 to dive faster at first then the p47 to overcome it. (Which I would think would play a bigger role for the p47 zoom than it already does now due to the significant speed it would create)
2. the damage - I would think it would survive more - I remember in past versions it did
3. as far as power: if d20 models have the better prop - perhaps I should focus on the difference between the d10 and d22- it should be considerably better.

---

Probably the biggest handicap I have is nothing to do with the particular aircraft - the biggest mistake made is that of visibility.

It's tough in a bnz aircraft to use those tactics when you see dots at 8-10km away with ease, but then disapear at 4km or so, which many times forces me to dive underneath the enemy. Realizing that as soon as I climb away I'll lose sight, I tend to want to turn enough to keep visual.

I wish Oleg could address the visibility issues as well for the 3d models - especially since zoom mode is 1:1 then we are all at a disadvantage if we aren't zoomed in all the time - which is impossible to do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-18-2005, 02:38 PM
I find the P-47D-22 to be much more stable in dives even to very high speeds than the FW-190A-4
FW-190A-6 and not as much so as the FW-190A-9 but still stable when that shook. In terms of top
speeds in dives I've found the P-47D-22 to be superior to all of those but again by a smaller
margin especially over the A-9. The P-47D-22 as I flew it did not lose parts and even pulled
out intact with good control and only slight shaking at 960 kph. Up to 900 kph it was rock
solid nose steady and able to hold aim where even the A-9 was shaking bad and starting to lose
parts. This is the only real area where I found real usable dive superiority of the P-47D-22.
You push a long and steep against almost those FW's and most others, they will top out first
and you will have 60 to 120+ kph speed advantage soon.

Recon, the P-47's do have powerful engines but the weight of those planes is incredible.
Power to weight is very low. Acceleration is very low. Sustained climb is very bad. Note
that in those comparison tests they say the P-47 used water injection but nothing about the
power setting of the FW used. Man, they dogged the FW till they could find ways that the
P-47 could match or outshine it. 7,000 foot dive and the P-47 catches up **at the bottom
and not till then**, what do you think the FW was doing there, continuing the dive? No, it
was pulling out. P-47 does have better angle of pullout and loses less speed in pullout
so yes it will pass the other there and go on to much higher zoom.

When you zoom climb, only do so until your speed drops to somewhere 500 kph or more then
roll inverted and pull level. Better yet, loop and attack again but be prepared to extend
if you don't have the E to keep repeating. Don't let the Jug get slow! The other has much
better power to weight and over a long climb he will gain by that. High power engine may not
be great for acceleration but it will sustain a high top speed if you give it a long enough
run. Extend, build E through speed and shallow climb then attack again.

ICDP
06-18-2005, 02:47 PM
Buzzsaw,

What dive angle are you using during your tests? I tried a full power dive test on Crimea map, 12:00pm, clear.

I started the dive at 3000m and 400kph for both aircraft. Both aircraft were dived at the same angle by pointing at the same point on the ground (about 70deg angle).

I got the follwing results.

P47-D10
kph(TAS)----ALT----TIME(sec)
400--------3000-----xxx
652--------2000-----10.82
803--------1000-----16.21

Fw190-A5
kph(TAS)----ALT----TIME(sec)
400--------3000-----xxx
658--------2000-----10.93
810--------1000-----16.32

Both fighters are evenly matched in this type of dive. This is contrary to the test which gives the initial advantage to the Fw190A with the P47 having a better speed at 3,000ft.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
1. the dive acceleration - I expect the 190 to dive faster at first then the p47 to overcome it. (Which I would think would play a bigger role for the p47 zoom than it already does now due to the significant speed it would create)
Definitely worth testing...

2. the damage - I would think it would survive more - I remember in past versions it did
In previous versions the LW's main Air-to-Air weapon was missing a vital portion of it's belting. I think the DM may have been toned down a few patches ago to deal with this and therefore requires a little tweaking now that the MG151/20 has regained it's proper bite. We went from no Minengeschoss shells in the nose cannon to 3 (I thought it was supposed to be 2?) every 5 rounds.

Mind you, I find the DM in terms of fuselage integrity to be more or less plausible, but the engine is just pitiful and the plane is a little too fire-prone when compared to similarly armoured planes. (subjective opinion)

F19_Ob
06-18-2005, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
I have started flying the p47 d10 and d22.

I know it can't turn well, which is ok for me.

But, I had this idea that it was a more 'powerful' aircraft. I like to do passes then do gentle climbing turn - and it seems to just peeter out.

My primary opponent is the 190a5/a6 or 109g6.

Also - when I power up - I get the torque, but I don't get the sense at all of this aircraft picking up the burst of speed I would think.

Again- I view this aircraft as one with a powerful engine.

Am I wrong?

Not so much wrong but perhaps unfamiliar with it and the tactics for it, since u just began to fly it?

I haven't tested all p47 that much yet but I like what I see so far (liked it before too) and it's a tiny bit easier than before since the stall is gentler.
Much easier now to make hard breaking turns after an enemy. (well my opinion)

It accellerates slowly from slow speeds and especially in climbs, but It's accelleration is good for such a large and heavy plane but again, it's accelleration from slow speeds cant compare to any 109.
Climbs and turns against a 109 in slow and medium speeds is suicide, especially at the deck, although a p47 can do one hard energybleeding turn inside a 109 if the position is favorable, wich is a part of energytactics.

If u let a 109 on your tail U're in deep trouble and the smartest move then is to dive to get separation as quickly as possible and the continue in a shallow dive with one wing pointing up. This makes U sink in the dive and your vulnerable wings arent clearly visible. In adition to that U can gently pull or ¥push the stick so u get a small turn.
There is no better escape than this in such an emergency and U make yourself the most difficult target u can in that situation.
I recommend U record some tracks online with expert p47 pilots and U will get a better picture on what not to do.

-----------------------------------
Fw190 are a bit easier to fight with because the visibility in the fw is quite bad and they easily lose sight of a jinking target.
The p47 climbs well enough with speed but very bad without it. therefore a fw190 expert will get u slow and outclimb U in wertical scissoring.
That is pretty difficult for the fw190 aswell because it's not easy to fly it in slow speeds, but better in climbs than the p47.
The patch 4.01made both p47 and fw190 easier to turn with (goes for most planes) because stalls and spins are gentler than in 3.04.

-------------------------------------------

My tips is that U learn to fly the fw190 aswell so u see that it's not too easy against a p47 and that may enable u to understand what it can do and how to avoid flying the p47 in amanner that favors the fw.

Remeber to record tracks so u can determine if it was your own fault that u got shot down or if the enemy just had the better initial position.
If u fly online U might want to give a good oponent some credit for his skills sometimes.
This last bit about "initial position" is more important than many think.

Online I and my wingman have shot down probably hundreds of 109's and fw190 in il-2's (often the doubleseater) because I had the initial better angle when the fight started and saw my opportunity and sacrificed my energy for one hard turn.
Same is possible with the p47.

------------------------------------------
Welcome to Jug-flying, and if U go online consider using that escape-tactic because U likely will need it.

A few thoughts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142_Astro
06-18-2005, 03:49 PM
I too noticed in my first few tests of 4.01m that zoom climb has been stripped of the P47. Zoom and dive are what makes the Jug tick, and those attributes are not modeled in FB's P47s.

Won't even discuss the preposterous paper damage model.

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

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Republic-P47/p47_info/image1.gif

Fehler
06-18-2005, 04:06 PM
Yuck.. what happened to the P-47? After reading this thread, I went to go fly it offline. The new FM has not been good to it. And it seems, once again, there is too much parity in dives from aircraft to aircraft. I certainly hope Oleg looks at this plane again, it was one of my favorite to fly when forced to fly red.

I wish I had the time all of you do to test and test and test.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif But my "Feelings" that I get from QMB are spot on with Buzzsaw's here.

I allowed a G-6, late to get on my tail and dove for the dirt from 5k. When I was humming along (800'ish) I pulled up into a zoom. I didnt yank the stick to bleed E, I went into a gentle zoom (I fly 190's, so I know how to do this with minimal E loss) When I was at the apex of the zoom, I looked back and the 109 was still there... Should that be close to correct? Don't think so... Try it yourself, you will see.

Fred_77
06-18-2005, 04:25 PM
I flew both sides extensively during last nights DF and can only come to the conclusion that P47d10 vs Fw190A5 makes for a laughable mismatch, at least for typical FB/PF dogfight scenarios. Below 3000m the A5 is all over the d10, being superior in pretty much every way on paper. The A5 was also superior in the intangibles as well. Compared to the P47, the A5 seems to fly with autocoordination switched to on, and given the same firing window, it can deal out a lot more punishment. The only thing going for the '47 was it could pretty much turn with the A5, and can beat it in angle of climb. A more fair comparison would be a dogfight up at 8000m, but that just dosen't happen in FB/PF. Thw community seems to have an aversion to any alts over 5000m. Usually the only enemy encountered up in the flight levels is boredom. If you want a competitive Allied '43 plane, take a P38.

S!
Fred.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 04:30 PM
The numbers:
I set up a plane in the FMB at angels 3, speed 470 (400 IAS) on crimea map, 25% fuel, diving at a ship's bow 2 km away. I simply switched the plane type between tests. Dive results show speeds at various altitudes in both IAS and TAS. Altitudes were + or - 2m from the round dial.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Alt P-47D-10 190A-5 109G-6
2500 574 (490) 565 (480) 556 (470)
2000 654 (570) 643 (560) 625 (550)
1500 720 (650) 708 (630) 683 (610)
1000 774 (710) 763 (700) 730 (670)
500 819 (770) 809 (760) 769 (720)
5 857 (830) 848 (820) 801 (780)
</pre>

As you can see, the P-47 can outdive both even before structural limits come into play. Btw, both the 109 and 190 were shaking at the end of the dive, but the P-47 was rock-steady.

Buzzsaw, I'll give you 3 guesses why you are not able to outdive the 109 as I can in the P-47. It's basic really.

If there is an issue in the performance it's the 190's lack of early acceleration followed by a later slowing down of the same.

Buzzsaw-
06-18-2005, 04:52 PM
Pritzl

I don't need three guesses, I go by empirical tests.

How can a ship's bow be 2km away when you are at 3000 meters????? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As far as my tests criteria, (since you didn't pay any attention) I did my dives from 4000 meters, (start at 5,000, drop altitude till you are at 4000, in level flight, at 400 kph IAS) and as said, did the dives vertically with the aircraft at 100% fuel. Two tests were performed, one with engine at zero throttle, to see the comparison with the engine acceleration not modelled, and one with engine at full throttle to see how acceleration is a part of it.

I'd like to see your tracks please when you do the tests by my criteria.

As mentioned, I'd be happy to supply my tracks.

Buzzsaw-
06-18-2005, 04:54 PM
Salute Fred

Allied pilots in the European theater preferred the P-47 to the P-38 in combats versus German aircraft.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 05:02 PM
Quick hint Quasimodo: what systems do these aircrafts not have in common with regard to CEM?

BTW, I can replicate your numbers in my test (i.e. not faster than 109) if I fly the P-47 incorrectly. Doing so I end up almost 50kph slower at the bottom.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 05:16 PM
Here's an imperical test for ya:
Two dives, from angels 3, any angle you like so long as they are constant between both runs. Use the P-47D10 for both runs. Try it first with prop pitch at 100% and then again at 0% pitch. Post your speeds at impact.


In my tests, from 3000m, in a 60? dive, the P-47 consistently outdives the 109 by a wide margin and the 190 by a smaller one. The trick, which the all-knowing Buzzsaw seems to have ignored, is that you have to remember that the P-47 is a CSP plane - i.e. you set the desired RPM with your prop pitch lever. At 100% you are basically saying to the governor "keep RPMs high". To achieve this the governor, faced with a closed throttle will flatten the blades. This induces significant drag and essentially means the engine is resisting the airflow's turning of the blades. This is accurately modelled AFAIK.

The 109 and 190 have a Komanndogerat type governor modelled. This does not attempt to maintain rpms and is controlled via the throttle lever. i.e. closing your throttle tells the governor, "I don't want high rpms" and the blades coarsen. During a dive this will mean less resistance.

F19_Ob
06-18-2005, 05:23 PM
Ok I also made a test but on lower altitude.

I compared the dive and almost vertical zoomclimb on p47-D10 and the later p47 D-27 and compared with a 1944 bf 109G6 AS.

--------------------------------------------
I dove from 2000m from 400km/h initial speed and climbed almost vertically back up to 2000m and checked the speed when i passed 2000m.


The p47 D10 (1943) reached 740km/h at the deck and climbed and passed 2000m with 230km/h.

P47 D-27 (1944) reached 760km/h at the deck and climbed and passed 2000m with 260km/h.

The bf109 G6 AS(1944) reached 740km/h at the deck and climbed and passed 2000m with 220km/h.


The early p47 did as well as a late 1944 bf109
and the late p47 outdived the messer with 20km/h and outclimbed it and exited at 2000m 40km/h faster.

Pretty good to be from 2000m I think.
I wouldn't expect the p47 to outclimb a late 109
with much bigger marginal than that.

Targ
06-18-2005, 06:08 PM
Ahhh, another case of PPTSD (Post patch traumatic stress syndrome).
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Buzz, I would like to see your scientific data showing that all people who fly German planes in this game are Nazi Luftwhiners.
If you cant produce the data than I would appreciate it if you would stop refering to people who fly german aircraft as Nazi's.
Thank you.

Hydra444
06-18-2005, 06:37 PM
i don't know what any of you are talking about.I've been flying the D-10 in a co-op campaign for the past two and half weeks and i haven't noticed any of these probs mentioned.I think the jug flies wonderful now.this whole not being able to out run people is rubbish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif I have no problems leaving 190's and 109's in my dust.ZOOOOOOM!BYE BYE LADY FOCKE WULF,BYE BYE!

RedDeth
06-18-2005, 07:06 PM
weve been flying the jug post patch and its energy retention seems better now. im flying the D27. and it out zooms and dives away from axis planes easier now. its guns have been ripping off wings and lighting planes on fire much more often now too.

another thing is axis planes cant avoid you with the fish flop spin manuever anymore that forces a semi stallish move. thatll get em killed in this patch.

all in all i disagree on the jug. its much better now.this is all a bunch of hysteria and its influencing your opinions. the jug rocks now. its not as good as real life statistics. and it should be better BUT it is better than pre patch.

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-18-2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Buzzsaw, butt out. You weren't there.

But since you are incapable of that. I refer you to the documents you listed yourself, in particular the section refering to "Turning and handling below 250mph". The speeds during most of these engagements were well below 250mph, closer to 150mph and ranged from angels 3 to the deck, well below 10,000 feet. Hanging on the prop was indeed how we got the upper hand. I made no assumptions or declarations regarding the modelling of the P-47 in general, I am not that presumptuous. I simply noted to Recon that this particular engagement did not play to the P-47's strengths and therefore should not be taken as a yardstick. The 190's were flown to their advantages and our teamwork was more robust - Red side even declared as much on public chat during the engagement. With reference to these facts, the results were predictable and jive pretty well with what would be expected of a reasonably accurate FM.

Now, had we flown at angels 4+ at high speeds, in equal numbers and coordination and still won, then yes, you would be correct in blaming the FM. Since that was not the case, you are so off-base it's not even worth discussing it.
Why would he need to butt out? He is responding and very clearly I might add to the original topic. It is you that should but out if you offer no objective answers to the authors topic. It is clear to myself and many that the P-47 has been porked in this patch as the data Buzz posted shows so clearly. Im willing to wager I have more time flying the P-47 then just about anyone or equal too since it first entered this sim. Its the only plane I flew until PF release. And it is not the same plane by any means that it once was and/or should be. So offer up all the luftlover rationalizations you want. The P-47 is porked be sure. I wasnt there in your server and it does not matter, what matters is the topic of this thread.

LeadSpitter_
06-18-2005, 07:52 PM
The big problem is the overheat timing of the p47, 190a and ds now can run 100 pitch, 105 trottle, weap, 1000-4000m, rad 8 and not overheat ever, the p47 is overheating very quickly even when your speed is up with 101 trottle and rad open using 25 fuel.

Somethings seem majorly off in energy retention also. for example the 190d and anton diving down from 8000m to 2000m are able to climb back up to 7800m using 100 fuel, pitching back to 85 pp.

Now with the p47 max level speed at 8000m diving down to 2000m 85 pitch ad 25 fuel and same gentle trim climb back up will only get back up to around 4200m before all speed is completely gone.


thier turn rates with trim and lack of e bleed is so ridiculous now.

The 190 is my favorite ac in game but this patch is just so silly same with the 109s high speed turning ability e retention, stall speeds and trim effect 900+ out turning all planes in game highspeed.

In game with just full trim use all allied ac can be stalled even at 800-1000kmph with elevator trim but the german ac can be those high speed and are turning much much sharper then allied ac.

maybe olegs cutting a break for the luft for the original il2 sturmovik 190a who know but this patch is by far such a complete joke in terms of fms, e retention, high speed manuverability, weapons effectiveness, dms, stall speeds, accelarations power to weight just about every catagory is so botched up compaired to multi sourced data for each ac from all different nations for each ac.

this is why i think this is one of the worst patches we have ever recieved. But we have no say fms change so drastically patch to patch out of the blue.

One patch theres 1-2 uber red ac and blue are porked or vice versa next patch.

heres some charts for the jug and other allied ac

for BBB hyperion who asked me on HL about p-47 fuel consumption.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/P47-47SEFC.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/alliedchrts2.jpg

look at the stall speed for example and thier stall speeds in game and this is with 100 fuel and use 25 fuel for in game stall speeds of allied ac.

Hydra444
06-18-2005, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
weve been flying the jug post patch and its energy retention seems better now. im flying the D27. and it out zooms and dives away from axis planes easier now. its guns have been ripping off wings and lighting planes on fire much more often now too.

another thing is axis planes cant avoid you with the fish flop spin manuever anymore that forces a semi stallish move. thatll get em killed in this patch.

all in all i disagree on the jug. its much better now.this is all a bunch of hysteria and its influencing your opinions. the jug rocks now. its not as good as real life statistics. and it should be better BUT it is better than pre patch.

I feel exactly the same man. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

LeadSpitter_
06-18-2005, 08:19 PM
and since oleg thinks all naca and us data is so flawed and propaganda here some polish data.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/p47pl.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/p47p51datapol.jpg

OldMan____
06-18-2005, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The big problem is the overheat timing of the p47, 190a and ds now can run 100 pitch, 105 trottle, weap, 1000-4000m, rad 8 and not overheat ever, the p47 is overheating very quickly even when your speed is up with 101 trottle and rad open using 25 fuel.

Somethings seem majorly off in energy retention also. for example the 190d and anton diving down from 8000m to 2000m are able to climb back up to 7800m using 100 fuel, pitching back to 85 pp.

Now with the p47 max level speed at 8000m diving down to 2000m 85 pitch ad 25 fuel and same gentle trim climb back up will only get back up to around 4200m before all speed is completely gone.


thier turn rates with trim and lack of e bleed is so ridiculous now.

The 190 is my favorite ac in game but this patch is just so silly same with the 109s high speed turning ability e retention, stall speeds and trim effect 900+ out turning all planes in game highspeed.

In game with just full trim use all allied ac can be stalled even at 800-1000kmph with elevator trim but the german ac can be those high speed and are turning much much sharper then allied ac.

maybe olegs cutting a break for the luft for the original il2 sturmovik 190a who know but this patch is by far such a complete joke in terms of fms, e retention, high speed manuverability, weapons effectiveness, dms, stall speeds, accelarations power to weight just about every catagory is so botched up compaired to multi sourced data for each ac from all different nations for each ac.

this is why i think this is one of the worst patches we have ever recieved. But we have no say fms change so drastically patch to patch out of the blue.

One patch theres 1-2 uber red ac and blue are porked or vice versa next patch.

heres some charts for the jug and other allied ac

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/P47-47SEFC.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/alliedchrts2.jpg

look at the stall speed for example and thier stall speeds in game and this is with 100 fuel and use 25 fuel for in game stall speeds of allied ac.

Again with your tales Lead? You exagerate everything.

190 will overhead with your setup. If you keep auto pitch it will take very very long time to heat, so that "never" could look as a good word, but is not (since in combat your speed drops so that your cooling also and it may overheat if you drop speed too much).

At 100% pitch it will overheat faster. Prop pitch does not give so much extrapower anymore.. so it does not even worth it.

You don´t even speak wich FW190A you are talking about. Each FW has a different heat generation, being the A4 and A9 the hotest and A5 and A6 the coolest.

My anton overheats quite commonly, and I always use Auto pitch and almost never use Extra fuel injection (save it for scape). You just need to be slow.. and it will build up heat fast.


A plane that should have heat issues revisited is Corsair.. damm this thing heats fast.

Other statements I will let to others rebuke.

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 08:35 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK, if you want to objective test the P-47 correctly, i.e. at 0% pitch not 100%. Then come here and tell me it doesn't out-dive the 190 and the 109. Buzzsaw as usual conducted an erronious test and then, again as usual, jumped to the wrong conclusion. Test it and then come back and tell me the P-47's dive is porked.

Hydra444
06-18-2005, 09:26 PM
i'm still tryin to figure out where people are getting these assumptions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Admittedly I thought the same too when I flew it in the new patch,BUT once I flew it actually combat my mind had changed.

First enemy a/c I encountered was a 190.He wasn't as surprised as I was at the fact I had run him down in a dive.Infact,I almost over shot him I built up so much speed,and that was in a D-10.

Maybe,and this is only an idea,if people didn't have there noses in books and rummagin through charts about this matter so they can have something to cry about (and that EXACTLY what this is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif) and actually flew the bird and got used to the new FM,maybe...Just maybe,you all who are complaining might be able to enjoy it.

Who gives a dingle-dangle how the it flew in real life,its how it flyes in the game.Yes,I said it..GAME!Last time I remember no chart helped me down an enemy,it just gave me something to jot down another tally http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LeadSpitter_
06-18-2005, 10:56 PM
Thanks to jv44 for hosting the file since my ftp is currently down.

Its takes alot of time to prove your wrong oldman but since you make a bold statement that i just tell tales and im wrong i will take the time to show you which is alot more work then typing one sentence with no knowledge of the facts charts or testings.

The p-47 in this track is carring 25 fuel. You will see climb with 110 trottle 100 pitch radiator closed untill overheat time. The you can see how in level flight with radiator open how 105 trottle will overheat the p47, cooling off then seeing 103 power will cause overheat and even 101 will cause an overheat message in level flight.

Now with the 190A8-9 you can see when it achieves its overheat message using 100 fuel wep on 100 pitch rad closed.

Then you can see how when it cooled off immediately it can switch to 105 trottle and rad 8 and continue to climb with no overheat 20 min 30min or till fuel is consumed.

Its the same case in the dora where they can run 105 trottle rad8 and wep above 1000m and not ever overheat.

well heres why oldman

http://www.jagdverband44.com/Downloads/Tracks/p47vs190overheat.zip

the higher trottle and wep is a huge advatage in medium alt turn fights and running ability with no overheat maintaining a higher speed much much longer then an ac overheating.

The engine data charts of the pratt and whitney 2800 vs the BMW 801 D-2 190a9 and jumo of the dora ran much hotter in cruise and warpower then the pratt and whitney in warpower and cruise.

Another thing majorly wrong in this game is compressibility determined by mach number of all aircraft.

Something that happened much earlier in all aircraft then the aircrafts max dive speed before structural failure.

CUJO_1970
06-18-2005, 11:17 PM
Jetbuff, it sounds like you guys were flying a 1943 server?

We don't really have any 1943 P-47s.

Our P-47s all have water injection, and it was extremely rare - even in late 1943 - for P-47s to be equipped with water injection according to 8th AF historian Roger Freeman.

In fact, it was May 1944 before all P-47s in the 8th AF had been fitted with water injection.

The same is true with paddle blade props, late May 1944 before they had them outfitted, the 56th FG being first in late April and the 356th only just then starting to have them fitted.

A more accurate scenario for 1943 would be Razorback P-47D without any water injection and without paddle blade props against FW190A-5s and FW190A-6s.

CUJO_1970
06-18-2005, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The engine data charts of the pratt and whitney 2800 vs the BMW 801 D-2 190a9 and jumo of the dora ran much hotter in cruise and warpower then the pratt and whitney in warpower and cruise.




Cool, I'd like to see your "comparative temperature curve charts" especially for the 190A-9 powered by an 801D-2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Since the A-9 didn't even use the 801D-2 engine... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jetbuff
06-18-2005, 11:28 PM
Still waiting for a rebuttal to the 0% pitch test. It will seriously improve the dive acceleration of a P-47, yet no one is willing to test it it seems. I wonder why? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Hydra444
06-18-2005, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Still waiting for a rebuttal to the 0% pitch test. It will seriously improve the dive acceleration of a P-47, yet no one is willing to test it it seems. I wonder why? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Uhm,maybe cause it does.But people can say its not true,but I know what I've witnessed.And no amount of charts will make me think otherwise LOL

LeadSpitter_
06-19-2005, 12:19 AM
sry cujo simple typo the BMW 801 TS with 14 bladed fan cooling, **** eyes are going buggered http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now comment on the track which is why i posted them instead of the typo.

LeadSpitter_
06-19-2005, 12:26 AM
sry for the typo fw190fan eyes are going all buggered

bmw 801F it states on flugzwerks tests.

In game for some reason we have the bmw 801 S in the A9

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/Fw190DragTable.jpg


PW charts

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&offse...&order=DESC&limit=25 (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&offset=0&mode=advanced&title=&creator=&date=&type=&description=+Pratt+%26+Whitney+&boolean=and&orderby=date&order=DESC&limit=25)

faustnik
06-19-2005, 12:46 AM
Leadspitter,

With NE cooling, the BMW801D could be run at 1.58 ata indefinately until fuel was expended. What is your evidence that the Fw190s should overheat at those settings?

Buzzsaw has studied the P-47 extensively and he feels that it was very difficult to overheat the R-2800. Maybe we can find some official tests to send to Oleg.

LeadSpitter_
06-19-2005, 12:53 AM
I dont really care about it being changed in game or not, I have lost all faith in olegs fms and performances in game completely and get a chuckle out of people thinking each patch is so so realistic. I only once emailed him with multiple charts which took many hours of research and money to purchase them. To simply get a reply back "inaccurate propaganda data. I have never wrote to mado@1c.ru again.

I just enjoy aircraft and like discussing it with others who know and read alot about them like bbb hyperion who is probally the most knowledgable person on these forums. Theres a few others also which seem like the same crowd from eaw, aceshigh and other sims of the past. buzzu for example.

I just like to see what people think of the in game performances who fly almost daily and compairing it to multiple data charts not just one chart.

Not just favorite planes but all wwii aircraft.

Aaron_GT
06-19-2005, 03:12 AM
I dont really care about it being changed in game or not, I have lost all faith in olegs fms and performances in game completely and get a chuckle out of people thinking each patch is so so realistic. I only once emailed him with multiple charts which took many hours of research and money to purchase them. To simply get a reply back "inaccurate propaganda data. I have never wrote to mado@1c.ru again.


Maybe you are approaching Oleg in the wrong way. We (most lrrp to be honest) approached Oleg about the Mustang III, sent him the data, and it's now in the sim. We'd still like to get the +25 Spit IX in at some point, of course. I've exchanged emails with Oleg about the Fw190 too, and he was nothing but courteous.

ICDP
06-19-2005, 04:47 AM
Leadspitter can you post some traks of the dive and zoom tests you conducted please.

In the dive from 8000m to 2000m in the Fw190A9 and Fw190D9 I had to back off due to extreme buffeting to reach 2000m. This was with 0% throttle and manul PP. I had to level off with both fighters before 2000m to stop them from falling apart then gently descend to 2000m.

The only fighter that did make it was the P47 and it reached 5900m in the zoom climb. The best I could achieve in the Fw190D9 was 5680m and the Fw190A9 reached 5430. Unfotunatley for the Fw190's they were missing some vital parts such as ailerons and elevators.

So it seems the P47 has a big advantage in the test you describe. It can reach 1000kph in a dive and still hold it together. The A9 and D9 would break up at around 920kph so definately no advantage to the Fw's in this test.

OldMan____
06-19-2005, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Thanks to jv44 for hosting the file since my ftp is currently down.

Its takes alot of time to prove your wrong oldman but since you make a bold statement that i just tell tales and im wrong i will take the time to show you which is alot more work then typing one sentence with no knowledge of the facts charts or testings.

The p-47 in this track is carring 25 fuel. You will see climb with 110 trottle 100 pitch radiator closed untill overheat time. The you can see how in level flight with radiator open how 105 trottle will overheat the p47, cooling off then seeing 103 power will cause overheat and even 101 will cause an overheat message in level flight.

Now with the 190A8-9 you can see when it achieves its overheat message using 100 fuel wep on 100 pitch rad closed.

Then you can see how when it cooled off immediately it can switch to 105 trottle and rad 8 and continue to climb with no overheat 20 min 30min or till fuel is consumed.

Its the same case in the dora where they can run 105 trottle rad8 and wep above 1000m and not ever overheat.

well heres why oldman

http://www.jagdverband44.com/Downloads/Tracks/p47vs190overheat.zip

the higher trottle and wep is a huge advatage in medium alt turn fights and running ability with no overheat maintaining a higher speed much much longer then an ac overheating.

The engine data charts of the pratt and whitney 2800 vs the BMW 801 D-2 190a9 and jumo of the dora ran much hotter in cruise and warpower then the pratt and whitney in warpower and cruise.

Another thing majorly wrong in this game is compressibility determined by mach number of all aircraft.

Something that happened much earlier in all aircraft then the aircrafts max dive speed before structural failure.

I did not said You just tell tails. But they look as tales sice you exagerate everything! At first You had not even told wich FW190A were you talking about.

I will watch your track, but in my game I do overheat at 100% pitch. BTW, why would anyone use 100% pitch with 105% power if 110% with auto is FASTER ?

There is although some true in taht FW UN-overheat very very fast. But I usually have to put it under 100% to achieve unoverheat.

OldMan____
06-19-2005, 05:37 AM
Ok, just made some tests and in A9 it seems you are right IF you fly level. But I trued a combat with power settings fixed as so, and the combined dives and climbs etc made the engine overheat. And BTW it does not seems to be some normal engine heat tunnung, since if 105% you keep non overheat.. 104% should diminish heat.. but as soon as you get 106%.. it overheat imediately! So it seems a bad resolved theresold.

That is the example why I say you exagerate lead. You make statemetns based on true, but somehow you make it look like much worse than it is. Like the 109 vs Spit elevator that until now no one was able to replicate. It may be true, but probably in a specific situation that you did notmentioned and we cannot repeat...

ImpStarDuece
06-19-2005, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:

We don't really have any 1943 P-47s.

Our P-47s all have water injection, and it was extremely rare - even in late 1943 - for P-47s to be equipped with water injection according to 8th AF historian Roger Freeman.

In fact, it was May 1944 before all P-47s in the 8th AF had been fitted with water injection.




This i HIGHLY doubt, and I'd like you to provide some sources.

The P-47-C5, which was the first major production block, was the first to introduce the R-2800-59 which produced 2000 hp dry and 2300 hp with water injection. Previous P-47 models had used the R-2800-21, which did not have WEP.

There were 602 P-47Cs built, 90% of which had WEP as did all subsequent variants of the P-47.

The P-47-25 was the first to get the uprated R-2800-59, which produced 2535 hp at full WEP.

The paddle bladed props appeared on the P-47D-22 and D-23. The D-22 used a 13'-7/8" Hamilton-Standard Hydromatic prop, while the D-23 used a Curtis-Electric 13' prop.

ImpStarDuece
06-19-2005, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:

The same is true with paddle blade props, late May 1944 before they had them outfitted, the 56th FG being first in late April and the 356th only just then starting to have them fitted.

A more accurate scenario for 1943 would be Razorback P-47D without any water injection and without paddle blade props against FW190A-5s and FW190A-6s.

Wrong again CUJO

Here is a quote from the 4th fighter group homepage

"December 28, 1943 - The 4th was finally up to its full strength of 75 Thunderbolts. The 56th FG was operating with 108 and the 78th had been at that strength since November 5th. On December 26th, the 56th had also received 21 of the new paddle-bladed props which vastly improved the P-47's performance."

So it wasn't May 1944 when the 56th got their paddle bladed D-22/23s, but rather it was at the end of December 1943. Almost 6 months difference!

CUJO_1970
06-19-2005, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
This i HIGHLY doubt, and I'd like you to provide some sources.




I already stated my source, did you even read before jerking your knee? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Roger Freeman is one of the most respected historians on the 8th AF.

The Mighty Eighth War Manual on p. 190:

"Kit manufacture was disappointingly slow for a while. Although modification started in the Autumn of 1943, it was the late spring of 1944 before all P-47s in the UK had been fitted."

Only in late November/early December 1943 did the 56th FG start to recieve any Thunderbolts plumbed from the factory to recieve water injection, and those few went to only the most experienced formation leaders.

Retro-fitting an older P-47 with water injection was an enormous task requiring an absurd 200 hours per aircraft to implement.

So yes, the vast majority of 8th AF P-47s in 1943 did not have water injection. The small number that did get it in 1943 only recieved it in late November/early December 1943.

A more appropriate 1943 P-47 in this sim would not be equipped with either paddle blade props or water injection.

horseback
06-19-2005, 11:44 AM
A slight clarification-from Escort to Berlin, by Garry Fry and Jeffrey Ethell, top of page 33 (for those of you who'd like to read along)in the Operational diary section:28 December 1943-"The 4th was finally up to its full strength of 75 Thunderbolts but the 56th was operating with 108 aircraft and the 78th had been at that strength since 5 November. Two days previous, on 26 December, the 56th had received 21 of the new paddle-bladed props, vastly improving the performance of the heavy P-47. By 28 January 1944 the 56th had 88 aircraft fitted with the new propeller, the only group so blessed in the ETO."

The paddle-blades were retrofits, put on P-47D-10 and surviving P-47C models already on hand, not new aircraft equipped with the paddle-blade prop. Bob Johnson's autobiography mentions that his aircraft was one of the first retrofitted.

Detail & Scale Vol. 54, P-47 Thunderbolt, by Burt Kinzey, has two pages (28, 29) of photographs dedicated to Thunderbolt props. One caption on page 29 for an asymmetrical Curtiss-Wright paddelblade states "...It should be noted that although some P-47 production blocks were fitted witha certain type of propeller, there was considerable changing of propellers in the field. Even some of the earlier P-47Bs, -Cs and -Ds were sometimes retrofitted with one of the three paddleblade props."

According to Green and Swanborough's US Army Air Force Fighters Part 2, the new props "... had a marked improvement in climb performance. Using war emergency power, the climb rate increased from 2,750 ft/min (13.97m/sec) to 3,100 ft/min (15.75 m/sec); the time to reach 20,000 ft(6,100m) improved from 11 min to 7.6 min (at max continuous power) and 30,000 ft (9,150m) was reached in 12.8 instead of 20 min."

They had earlier stated that the first models that came equipped with the paddle-blades was the D-22/23, which arrived in the ETO some months after the first production models rolled off the line.

Obviously, propellers are much easier to produce and ship than whole aircraft, and if changing to a more efficient propeller made the most numerous US fighter in the ETO that much more effective, the interested parties would be moving heaven and earth to get them as soon as possible.

On the subject of water injection, both the last two sources I've quoted state that the first P-47D-4 variants differed from the C model primarily in having the 'bulged keel', the additional cowl flaps, and the R-2800-63 engine with water injection.

cheers

horseback

CUJO_1970
06-19-2005, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Wrong again CUJO

Here is a quote from the 4th fighter group homepage

"December 28, 1943 - The 4th was finally up to its full strength of 75 Thunderbolts. The 56th FG was operating with 108 and the 78th had been at that strength since November 5th. On December 26th, the 56th had also received 21 of the new paddle-bladed props which vastly improved the P-47's performance."




http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif **** like this cracks me up.

You do realize that December 26th, 1943 is about 3 whole days from 1944 don't you?

And if you look a bit more closely at your own quote you will see that less than 20% of the P-47s in the 56th even had paddle blade props by the end of 1943. 21 P-47s out of 108 with paddle blade props.

These P-47s were from the 62nd Squadron of the 56th FG.

At the end of 1943 there was a peak of 1,200 Thunderbolts in the 8th AF.

So, 0.017% of P-47 Thunderbolts had paddle blade props in 1943 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Again from Roger Freeman'sMighty Eighth War Manual, p.190:

"The paddle blade propellor program carried out at Wattisham from December 1943 was hindered by a shortage of blades and certain accessories. P-47s of the 56th Group, the first to be processed, were not fitted out until late April (1944) at which time the 356th Group had only just started to have paddle blades fitted. It was another month before the program was completed."

This is further confirmed by Freeman in his unit history of the 56th FG Wolfpack Warriors.

Also, in Bud Fortiers "An Ace of the Eighth" he reports not getting paddle blade props on his P-47 until the Spring of 1944 with the 353 Group.

So if the 56th was the first to be processed - and they weren't completely fitted out until April 1944 - that means only roughly 10% of P-47s in the 8th AF had paddle blade props even by the early Spring of 1944, the entire P-47 fleet probably being fitted out by May 1944.

Water injection and paddle blade props are not representative of 1943 P-47 Thunderbolts.

A more accurate representation of 1943 combat would be Razorback P-47s without either paddle blades or water injection fighting against FW190A-5s and FW190A-6s.

Joilet_Xray
06-19-2005, 01:24 PM
~S! All

Gentlemen, BPO6_Panp and I just conducted a few informal trials with the P-47-22 and FW 190 A6, we flew wing on wing at same air speed and alt, using a few of the protocols shown by Buzzsaw.... the results were interesting. We did the test online in a quick coop.

We found that IF..... the FW is flown with the prop control in auto.... the results are indeed similar.

For example:

At 2000 feet level 210MPH IAS, each using WOT thru to over boost;

The FW was observed to start to pull ahead slightly, but the P-47 quickly overhauled and passed the FW... the IAS was 310MPH..... the P-47 once over 250MPH IAS continued to out accel the FW. BUT..... using manual prop the results, the FW was faster, quickly accel'g to 320 MPH IAS, which the P-47 would not.

Starting at 10,000 , level flight at 200 MPH going to WOT/WEP the P-47 steadily drew away from the FW at its best ROC speed. Passing 15,000 the '47 was almost 800' higher and seemed to be opening the gap. Again the FW must be in auto prop.....

The FW overheated consistently before the P-47.....

Other; power used, max power, closed rad, 25 pct fuel each, default load out.

It is important..... that the pilots have good technique, can fly heading and airpseed without altitude deviation, or the results will not be reliable.

Dive tests: From close formation at 15,000' we split essed at full wep and assumed a vertical downline...... the P-47 left me in the FW when we passed 400 MPH and pulled away....., at the bottom I followed the 47's pull and zoom, until we both ran out of airpeed.... the '47 topped the FW by about .8km or almost 2,500' at the top.

Interesting....

Next we tried a little ACM starting H2H at 10,000, the FW in auto prop...... fun..... great energy duel, down to the deck, the p-47 continually gained E and was able to almost pull a lead shots, except I could use the Fw's roll to throw off his solution. As E bled the advantage became mine in the FW. We developed into slow rolling scissors in which the '47 finally over shot.

What is very disappointing,,,, one short burst landed on the '47 which effectively disabled the machine.

As covered here and elsewhere the P-47 has a glass jaw..now.. hit it and the bird cannot manuever to live or fly away.

BPO5_Jinx

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

Jetbuff
06-19-2005, 02:06 PM
Interesting tests Jinx. They seem to support the position that the P-47/190 matchup is reasonably faithful historically under normal combat conditions - 190 was almost always flown under Kommandogerat control. It's a shame there are too many variables involved for this to be an easily reproducible test.

A few comments:

The FW overheated consistently before the P-47.....
This is tied to using manual pitch. The 190 overheats very quickly at 100% pitch setting. (it's really an rpm selector though, like the P-47's)

What is very disappointing,,,, one short burst landed on the '47 which effectively disabled the machine.

As covered here and elsewhere the P-47 has a glass jaw..now.. hit it and the bird cannot manuever to live or fly away.
Agreed. It is especially "weak" when compared to the later 109's and the 190A's. While the later 109 cannot survive engine hits any better, the fuselage holds up as well as that of the P-47 which strikes me as odd. The Antons, while quite susceptible to high deflection shots, are very resistant to dead-six HMG fire. This latter feature should be shared (if not exceeded) by the P-47. However, I also think the difference is being made more pronounced by the fact that the P-47 is getting shot at by a multitude of cannons with high explosive rounds whilst the 190's commoner adversary are HMG rounds. i.e. the P-47 is, in my subjective opinion, weaker than it should be, but, apart from the engine, this is not by a large order of magnitude.

Kocur_
06-19-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Recon

If you are amenable, I am going to suggest that you do a series of tests to determine dive and zoom performance of the P-47.

The parameters would be as follows:

Dive

Crimea map, QMB, starting height 4000 meters, starting speed 400 kph, full fuel. Record track.

Aircraft drops nose into ZERO throttle vertical dive to 1000 meters, then pulls out.

The time is noted from the record track.

Now repeat with full throttle.

Compare P-47D10 with 109G6. With both full and zero throttle, the P-47 should have a superior dive time. At zero throttle, with no advantage for the 109's superior acceleration, the D10 should have a considerable advantage.

Zoom Test

Crimea map, QMB, starting altitude, 3000 meters, starting speed 400 kph, record track.

At zero throttle, the aircraft is pulled up into a vertical zoom and held till it reaches its maximum height.

I found with most aircraft it was best to pull up immediately into a vertical zoom, rather than gradually pull up using lower G's. I tried the more gradual method with the D10 but it was not an advantage.

Compare P-47 and 109G6. Again, with zero throttle, the P-47 should see better results with its greater inertia.

My results:

Dive times:

(noted at 1/4 speed playback in order to get exact times 1000 meter barrier was crossed)

Zero Throttle:

P-47D10: 1:17
109G6late: 1:17

Full Throttle:

P-47D10: 1:10
109G6late: 1:10

From these results, it would seem gravitational acceleration is not really modelled. And the P-47D10 obviously has no advantage over its much lighter opponent.

Zoom Results at zero throttle:

P-47D10: Maximum height gained: 650 meters

109G6: Maximum height gained: 680 meters

Obviously inertial effects are either not modelled, or there is a problem with how the P-47D10's model.

Anyone who wants the tracks, I can e-mail.
I know its off-topic but on the other hand very much not...
FMB, 1000m, 400kmh, joystick throttle set as elevator trim to provide non-manual pitch controll to avoid too much incoherency in flight paths, trimmed negative enough to achieve vertical zoom, 0% power. I took P-51 with 5% fuel and than the same P-51 with 100% (and did the same with P-38J and Fw-190 F8). Result is that they pass 200kmh in zoom at the same alt. Generally either a plane carried 100% or 5%fuel it reached the same alt in non-power, purely inertial zoom.
I hope i am wrong. There are serious testers in the community, IMHO they should take a closer look. But for now, and if i'm not wrong seems that a factor as basic as mass in totally not modelled in process of modelling flight.
It feels wrong. Very.

F19_Ob
06-19-2005, 05:05 PM
I Just dove from 5000m with the latest p47 and pulled out at the absolute deck at 1010km/h (on speedbar) and with ease then climbed up to 3350m where I leveled out at 210km/h.
This means it beats any 109 with atleast 110km/h in a dive from this altitude and can climb higher after the dive.

Sounds pretty good to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

OldMan____
06-19-2005, 06:15 PM
Come on guys. How can anyone think mass is not modelled? Do you know how phisics is computed? No mass equals nothign else would work. Not even acceleration.


And mass is much much less importatn than most people think on dive. Drag is main issue. In fact the mass/drag ratio is the predominant factor in dive capability. So an egg shaped bar of steel wiht 30 kg would dive much faster than any plane (without using engine to help).

Same thing on zoom up.

BTW.. how in hell can anyone say Gravity acceleration is not modelled because two planes dive in same time? Did you passed on basic physics course? If yes.. on witch school? I don't want my childreen on such a school when I have them.

hobnail
06-19-2005, 06:46 PM
This is all well and good but do you think we should be telling Jug drivers about the magic CSP lever?

II_JG1_Schpam
06-19-2005, 07:13 PM
Let's see, Buzzsaw. Out of the clear blue you basically called Pritzl and all of II./JG1 unskilled whining Nazis.

Yep. That's the way to win an argument. That's the way to show how smart you think you are.

You need help and I hope you seek it professionally.

Kocur_
06-19-2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
Come on guys. How can anyone think mass is not modelled? Do you know how phisics is computed? No mass equals nothign else would work. Not even acceleration.
And mass is much much less importatn than most people think on dive. Drag is main issue. In fact the mass/drag ratio is the predominant factor in dive capability. So an egg shaped bar of steel wiht 30 kg would dive much faster than any plane (without using engine to help).

Same thing on zoom up.

BTW.. how in hell can anyone say Gravity acceleration is not modelled because two planes dive in same time? Did you passed on basic physics course? If yes.. on witch school? I don't want my childreen on such a school when I have them.
I belive that most of ppl are familiar with names like Galilei and Newton.
Wouldnt you find it disturbing to see that of two planes of the same type, thus of the same drag and equal speed but of different masses and thus unequal kinetic energy, both would exchange it into equal potential energy by zooming up on the same path thus losing about equal amount of energy in the manouver? Ep1=Ep2 even though we know that Ek1#Ek2? Wouldnt it mean that one of those planes potential energy is unequal to its kinetic energy? I may be stupid but i would find it wrong.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
I belive that most of ppl are familiar with names like Galilei and Newton.
Wouldnt you find it disturbing to see that of two planes of the same type, thus of the same drag and equal speed but of different masses and thus unequal kinetic energy, both would exchange it into equal potential energy by zooming up on the same path thus losing about equal amount of energy in the manouver? Ep1=Ep2 even though we know that Ek1#Ek2? Wouldnt it mean that one of those planes potential energy is unequal to its kinetic energy? I may be stupid but i would find it wrong.

These are not fixed energy gliders. The lighter one would be pulled up with higher
thrust to weight. There is a certain speed where the zoom ends and regular climb begins,
the lighter plane benefits even more there. I do assume you are meaning two of the same
with different fuel levels, perhaps ammo. If bombs then hey, those things make more drag.

Zoom climb should not go past sustained climb speed and tactical is better to break out
with full maneuver speed.

Kocur_
06-20-2005, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
These are not fixed energy gliders. The lighter one would be pulled up with higher
thrust to weight. There is a certain speed where the zoom ends and regular climb begins,
the lighter plane benefits even more there. I do assume you are meaning two of the same
with different fuel levels, perhaps ammo. If bombs then hey, those things make more drag.

Upper on this page i described conditions. The difference in mass was difference in fuel quantity: 5% for the lighter one, 100% for the heavier. And we are talking about P-51.
Agreed on the matter of gliding. Problem is i made them go into VERTICAL climb - which i didnt state clearly enough previously. And in it watched alt to speed relation, ultimately: alt when the planes speed reached 0 kmh. The alt was the same...
I am not saying my ''test'' is a proof of anything. What i did might contain a ''bug'' - critical point is the curve joining horizontal and vertical part of the planes path. Thats why i think ppl, here who made many serious tests of planes behaviour in the game, should look into it and make similar tests in far more ''scientifical'' manner than i did.
Feeling was bad. I hope i am wrong.

Kocur_
06-20-2005, 05:59 AM
Some rethinking: seems to me that the same amount of elevator deflection would lead to different shape of the curved part of a heavy and light planes path. Which would lead to different amount of energy bled off in the turn for heavy and lightly loaded plane, which would lead to different alt reached in vertical zoom up. Ergo: looking at alt that planes reach would be misguiding. I lack the aerodynamical knowledge to determine or even better - calculate this.
But i see a different way to establish how (i fear to write ''if'') inertia is modelled.
That would take creating some long runway in FMB. Planes of same type but with different internal fuel quantity would be speeded up on the runway. After reaching certain speed power would be set to 0%. Distance that both planes run on runway would be measured. That would give idea on amout of inertia in both cases of planes mass, as distance ran should be proportional to mass. All this without involvement of difficult to measure aerodynamics. Taildraggers should be trimmed to keep their tail on ground as mass would i guess influence speed of elevating tail and thus influence drag. Far better IMHO would be to take nose wheel planes.
I cant force my device link to work so i cant run such a test with tool like UDPGraph, which is necessary i guess. We should expect distances to be exactly proportional to masses, as i dont expect influence of planes mass on tyres to be modelled or would be very important factor. Please correct me if im wrong.

BigKahuna_GS
06-20-2005, 01:51 PM
S!


Oh Boy !

The P47 was the first US fighter represented in IL2 FB about 2 years ago and here we are still discussing it's poor flight model.
Now theres progress ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Just so you know, I was told me via email that 3 planes should catch the P47D-27 in a dive: 109K4, 109G10 & 190D-9(dive acceleration). This is historically very inaccurate and I have gone round and round with 1C over this. In fact I have an email from the year before from 1C stating the P51D should out dive (dive acceleration) the 109 and 190. When I sent this Back to 1C he started backpeddling hard and had no clear explanation for the "new" 109/109 dive acceleration increases. If the P51D should have greater dive acceleration, what about the P47 ?

Do not confuse dive acceleration and final dive speed (terminal dive speed)


Just as much as the P39 was called the "Iron Dog" by USAAF pilots in the Pacific, the soviets disliked and rejected both the P47 & P51 as front line fighters in the Eastern Front. There was no need for long range high altitude fighters in the EF. The P39 was ill suited to escort bombers at 30,000ft, the P47 was perfect for it. The soviets loved the P39, everyone else didnt. It all depends how the aircraft is utilized and played to it's strengths.

How did the 56th Fighter Group flying the P47 the duration of the war shoot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter squadron in the ETO if the P47 wasn't a competative aircraft ? (more than P51 & P38 FG's)

How do you overcome 60 years of soviet bias against the P47 in a russain flight sim ? (dont confuse this with US bias--just talking about the A/C only)

Dont know if you can.

You can watch the actual WW2 training film of the P47 at Zenos Warbirds and get a feel for how it truely flew. Also you can pick up the Roaring Glory Warbirds DVD for about $5-10. bucks at Amazon.com. In the DVD, Jeff Ethell does a walkaround/preflight explaining componets of the P47. Ethell then goes thru the starting procedure (while in the cockpit) and takes off.

The first thing I thought of was how good the ground handeling was and how it tracked straight and true taking off. Ethell then puts the 47 through some simple acrobatic manuevers and describes the stick forces as "light to moderate". The big surprise for me was how fast and easy the P47 rolled. This plane flys like a much smaller plane than it is. Ethell describes the roll rate as faster than the P51.

Ethell then does a half roll into a dive and the dive acceleration is immediate--no hesitation or sluggishness. Ethell is probably below 10,000ft when he dives and it looks like he starts the dive at a medium speed. Ethell talks throughout the DVD--just wish he would of been specific about speeds and altitudes of manuevers.

A troubling thing is that while talking to Gibbage while flying on WC, someone sent the actual WW2 training film used to teach pilots how to fly the P47 and Oleg called it "propaganda" and dismissed it.

I was going to send the the Jeff Ethell P47 DVD but now I dont know how it will be recieved.



Heres my P47 fix it list :

1. Increase horizontal acceleration --2nd in Americas Hundred Thousand behind P38 in acceleration

2. Increase dive acceleration---give it the historical seperation and advantage it had over Luftwaffe planes

3. Energy retention---this thing bleeds energy like a stuck pig

4. Add the P47M or P47N to the sim--maybe the only way for the P47 to be competative in IL2 again.


____

faustnik
06-20-2005, 02:08 PM
Add the P47M

Yes, add the "M" please. No graphic changes required, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BigKahuna_GS
06-20-2005, 02:20 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Faustnik---Yes, add the "M" please. No graphic changes required, right?
__________________________________________________ ________________________



I have sent about 5 emails concerning adding the P47M utilizing the the P47D-27 in game 3-D model as the platform. So far it is a no-go with very vague reasons why and a refrence to the copyright problem still being an issue. All I can say is that I felt confused and no specifc explanation was ever given. I am losing faith that the P47 will ever be modeled right in this sim.

___

Jetbuff
06-20-2005, 03:07 PM
Since it is obvious none of you will give the experiment I proposed a go, if anyone is interested I have 5 tracks that prove the P-47D-10 out-accelerates the 109G6 in a dive. Statements to the contrary are simply erroneous. From 3000m I dive them both straight down into the ocean. In both power-on and power-off flavours of the test, the P-47 achieved a higher speed at impact. In the power-off versions of the dives, I used both 0% and 100% pitch on the P-47 for comparison purposes - the plane was significantly faster with 0% pitch at 0 throttle indicating that drag from windmilling is modelled.

My conclusion is that inertia is modelled as far as I can tell, or at least some sort of dive acceleration advantage for some planes. Whether this is achieved via an actual dynamic property or a FM fudge I have no idea.

The zip file is quite small. (~5kB file) PM me with your email if you want a copy or can mirror it.

BigKahuna_GS
06-20-2005, 04:41 PM
S!


Jetbuff Posted Mon June 20 2005 14:07
Since it is obvious none of you will give the experiment I proposed a go, if anyone is interested I have 5 tracks that prove the P-47D-10 out-accelerates the 109G6 in a dive. Statements to the contrary are simply erroneous. From 3000m I dive them both straight down into the ocean.



Hya Jet,

I think you are intermixing dive acceleration and final dive speed (terminal dive speed). I have already heard from 1C that he has increased the 109/190 dive acceleration to the point it will "stay" with the P47 during the dive until terminal dive speed is reached. This is historicaly inaccurate.

No one is disputing terminal dive speeds. We are disputing dive acceleration or how fast you get there. There are historical documents and both allied and axis pilots accounts that the P47 accelerated faster in the dive way before terminal dive speed was ever reached.

Here is another part of the dive test Buzzsaw posted:

Official Dive Tests by the Brits/USAAF of the P47 against a captured 190.


The following is the USAAF test report from a comparison between a Fw190A5 (I believe this was an A5/U8 as it shows no outer wing Cannon or cowling Mg) and a P-47D-4. The A-5 had its two inner wing Cannon removed and equivalent weights substituted. The FW190 was described: "...as in exceptionally good condition for a captured airplane, and developed 42 inches manifold pressure on takeoff." The P-47 was equipped with Water Injection but no paddle blade propeller.

The tests were done between S.L. and 15,000ft. The pilot of the P-47 had 200 hours in P-40's and 5 hours in the P-47. The FW190 Pilot had 300 hours in twin engine, 500 hours in single engine and 5 hours in the FW190. Four separate flights of one hour each were conducted. All speeds were in IAS.


Part of the test-----


However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver.


For example a 109K4/G10 has basically the same dive speed as a P47D-27 except for terminal dive speed--which takes a long time to reach. This goes against the historical dive advantage the P47 had against luftwaffe planes.

What is the difference of structural strength between a 109G6 and a 109K4 ? ---nothing but the engine and engine mountings.


Gunther Rall on P47 Dive Superiority

Notice what Rall says about structural strength of the 109: ("You couldn't stand that you know?" 109)

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! <Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause>

P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition.


Keypoint--Rall--"But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition".



The P47 in IL2 does not fly like it historicaly did in real life. It cannot out dive a 190 or 109 and it does not have more energy in the vertical upon pull up. Proper dive acceleration for heavier planes in IL2 has been it's achilles heel since day one. Hopefully by the time BoB comes around things will be better.


____

Jetbuff
06-20-2005, 04:50 PM
If you mean the point at which the planes fall apart by terminal dive speed then no, the P-47 will reach a higher speed well before that point. i.e. it will out-accelerate the 109 in a dive. In fact, although the margin is slim, the P-47's higher dive speed is already apparent at 2500m a mere 500m below the dive start altitude. PM me your email for the tracks and you can witness for yourself.

Now, if both are in a power-off dive and the P-47 is set to 100% pitch then yes, the 109 can stay with it. But this is incorrect procedure for a CSP - at 100% the engine is acting as a break against the windmilling prop. The same applies to a power-on dive beyond the point where the engine stops contributing to dive acceleration and gravity becomes the only player. In fact, I can reliably reproduce a 40-50kph IAS difference in the terminal speed achieved at the end of 3000m between 0% and 100% pitch in a power off dive.

CUJO_1970
06-20-2005, 05:15 PM
Initial dive acceleration should favor both the FW190 and the Me-109 versus the P-47 Thunderbolt, confirmed by published level acceleration numbers.

Hub Zemke describes his encounter where his flight is decimated by Gunther Rall in a 109:

"Desperation rather than fear gripped me as I looked for an opening to escape. If we attempted to dive our initial acceleration would be too sluggish and they could nail us before we built up sufficient speed"

The P-47s extended dive was very fast before it hit compressibility and the stick felt like it was "stuck in a bucket of concrete" but it could be out accelerated by both the 109 and 190 in the initial stages of a dive.

This is further confirmed by US testing with an FW190 where it took a P-47 upwards of 7,000ft to catch the Focke-Wulf.

P-47 pilot Bill Gordon of the 78th FG gives insight on how you should be able to deal with a P-47 in a dive, if you are flying a 190 especially:

"The smart ones, and there were many, would do a half snap roll and pull straight through - a maneuver the P-47 couldn't handle with any grace at all."


I'll post the comparative level acceleration numbers for full throttle from 250mph at _sea level_ later tonight if I have time.

BigKahuna_GS
06-20-2005, 05:26 PM
S!


Jet--In fact, although the margin is slim, the P-47's higher dive speed is already apparent at 2500m a mere 500m below the dive start altitude.


Hya Jet,

As I said before the P47 has a higher terminal dive speed. It's dive acceleration--(how fast it gets there is off)

The slim margin you talk about is non-existant for the P47D-27 vs the 109K4, 109G10 & 190D-9. I am familiar with CSP and reducing prop pitch. I also have been testing these planes for a long time.

I have found no useful seperation during the dive that the P47 can escape and survive unless the P47 reaches terminal dive speed which is highly unlikely at lower altitudes also with the Luft plane accelerating at the same or faster rate during the first part of the dive, survival is highly unlikely.


__

faustnik
06-20-2005, 05:38 PM
I have found no useful seperation during the dive that the P47 can escape and survive unless the P47 reaches terminal dive speed

Isn't this a sim-wide issue though Kahuna? You can say the same thing about the Fw190/Spitfire matchup.

Jetbuff
06-20-2005, 05:47 PM
S! Kahuna. Thanks for maintaining a civil conversation which seems to be beyond some people.

I have not tested the D-27. The original post was regarding the D-10's acceleration versus the 190 and 109. My tests revealed that there were falsehoods stated in that regard - the D-10 does out-accelerate both the 190A-5 and the 109G-6 in a dive. The initial tests designed to show that inertia was not modelled as presented by Buzzsaw were flawed in execution. He obviously used max RPM setting in his power-off dive for the P-47 resulting in much higher drag.

I will test the D-27 versus the K-4/D-9 and get back to you. I like to verify any claims I make before I make them.

BigKahuna_GS
06-20-2005, 07:42 PM
S!~



Faustnik--Isn't this a sim-wide issue though Kahuna? You can say the same thing about the Fw190/Spitfire matchup.


I think you may very well be right Faustnik. The difference here is that 1C had the F/M right for a very brief period and told me so via email. Then for some unknown reason increased the 109/190 dive acceleration quite abit without re-adjusting the P47 or P51 accordingly. So dive accelerations are messed up again for these 2 planes. After trading many emails no adjustment will be made to increase dive acceleration---before terminal dive speed.

There is a tendency for lighter aircraft to accelerate too well against heavier aircraft while diving in this sim. That has been a problem since day one. The 190-D9 accelerates very well and has a superb flight model all the way around. I am not sure how big the problem is between the 190 vs spit in the dive. You would know more than me on that one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

All I know is that after almost 2 years of performance yo-yo's flight models up and down for the P47 it is still messed up.

Thanks for testing Jet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I think the difference in dive accleration in the D-10 are very insignificant unless terminal dive speed is reached (which is rare). The point I am trying to make is that the historical dive advantages of the P47 arent present in the sim. They once were briefly, but now they are gone.

The P47 had a useful dive acceleration superiority before terminal dive speed. That was posted in the official USAAF/Brit dive tests. So it would interesting to test a specific dive length before terminal dive speed is reached and compare seperations. From the test results in the early beta's and the emails I recieved it was not encouraging.


__

Jetbuff
06-20-2005, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
The P47 had a useful dive acceleration superiority before terminal dive speed.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. What do you mean when you say terminal dive speed?

WWMaxGunz
06-20-2005, 08:46 PM
In a British trial they had the 190A and the 47 (can't remember exactly, think a C) dive
from 10,000 to 3,000 feet at 65 degree angle (steep) from 250 mph start speed and no throttle
changes. the 47 didn't catch up to the 190 until 3,000 feet... the bottom of the dive.
At that point it was going "much faster". From Oleg I have that "much faster" is about
30 kph which one relative to the other looks that way.

In the figure 8 described above, the 47 starts with a zoom. Can I assume that the 190 follows?
I think for now, sure. If the 190 doesn't zoom as high but cuts the top of his loop to stay
with the 47 going down then the 47 will be diving more distance and sure be faster at the
bottom to set up the next zoom and gain the advantage in a two-step tactic.

Wasn't it Robert Johnson who related that he evaded Germans by pulling up into a steep zoom?
They either tried to follow or they kept on going. What he said was that it worked every
time for him, he got the ones that tried to follow and the smart ones did not. He stressed
the "for him" part. I'd like to find where that is, only saw it posted in forums.

What is meant when Oleg says terminal speed? Is that power off, 100%, full, WEP?

Jetbuff, can I PM you for that track? But I am more interested in full power up to level
max speed or a bit less and then drop pitch, drop power. I did some in 22% dives from
5000m in different planes but kept power to 99%, pitch either auto or 100% and rads closed.
There is difference in the accelerations and speeds, but not much and the real speed demon
of the 1943 Euro-Front set I used was the '43 P-51 at least at that angle. 190A-9 came
next but the margin was wider than between those and the rest. Accel differences in m/sec
were very close speed for speed between them all, just a few m/sec total at any speed.

burn me, but the P-47's are rock solid stable at speeds where the others lose parts!

griego
06-20-2005, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jetbuff Posted Mon June 20 2005 14:07
Since it is obvious none of you will give the experiment I proposed a go, if anyone is interested I have 5 tracks that prove the P-47D-10 out-accelerates the 109G6 in a dive. Statements to the contrary are simply erroneous. From 3000m I dive them both straight down into the ocean.



Hya Jet,

I think you are intermixing dive acceleration and final dive speed (terminal dive speed). I have already heard from 1C that he has increased the 109/190 dive acceleration to the point it will "stay" with the P47 during the dive until terminal dive speed is reached. This is historicaly inaccurate.

No one is disputing terminal dive speeds. We are disputing dive acceleration or how fast you get there. There are historical documents and both allied and axis pilots accounts that the P47 accelerated faster in the dive way before terminal dive speed was ever reached.

Here is another part of the dive test Buzzsaw posted:

Official Dive Tests by the Brits/USAAF of the P47 against a captured 190.


The following is the USAAF test report from a comparison between a Fw190A5 (I believe this was an A5/U8 as it shows no outer wing Cannon or cowling Mg) and a P-47D-4. The A-5 had its two inner wing Cannon removed and equivalent weights substituted. The FW190 was described: "...as in exceptionally good condition for a captured airplane, and developed 42 inches manifold pressure on takeoff." The P-47 was equipped with Water Injection but no paddle blade propeller.

The tests were done between S.L. and 15,000ft. The pilot of the P-47 had 200 hours in P-40's and 5 hours in the P-47. The FW190 Pilot had 300 hours in twin engine, 500 hours in single engine and 5 hours in the FW190. Four separate flights of one hour each were conducted. All speeds were in IAS.


Part of the test-----


However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver.


For example a 109K4/G10 has basically the same dive speed as a P47D-27 except for terminal dive speed--which takes a long time to reach. This goes against the historical dive advantage the P47 had against luftwaffe planes.

What is the difference of structural strength between a 109G6 and a 109K4 ? ---nothing but the engine and engine mountings.


Gunther Rall on P47 Dive Superiority

Notice what Rall says about structural strength of the 109: ("You couldn't stand that you know?" 109)

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! <Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause>

P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition.


Keypoint--Rall--"But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition".



The P47 in IL2 does not fly like it historicaly did in real life. It cannot out dive a 190 or 109 and it does not have more energy in the vertical upon pull up. Proper dive acceleration for heavier planes in IL2 has been it's achilles heel since day one. Hopefully by the time BoB comes around things will be better.


____ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From Gunther Rall interview:

Anyway, I was chased by P-47. I knew exactly that in a dive P-47 is much faster than 109. And the P-47 has a much higher structural strength. They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour. The 109, if you go to 1000, pull it up, you risk that the wings come off.

HellToupee
06-20-2005, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by griego:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jetbuff Posted Mon June 20 2005 14:07
Since it is obvious none of you will give the experiment I proposed a go, if anyone is interested I have 5 tracks that prove the P-47D-10 out-accelerates the 109G6 in a dive. Statements to the contrary are simply erroneous. From 3000m I dive them both straight down into the ocean.



Hya Jet,

I think you are intermixing dive acceleration and final dive speed (terminal dive speed). I have already heard from 1C that he has increased the 109/190 dive acceleration to the point it will "stay" with the P47 during the dive until terminal dive speed is reached. This is historicaly inaccurate.

No one is disputing terminal dive speeds. We are disputing dive acceleration or how fast you get there. There are historical documents and both allied and axis pilots accounts that the P47 accelerated faster in the dive way before terminal dive speed was ever reached.

Here is another part of the dive test Buzzsaw posted:

Official Dive Tests by the Brits/USAAF of the P47 against a captured 190.


The following is the USAAF test report from a comparison between a Fw190A5 (I believe this was an A5/U8 as it shows no outer wing Cannon or cowling Mg) and a P-47D-4. The A-5 had its two inner wing Cannon removed and equivalent weights substituted. The FW190 was described: "...as in exceptionally good condition for a captured airplane, and developed 42 inches manifold pressure on takeoff." The P-47 was equipped with Water Injection but no paddle blade propeller.

The tests were done between S.L. and 15,000ft. The pilot of the P-47 had 200 hours in P-40's and 5 hours in the P-47. The FW190 Pilot had 300 hours in twin engine, 500 hours in single engine and 5 hours in the FW190. Four separate flights of one hour each were conducted. All speeds were in IAS.


Part of the test-----


However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver.


For example a 109K4/G10 has basically the same dive speed as a P47D-27 except for terminal dive speed--which takes a long time to reach. This goes against the historical dive advantage the P47 had against luftwaffe planes.

What is the difference of structural strength between a 109G6 and a 109K4 ? ---nothing but the engine and engine mountings.


Gunther Rall on P47 Dive Superiority

Notice what Rall says about structural strength of the 109: ("You couldn't stand that you know?" 109)

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! <Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause>

P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition.


Keypoint--Rall--"But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition".



The P47 in IL2 does not fly like it historicaly did in real life. It cannot out dive a 190 or 109 and it does not have more energy in the vertical upon pull up. Proper dive acceleration for heavier planes in IL2 has been it's achilles heel since day one. Hopefully by the time BoB comes around things will be better.


____ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From Gunther Rall interview:

Anyway, I was chased by P-47. I knew exactly that in a dive P-47 is much faster than 109. And the P-47 has a much higher structural strength. They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour. The 109, if you go to 1000, pull it up, you risk that the wings come off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats probly at a high altitude, the 190 dosnt have much steam at alt so its inital accleration wouldnt be greater. As as for weight whats weight matter, in a zero drag enviro a feather will fall as fast as a thunderbolt.

Aaron_GT
06-21-2005, 04:08 AM
They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour.

I think Rall must either be incorrect on this point, or this must be a misquote as 1400 km/h TAS is about 870 mph TAS - i.e. supersonic by quite a margin. The P47 was not capable of this.

In a power-on dive:

If the dive is entered at a speed less than the maximum level speed for the aircraft at a particular altitude then the plane with the better powerloading is likely to pull away up to the speed at which the planes are at their maximum level speed for that altitude, after which the plane with the higher terminal speed (discounting structural failures) is likely to accelerate the fastest.

At low to medium altitudes the 109 and 190 are likely to have better power loading. At high altitudes, due to the turbosupercharger, the P47 may well have better power loading.

If the dive is entered at maximum level speed at that altitude then the plane with the best terminal speed is most likely to pull away.

These are general guidelines, of course, as different lumps and bumps on a plane have different effects on the drag at different speeds.

The equations (at an instant) are relatively
simple, though. But to model the full behaviour you need to solve differential equations, even after simplifying the behaviour of drag.

II_JG1Schpam
06-21-2005, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
The P47 had a useful dive acceleration superiority before terminal dive speed.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. What do you mean when you say terminal dive speed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what he's saying, Pritzl, is that the acceleration may be off not the end-of-dive speed. Terminal dive speed means that maximum possible speed reached in the dive. He's saying the P-47 could accelerate more than what is seen currently. And that acceleration difference happened earlier in the dive timeline.

You can get a feeling for this from some of the pilot tests when you see, "Plane A and Plane B both started the dive at the same time from the same alt and the same starting speed. Plane A pulled away from Plane B at first then Plane B caught up and passed Plane A."

I think planes like the Spit and P-51 had good initial acceleration because they are lower drag airplanes than the P-47. But in a dive weight acts in a vector part of which is in the direction of thrust. Therefore a heavier airplane, one with more mass, gets a "thrust-boost", so to speak, than a lesser mass airplane even though the heavier airplane may have more drag. However, as speed increases so does drag. Again the heavier airplane gets a bit of a boost due to the component of the weight vector acting in the direction of thrust. All this equals out at terminal dive speed. There is no difference between the thrust vector and drag vector anymore because drag increased due to the speed increase.

Mass makes no difference on accel due to gravity but only in a vaccuum. In air where there is drag, mass and size will have an impact.

Diablo310th
06-21-2005, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
In a British trial they had the 190A and the 47 (can't remember exactly, think a C) dive
from 10,000 to 3,000 feet at 65 degree angle (steep) from 250 mph start speed and no throttle
changes. the 47 didn't catch up to the 190 until 3,000 feet... the bottom of the dive.
At that point it was going "much faster". From Oleg I have that "much faster" is about
30 kph which one relative to the other looks that way.

In the figure 8 described above, the 47 starts with a zoom. Can I assume that the 190 follows?
I think for now, sure. If the 190 doesn't zoom as high but cuts the top of his loop to stay
with the 47 going down then the 47 will be diving more distance and sure be faster at the
bottom to set up the next zoom and gain the advantage in a two-step tactic.

Wasn't it Robert Johnson who related that he evaded Germans by pulling up into a steep zoom?
They either tried to follow or they kept on going. What he said was that it worked every
time for him, he got the ones that tried to follow and the smart ones did not. He stressed
the "for him" part. I'd like to find where that is, only saw it posted in forums.

What is meant when Oleg says terminal speed? Is that power off, 100%, full, WEP?

Jetbuff, can I PM you for that track? But I am more interested in full power up to level
max speed or a bit less and then drop pitch, drop power. I did some in 22% dives from
5000m in different planes but kept power to 99%, pitch either auto or 100% and rads closed.
There is difference in the accelerations and speeds, but not much and the real speed demon
of the 1943 Euro-Front set I used was the '43 P-51 at least at that angle. 190A-9 came
next but the margin was wider than between those and the rest. Accel differences in m/sec
were very close speed for speed between them all, just a few m/sec total at any speed.

burn me, but the P-47's are rock solid stable at speeds where the others lose parts!

MaxGunz....yes you are right about waht robert Johnson said. He would go into a zoom climb that teh FW could not follow and wait for it to stall then hammerhead down. I have that book and have read it several times. It was one of his favorite tactics. Unfortunately that cannot be done in this game because of teh E loss which is so quick in teh Jug.

II_JG1Schpam
06-21-2005, 07:51 AM
I was part of the dogfight that caused this discussion and I couldn't keep up with a zooming P-47. In fact I didn't even try after a few attempts. Rather I kept under them, trying to make them make high-angle dives with the hope they'd overshoot low.

I think both the P-47 and 190 suffer from what feels like more e-bleed after a dive than other planes. I think part of the issue is pilot technique meaning that I know I tend to yank on the joystick too hard and too fast which I surmise causes more e-bleed in order to maintain an offensive position in a timely manner. Maybe part of the issue is also the increased lift-induced drag that hits the P-47 and 190 harder. I know I feel that as soon as I point the nose up in a 190 I'm living on borrowed time.

Kocur_
06-21-2005, 07:59 AM
Buzzsaw- wrote:

Zoom Results at zero throttle:

P-47D10: Maximum height gained: 650 meters

109G6: Maximum height gained: 680 meters

Obviously inertial effects are either not modelled, or there is a problem with how the P-47D10's model.


Kocur_ wrote:
Some rethinking: seems to me that the same amount of elevator deflection would lead to different shape of the curved part of a heavy and light planes path. Which would lead to different amount of energy bled off in the turn for heavy and lightly loaded plane, which would lead to different alt reached in vertical zoom up. Ergo: looking at alt that planes reach would be misguiding. I lack the aerodynamical knowledge to determine or even better - calculate this.

Kocur_ wrote:
But i see a different way to establish how (i fear to write ''if'') inertia is modelled.
That would take creating some long runway in FMB. Planes of same type but with different internal fuel quantity would be speeded up on the runway. After reaching certain speed power would be set to 0%. Distance that both planes run on runway would be measured. That would give idea on amout of inertia in both cases of planes mass, as distance ran should be proportional to mass.

Sorry for so many quotations. Even worse i quote here myself alot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
A very rough test:same power settings, same speed to reach -than power set to 0%. I dont have any numbers, but...:lightly loaded P-38 stopped before the bushes, heavily loaded P-38 stopped behind those busheshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
So seems that inertia is modelled. Misguiding results of Buzzsaw's and mine zoom test must come from difficulty in replicating manouver from horizontal to vertical, that would be identical in terms of energy loss. I'm happy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Than again that was on the ground...Seems im alone in having that little trust http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
I know nothing about modelling flight in this game. I imagine it should be set of equations common for each plane with constants which define environment and variables for parameters of each particular plane. Since everything would determined by common for each plane ''virtual phisics'' and limited number of individual parameters, performance would be quite objective. Thus any questions about performance of P-47 vs Bf-109 would be easy to answer and clear by revealing what numbers were used as variables for each of them parameters. Is there any knowledge how things are modelled among community?

BigKahuna_GS
06-21-2005, 06:09 PM
S!


II_JG1Schpam Posted Tue June 21 2005 06:07
I think what he's saying, Pritzl, is that the acceleration may be off not the end-of-dive speed. Terminal dive speed means that maximum possible speed reached in the dive. He's saying the P-47 could accelerate more than what is seen currently. And that acceleration difference happened earlier in the dive timeline.

You can get a feeling for this from some of the pilot tests when you see, "Plane A and Plane B both started the dive at the same time from the same alt and the same starting speed. Plane A pulled away from Plane B at first then Plane B caught up and passed Plane A."

I think planes like the Spit and P-51 had good initial acceleration because they are lower drag airplanes than the P-47. But in a dive weight acts in a vector part of which is in the direction of thrust. Therefore a heavier airplane, one with more mass, gets a "thrust-boost", so to speak, than a lesser mass airplane even though the heavier airplane may have more drag. However, as speed increases so does drag. Again the heavier airplane gets a bit of a boost due to the component of the weight vector acting in the direction of thrust. All this equals out at terminal dive speed. There is no difference between the thrust vector and drag vector anymore because drag increased due to the speed increase.

Mass makes no difference on accel due to gravity but only in a vaccuum. In air where there is drag, mass and size will have an impact.



Thank you JG1Schpam that is exactly what I am saying. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thru emails with 1C, the K4 accelerates like a rocket in the dive (his words) but there is not a point where the P47 out accelerates the 109K4 during the dive. What happens is the 109K4 reaches terminal dive speed before the Jug does thats all.

There is no historical seperation during the dive.

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj2.jpg
Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47D 42-8461 HV-P "Lucky". Johnson seen here in front of his P-47 "Lucky" and flanked by Hub Zemke (L) and Bud Mahurin (R).


Here is Robert Johnson talking about diving his P47 :

CCJ: What about facing the Fw 190 and Messerschmitts?

RSJ: The Focke Wulf reminded me of the Corsair. It was much smaller of course, but they both had similar maneuverability. It wasn't quite as fast, but turned well. It was unusual to find Focke Wulfs above us. Generally, we held the advantage in height. The Me 109 was another story. They could often be seen up above 35,000 feet.

CCJ: What was the biggest mistake a German pilot could make?

RSJ: Trying to escape in a dive or split-S.

CCJ: Why?

RSJ: Because they were not going to out-run the Thunderbolt in a dive.
CCJ: You could catch them without a problem.

RSJ: I could catch them in nothing flat.

CCJ: Really?

RSJ: Absolutely. One thing about the 190, if the pilot continued his dive below 7 or 8 thousand feet, he could not pull out before he hit the ground. I guess they had compressibility problems or the elevators got too stiff. Whatever the problem was, I watched several of them pancake in before they could level off.

CCJ: What about the Thunderbolt?

RSJ: It did not have that problem down that low. Up high, above 25,000 feet, yes, I could get into compressibility and the elevators locked up like they were in concrete. But once you got down to thicker air, you regained control.

CCJ: So, what would you do if suddenly discovered a German fighter on your tail?

RSJ: you mean in close?

CCJ: Yes.

RSJ: That depended a lot on how fast the German was going. If he was moving much faster, I'd simply side-step him by rolling.
The German would whiz right on by and I would firewall the throttle and take off after him. If he was a smart German, he would climb straight ahead. If he was a dumb German, he would try to turn. If he turns, his higher speed will make for a wide turn, and I will cut across and be all over him. If he dives, I can follow and eventually catch up. Now, if the German's speed was close to mine, then I had another emergency maneuver that always worked for me.

CCJ: And, that was?

RSJ: I would pull the nose straight up into a vertical rolling spiral, usually to the left. You would stall out, but so would the guy behind you. That killed his advantage.

CCJ: So, what you are describing sounds like a rolling hammerhead stall, right?

RSJ: That's a pretty good description.

CCJ: So what happens next?

RSJ: Well, the enemy would stall first because the Jug's mass allowed to retain its,

CCJ: Energy?

RSJ: Yes, energy. The P-47's mass allowed it to retain its energy better and it stalled a few seconds after the enemy plane. The German would snap over and head down. Except, now I was right behind him and there was no getting away.

CCJ: Wouldn't he still be directly behind you?

RSJ: No. Pulling up so suddenly always caught them by surprise. The second or two that it took for them to react took care of that.

CCJ: Why did you roll?

RSJ: Because that killed my speed faster than the enemy if he didn't, which gained me the advantage of being to his rear as he zoomed up. If he rolled too, that also worked to my advantage because it killed his speed faster than mine.

CCJ: So, you would get the advantage no matter what, if the German also pulled up into a vertical climb. What if he didn't follow?

RSJ: Then he would just fly by. If he still wanted to fight, he could extend out and turn around, but I would be waiting for him.
If he turned either left or right, I would be on him in a few seconds.

CCJ: The smart Germans just kept on going when you pulled up.

RSJ: I never ran across one smart enough to keep going. They all tried to follow.

CCJ: How many got away after falling for your trap?

RSJ: I really can't say for sure. Some got away because he had friends to cover his tail. Besides, that maneuver was not so much to get him, but to prevent him from getting me. In that respect, it always worked.

____

Diablo310th
06-21-2005, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


Oh Boy !

The P47 was the first US fighter represented in IL2 FB about 2 years ago and here we are still discussing it's poor flight model.
Now theres progress ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Just so you know, I was told me via email that 3 planes should catch the P47D-27 in a dive: 109K4, 109G10 & 190D-9(dive acceleration). This is historically very inaccurate and I have gone round and round with 1C over this. In fact I have an email from the year before from 1C stating the P51D should out dive (dive acceleration) the 109 and 190. When I sent this Back to 1C he started backpeddling hard and had no clear explanation for the "new" 109/109 dive acceleration increases. If the P51D should have greater dive acceleration, what about the P47 ?

Do not confuse dive acceleration and final dive speed (terminal dive speed)


Just as much as the P39 was called the "Iron Dog" by USAAF pilots in the Pacific, the soviets disliked and rejected both the P47 & P51 as front line fighters in the Eastern Front. There was no need for long range high altitude fighters in the EF. The P39 was ill suited to escort bombers at 30,000ft, the P47 was perfect for it. The soviets loved the P39, everyone else didnt. It all depends how the aircraft is utilized and played to it's strengths.

How did the 56th Fighter Group flying the P47 the duration of the war shoot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter squadron in the ETO if the P47 wasn't a competative aircraft ? (more than P51 & P38 FG's)

How do you overcome 60 years of soviet bias against the P47 in a russain flight sim ? (dont confuse this with US bias--just talking about the A/C only)

Dont know if you can.

You can watch the actual WW2 training film of the P47 at Zenos Warbirds and get a feel for how it truely flew. Also you can pick up the Roaring Glory Warbirds DVD for about $5-10. bucks at Amazon.com. In the DVD, Jeff Ethell does a walkaround/preflight explaining componets of the P47. Ethell then goes thru the starting procedure (while in the cockpit) and takes off.

The first thing I thought of was how good the ground handeling was and how it tracked straight and true taking off. Ethell then puts the 47 through some simple acrobatic manuevers and describes the stick forces as "light to moderate". The big surprise for me was how fast and easy the P47 rolled. This plane flys like a much smaller plane than it is. Ethell describes the roll rate as faster than the P51.

Ethell then does a half roll into a dive and the dive acceleration is immediate--no hesitation or sluggishness. Ethell is probably below 10,000ft when he dives and it looks like he starts the dive at a medium speed. Ethell talks throughout the DVD--just wish he would of been specific about speeds and altitudes of manuevers.

A troubling thing is that while talking to Gibbage while flying on WC, someone sent the actual WW2 training film used to teach pilots how to fly the P47 and Oleg called it "propaganda" and dismissed it.

I was going to send the the Jeff Ethell P47 DVD but now I dont know how it will be recieved.



Heres my P47 fix it list :

1. Increase horizontal acceleration --2nd in Americas Hundred Thousand behind P38 in acceleration

2. Increase dive acceleration---give it the historical seperation and advantage it had over Luftwaffe planes

3. Energy retention---this thing bleeds energy like a stuck pig

4. Add the P47M or P47N to the sim--maybe the only way for the P47 to be competative in IL2 again.


____


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif Nothing more to add. Kahuna hit the nail on the head in every way. I also agree...I don't think we will ever see a jug modelled correctly. It's gone from being a dog...to being decent..to being pretty good..to be a dog again. The DM is jsut wayyy off. It doesn't fly to bad...except for teh acceleration aspect ie. dive and zoom but teh DM can't be right. Alas tho....we will never see it right in PF. Maybe one day we can get a D40, M or N model but I knda doubt it.

VW-IceFire
06-21-2005, 10:03 PM
Diablo: Have some hope. I was there on the frontlines when we got the roll rate issue (back in 1.01) solved so there is hope for the P-47 yet. Its been through alot. The DM was far worse when AEP came out...

There are so many DM issues right now that I think we'll see something come down the pipeline to fix them. What needs to be done now, like any time, is to document with tracks and game data.

WWMaxGunz
06-22-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour.

I think Rall must either be incorrect on this point, or this must be a misquote as 1400 km/h TAS is about 870 mph TAS - i.e. supersonic by quite a margin. The P47 was not capable of this.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is just saying what he believes or remembers. The airspeed pitots read extremely high
once the plane hits compression speeds, it is a fault of the instruments. And since mach
is lower at high alts the IAS at which the readings go right out the window varies.

WWMaxGunz
06-22-2005, 12:19 PM
In a dive there is acceleration due to gravity and there is thrust.

ALL planes have the same acceleration due to gravity. The force varies by mass but one
cannot get faster acceleration due to gravity by having more mass, hold off on the drag
counters for just now please.

Then we have the thrust. It is thrust plus gravity force versus drag but until certain
limits are hit, only the thrust can make higher acceleration. I see limits of speed being
less than level maximum speed and/or acceleration being less than the 9.81 m/sec of gravity.

In 22 degree dives alone I see planes going 800+ kph still getting 11 or more m/sec accel
with 100% power and full or auto pitch, which isn't the fastest some can go I understand.

After or close to maximum level speed, then the thrust is secondary.

What thrust matters because it is excess thrust and the contribution of weight against
drag should increase this -- for all.

Excess thrust to mass determines the contribution of thrust to dive acceleration. It must
be divided by the mass, that is where planes with high power to weight really get their
better initial and even mid-range acceleration. The formulae were posted here in late 2002
and really until level top speed is reached (a terminal speed there, just maybe that is
what Oleg meant by any chance?) the better power to weight plane will win.

In the 10,000 to 3,000 foot dive compare, both planes were flying level at 250 mph which is
400 kph. We don't know prop pitch or throttle at all. P-47 could have been high power and
very low pitch for all anyone knows, FW was most likely running Kommandogerat. They dived
without any change to throttle and no word on pitch. Power to weight advantage of the FW
was not minimalized but not maximalized either yet the P-47 did not catch to pass until
the bottom of the dive where the pullout is, not for 7,000 feet alt in a 65 degree dive,
the distance comes to about 9,000 feet.

I have no doubt at all the P-47 has the advantage but I have no doubt at all that people
have very exaggerated ideas of both how much and how soon it should be or how to get it.
Saying it is wrong is one thing but try to get the how much at least inside the ballpark
of reality. In 3 seconds, you should not be on his tail.

That said I do realize that using NUMBERS makes it all JUST THEORY and therefore no use.

Aaron_GT
06-22-2005, 04:28 PM
Kahuna wrote:

Just so you know, I was told me via email that 3 planes should catch the P47D-27 in a dive: 109K4, 109G10 & 190D-9(dive acceleration). This is historically very inaccurate and I have gone round and round with 1C over this. In fact I have an email from the year before from 1C stating the P51D should out dive (dive acceleration) the 109 and 190. When I sent this Back to 1C he started backpeddling hard and had no clear explanation for the "new" 109/109 dive acceleration increases. If the P51D should have greater dive acceleration, what about the P47 ?

The dive performance will vary depending on the altitude, speed of entry, and duration. So saying X should dive better than Y is a bit arbitrary - it depends on circumstances. (For example the RAF rated the Tempest V as a better diver than the P47, but from cruise and high altitude it is unlikely to be the case, only from lower altitudes, but perhaps ON AVERAGE the Tempest was a better diver). So it might be possible to do a specific test which shows plane X not diving better than Y even if the general trend is correct. So we might be getting too hung up on specific tests. This having been said the specific test of the test of the Fw190A against the P47D conducted from 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet suggests that given the specific altitude (medium) and entry (cruise) the Fw190A held an initial dive advantage.

Plus Oleg's English isn't perfect so there might be confusions in emails with Oleg between overall dive performance, performance for specific initial conditions, confusion between initial dive acceleration, terminal dive speeds, and so on. Intepretation of the real meaning of things Oleg has said on the message boards is a matter of some debate!

Back to the matter at hand at certain altitudes and initial conditions pilots in WW2 reported 109s and 190Ds outdiving P47s and vice versa. These are not controlled conditions, though. The 109G14 and 109K4 have good power loading at certain altitudes and plenty of excess power loading too at certain altitudes compared to the P47, so it's not impossible that in real life the initial part of a dive from cruise at that altitude they would have an acceleration advantage. They would not have an advantage in a sustained dive. At high altitude they would not have a power loading altitude due to the P47s turbosupercharger design, so at the P47s escort altitude it would hold the advantage even in the initial parts of the dive.

BigKahuna_GS
06-23-2005, 04:27 PM
S!



Aaron--Back to the matter at hand at certain altitudes and initial conditions pilots in WW2 reported 109s and 190Ds outdiving P47s and vice versa.


Hya Aaron,

I have never read or seen where a 109 or 190 pilot claimed to be able to out dive a P47. But I have on the other hand seen where 109 and 190 pilots had been warned against trying to dive away from P47's.

As for official dive tests they have hashed and rehashed here for 2 years. My point is this --were are talking about sustained dives and what ever brief dive acceleration advantage a 109 or 190 might of had in the beginning of the dive changed rapidly after a couple of thousand feet as after this point the P47 out accelerated both these aircarft during the dive. How else does the Jug catch the 190 with much greater speed and angle of pull up if he is not out accelerating the 190?

Another thing to consider is the faster the Jug enters the dive the less the 109/190 has any inital advantge at the beginning of the dive.

Right now since both the 109K4 and P47D-27 have basically the same dive acceleration (109K4 faster in the beginning of the dive)there is never the historical greater acceleration that occured during the dive.

The other point I am making is that with this greater acceleration comes more potential energy. The P47 does not have good energy retention considering it's mass. In the above scenario the P47 with it's much greater speed should be able to zoom climb above the 190 and watch it stall out below him and be able to hammerhead back down. The P47 F/M energy bleed being what it is wont allow this.

Part of the dive test:

"However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver."



___

horseback
06-23-2005, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

In the 10,000 to 3,000 foot dive compare, both planes were flying level at 250 mph which is
400 kph. We don't know prop pitch or throttle at all. P-47 could have been high power and
very low pitch for all anyone knows, FW was most likely running Kommandogerat. They dived
without any change to throttle and no word on pitch. Power to weight advantage of the FW
was not minimalized but not maximalized either yet the P-47 did not catch to pass until
the bottom of the dive where the pullout is, not for 7,000 feet alt in a 65 degree dive,
the distance comes to about 9,000 feet.

I have no doubt at all the P-47 has the advantage but I have no doubt at all that people
have very exaggerated ideas of both how much and how soon it should be or how to get it.
Saying it is wrong is one thing but try to get the how much at least inside the ballpark
of reality. In 3 seconds, you should not be on his tail.

That said I do realize that using NUMBERS makes it all JUST THEORY and therefore no use.

All right class, let's examine the numbers, using basic math.

Okay, we have two aircraft going 250 miles per hour at 10,000ft, and they dive 7,000 ft (or a little less than a mile and a half) to 3,000 ft, where the aircraft with the higher terminal speed just catches up. We know that the smaller and lighter aircraft is able to enter the dive more efficiently, and that in level flight, it has a slight advantage in initial accelleration (it can 'quickly' open a 200yd or meter -approximately the same-lead before the gap is quickly closed). We also know that at 250 miles per hour, both aircraft are covering 4.167 miles per minute:

1 mile = 5280 ft,

250 X 5280 ft = 1,320,000 ft,

1,320,000ft/5280ft/60 minutes= 4.167 miles per minute, and

4.167 miles/60 seconds = 0.0694 miles per second, or 366.67 ft/sec

7,000 ft/366.67 ft/sec = 19.091 seconds at 250 mile per hour

- but we know that both aircraft were going much faster than 250 mph at the end of their dives, and so that the dives must have taken somewhat less time than 19 seconds.

Oh, and the P-47 was going significantly faster than the FW 190 at pullout, and could pull out at a sharper angle, which means he can pull out a good bit later.

And that the best reason for a FW 190 to dive away from a Jug is because the Jug is closing on him with malevolent intent, ie, the Jug is already faster. The higher they are at the start of a diving chase, the better a Thunderbolt's chances of either getting the kill or watching the FW smack into the ground. At those speeds and those circumstances, catching the 190 or 109 really is a matter of seconds

There's the theory for you. It killed hundreds of LW fighter pilots from 1943 to 1945. It was no theory to THEM.

cheers

horseback

WWMaxGunz
06-24-2005, 03:07 AM
Excepts those facts are not entirely straight.

7000 feet altitude lost in 65 degree dive is not 7000 feet flown. Over 7800 feet.

Pullout was at 3000 feet altitude and the P-47 caught up with the FW at 3000 feet.
How to assume just what happened? Well, pick the best picture for results you want.

How much faster is "much faster"? Assume away. We don't have anything on the speeds
at the bottom of the dive. So let's imagine a margin and insist that until we see what
we imagined, the sim is wrong.

I had no idea that 1000's of German planes were lost diving away from P-47's. Source?

Of course I have no idea how many did but I really don't go along with "must be's" as
a way to say what happens.

Aaron_GT
06-24-2005, 05:38 AM
I have never read or seen where a 109 or 190 pilot claimed to be able to out dive a P47

Some quotes were posted on the boards last year apparently from experten indicating that they felt they could outdive P47s in certain circumstances. What the circumstances were were not clear from the quotes, though.

The low level maximum speed of the average P47D and 109G are pretty similar so in a full power dive from low level (say 5000 feet) to the deck starting at cruise the 109G should increase its distance from the 109G.

I think one of the problems with DF server experience is that the situation for the P47 pilot might be worse - a 109 makes a pass when he is at cruise at 5000 feet and the 109 is at max speed and already diving, and the P47 sees the 109 extend. In that situation the P47 should not be able to catch up.


Another thing to consider is the faster the Jug enters the dive the less the 109/190 has any inital advantge at the beginning of the dive.

Absolutely true.

On the zoom you may also be true, although it's not always clear where the zoom (P47 advantage) becomes sustained (109 advantage).

Aaron_GT
06-24-2005, 05:41 AM
or 190 might of had in the beginning of the dive changed rapidly after a couple of thousand feet as after this point the P47 out accelerated both these aircarft during the dive

I doubt it was as soon as 2000ft. If it was and the P47 was out accelerating the 190 from that early in the dive you'd probably expect it to overtake the 190 sooner than it did unless the 190 had opened a huge lead initially. If the 190 is capable of opening up a huge lead in only a 2000ft dive then it would give the 190 a huge tactical advantage as it would give enough space from the P47 to try all sorts of things.

Aaron_GT
06-24-2005, 05:43 AM
We can possibly estimate how quickly the P47 might accelerate the 190 using the game as a very rough guide by diving at the required angle and see how quickly the P47 reaches the maximum level speed at, say, 5000 feet. Not as good as a real live test, but we probably don't have any better data available.

Recon_609IAP
06-24-2005, 06:12 AM
thanks horseback.

I expect the initial gain by the lighter aircraft and then the higher speed produced by the p47.

WWMAxGunz - are you saying that this is incorrect or are you just making a math correction?

I haven't see you nor Aaron_GT agree with the above statement:

Is it not true that what he describes is accurate in so much that the lighter 109K would have an initial speed advantage, but the p47 would catch up and have more speed?

Let me know because right now I'm not sure I'm hearing you agree.

From my initial post to horseback remarks, I see in his post that which I expect to happen. I also don't think this is modelled after seeing BigKahuna discuss the dive of the p47 vs 109K4 - which I'd like to see more actual dive tests on this one.

Guess this post was moved to General Discussion though and I had hoped Oleg could shed light on this.

Thanks to everyone so far on their comments, if anything I've learned more about how these aircraft would behave in real life. Leadspitters post in those reports also described this behavior quite well - why is it these are quickly dismissed?

horseback
06-24-2005, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Excepts those facts are not entirely straight.

7000 feet altitude lost in 65 degree dive is not 7000 feet flown. Over 7800 feet.

Okay, add 10%. It's still a bit under 25 seconds.


Pullout was at 3000 feet altitude and the P-47 caught up with the FW at 3000 feet.
How to assume just what happened? Well, pick the best picture for results you want.

How much faster is "much faster"? Assume away. We don't have anything on the speeds
at the bottom of the dive. So let's imagine a margin and insist that until we see what
we imagined, the sim is wrong.

Okay, we know that starting at co-E, the FW can snap a half roll and be on his way down faster than the Jug. We'll be generous and allow him a 2 second lead -make it 800 feet. We also know that in initial accelleration in level flight, the FW can quickly build a 200 yd(600ft) lead before the Jug starts to close the gap, but in the gravity assisted context of a dive, the much heavier (and aerodynamically smoother) Jug should start to close that gap a bit sooner. (we know that it is aerodynamically smoother because even though the FW has better power to weight ratio, the Jug can out accellerate it to their respective top speeds) In any case, we'll cut that 600 ft lead in half, and add the 300 ft to the 800 ft lead we've already conceded, giving the FW a lead of 1100 feet, or a bit over 900m. So, while the FW travels some 6700ft (7800-1100) in time X, the P-47 travels the full 7800 feet in X + 2 seconds (that reaction time & roll advantage). I believe that we can agree that X is less than 23 seconds, so the P-47 is going at least 1.164 times as fast as the FW after traveling less than 3000m.


I had no idea that 1000's of German planes were lost diving away from P-47's. Source?

Of course I have no idea how many did but I really don't go along with "must be's" as
a way to say what happens.

I said "hundreds." In my language, that is 100s, not 1000s. LW fighter losses in the West and over Germany were several hundreds, even if we limit ourselves to German sources, and skip the usual 'American overclaiming' diversion. Since the P-47 was the most numerous escort type in the ETO for most of the '43 to '44 period, this particular scenario almost certainly played itself out for a significant portion of those losses. Hence, "hundreds." I don't consider it an unreasonable estimate.

Satisfied?

cheers

horseback

WWMaxGunz
06-24-2005, 11:57 AM
Yeah Recon, some math correction but mostly math clearing up. And some 'facts'.

We know that the Jug will close the initial lead in a 'test' where it went WEP and not the FW.
Just like in the 7,000 ft dive, we don't know just where the P-47 caught the FW but I am
guessing it was during the pullout since that is the bottom of the dive at 3,000 ft. During
the pullout the planes lose speed but from all I read, I think that the FW loses more especially
in the hands of a pilot not well trained with FW's. The difference in pullout angle was noted
on that page as well as the zoom climb.

The big problem with going off conclusions pages and like reports being that conditions are
about half or less specified. It took me reading an account of one pilot of the Farnsborough
comparisons to understand that while those papers noted the superior climb of the FW that it
was done at high speed set by the pilot of the FW rather than best climb of both. That was
a Spit V vs a FW (how that was run, etc, has been discussed to utter death) and the two pilots
knew each other well. The one who wrote the account said that the other guy was better for
the FW because he knew that was how the FW pilots flew, the FW had much more climb at high
speed (IIRC 250+ mph) than the Spit V, it's an excess power issue.

BUT you won't find that in the short report from the Farnsborough tests that's been circulated
and becomes "facts" meaning "the only facts" to those who want to push points and make it that
at all speeds the FW had superior climb. And we don't just get that with that paper but with
all kinds of short quotes, blurbs and everything that can be dug up and seperated if need be
by people who have an idea or impression they want to stack evidence up for and then take the
next step on that basis.

Let's say there's a dive of 20 seconds at 250 mph but it's going to be faster at the end.

Let's say that the end speed is 500 mph which for those planes is very fast indeed, especially
at under 10,000 feet.

And let's say the acceleration is even all the way through, though it is not. It will speed
up and then slow down both possibly?

How long? Aaron, how about some Newton's Laws of motion here?

If a P-47 in that situation takes 7,000 feet alt loss to catch the FW then how many P-47 fans
will still cry foul if they don't catch the FW withing 1,000 meters of dive? I believe the
answer is most of them figure 1,000 feet and I should have to slow down to stay behind him,
ie, no time at all just like the quote says.

Sorry if that wrankles anyone but this ain't cartoons or playtime. And the later FW's were
much better than the early and mid models that I don't see the blanket statements possibly
covering so much, they are not trump cards and have no magic.

P-47 may be smoother but it is also much bigger than FW and size counts with drag. How you
fly counts. Many things count.

I expect that with steep dives and distance the P-47's should make the catching up. The
distance needed will depend on the planes diving. But I don't know just how much speed
difference or how far to get that. Or what altitudes are best. It should do but not in
every case and the FW with much greater power to weight should have an advantage for a
while depending heavily on the start speed so running tests starting at 300 kph, it should
have a few extra seconds at least of pulling away.

In a straight dive you have forces of weight plus thrust against drag. I'd let Aaron deal
with the formulae since he's got the physics degree. It's been done here before by JaRa,
IIRC, when the "all dive the same" trueism was coined back a few years ago.

Hawgdog
06-24-2005, 12:08 PM
Eewww, long thread.
Anyone point out that the test planes gave the 190 gunpods? what pork to lug around

Aaron_GT
06-24-2005, 05:37 PM
I expect the initial gain by the lighter aircraft and then the higher speed produced by the p47.

Recon, that is what I have been saying, apart from more correctly saying the plane with the better excess power loading rather than necessarily the lighter one. At some altitudes the P47 at cruise may well have better excess power loading than a 109.

Aaron_GT
06-24-2005, 05:38 PM
How long? Aaron, how about some Newton's Laws of motion here?

I posted before on my lunch break with a sandwich in the other hand - no time to do any calculations then :-)

Aaron_GT
06-24-2005, 05:45 PM
How long? Aaron, how about some Newton's Laws of motion here?

I can make some guesses, but a full workup would need differential equations, Cd, etc. Given that we don't know the end velocities then it makes it pretty tricky!

WWMaxGunz
06-24-2005, 07:21 PM
How about simplify and state "without caring about how we get these values", if the
start speed is 250 and the final is 500 and it would take 20 seconds at 250 all the way,
then would it take 15 seconds if the end speed is 500?

T = something to do with V0*t + At^2/2, I'm a bit tired to play with the stuff and aching.

There's no way we're going to figure out what the real end speed was since there's too
much missing data, period. I just figured that faced with how even at optimistic estimates
the time to close doesn't suddenly vanish into "don't blink" that the worst expectations
can be thrown out is all.

Aaron_GT
06-25-2005, 02:13 AM
I played around with

a = gsinO + T/m - D/m

last night (O is standing in for theta)

At maximum level speed we also have T = D so

D is roughly proportional to v^2, i.e kv^2

So assuming max level speed at 10,000 feet is
400 mph we'd have T = k*177^2 or k ~= 0.00003T
(for both planes as a first approximation).

At cruise speed a = T/m - D/m or

ma = T(1 - 0.00003v^2) and if we assume cruise
is 250 mph,

ma = T(1-0.00003*111*111) = 0.61T

Mass of the P47D is 3200kg
Mass of the 190A is 6500kg

(Typical loaded weights - we don't know how they were loaded for the test)

But what is the level acceleration? If I can find out that I can determine T, and then plug values into the first equation and then simply solve numerically for s (distance travelled) with the boundary conditions of the length of the path (7000/(3.3*0.707))m assuming a 45 degree dive and the velocities (I'll assume 450mph for the Fw190A and 480mph for the P47D, or 200 and 213 m/s each).

Aaron_GT
06-25-2005, 02:14 AM
Oops masses are reversed

Aaron_GT
06-25-2005, 02:16 AM
P.S. the value of k should be different for the 190 and P47. I'd use Cd and the whetted area to work out what the relative values should be if I knew either value.

BigKahuna_GS
06-25-2005, 03:02 PM
S!



Aaron_GT Posted Fri June 24 2005 04:38 quote:
Some quotes were posted on the boards last year apparently from experten indicating that they felt they could outdive P47s in certain circumstances. What the circumstances were were not clear from the quotes, though.


I agree with this statement Aaron---because under the correct conditions a Japanese Zero could catch a F4U Corsair in a dive---but they would have to be "ideal" conditions and most probably a clean bounce was the initial factor.


Here is Robert S. Johnson again from Shaw's Fighter Combat Manuevering :


This actual combat example of the spiral-zoom technique is found in

Thunderbolt! by Major Robert S. Johnson.

Habit brought my head swiveling around to look behind me. I was just in time to see a Focke-Wulf bouncing, nose twinkling from the .30-calibers. My left hand slammed forward on the throttle, my right hand hauled back and left on the stick, my heart went to the top of my head and the Thunderbolt leaped upward. I racked the Jug into a tight left climbing turn, staying just above and in front of the pursuing Focke-Wulf. . . . To get any strikes on me the [German] first had to turn inside me, and then haul his nose up steeply to place his bullets ahead of me. The Focke-Wulf just didn't have it. At 8,000 feet he stalled out while the Thunderbolt roared smoothly; I kicked over into a roll and locked onto his tail.1

Shaw's Fighter Combat Manuevering p.121


Ok the given speed, energy and altitude of each fighter is not given in this combat encounter. But I would think it's safe to say that since the Fock Wolk had the intial bounce-that the FW most likely had a good amount of speed and energy going for it.

Mass and energy are not well played out in AEP/PF--something the P47 should be a master of here and it does not have it's historical attributes.

Maxguns--I respect your opinon--can you fix your posting style so that the lines are not all staggard and random--very difficult to read mate. Also max there are literaly hundreds of combat reports from P47 pilots saying the same thing---nothing could stay with us in a dive.

See Rall on that one.



_____

Xiolablu3
06-25-2005, 10:55 PM
You have to realise that the P47 was VERY heavy and that it will not keep up with the lighter fighters in a turn or climb.

It MAY match them in a Dive but remember that weight does not affect how fast something drops.

Drop a golf ball and a lump of iron shaped the same from the Eiffel tower and, if there is no wind, they will drop at the same speed.

Also, everyone knows the FW190 isnt a turner so saying the P47 will turn better than a FW190 really isnt that surprising.

Zacast
06-25-2005, 11:47 PM
It MAY match them in a Dive but remember that weight does not affect how fast something drops.

Drop a golf ball and a lump of iron shaped the same from the Eiffel tower and, if there is no wind, they will drop at the same speed.

That's if there is no wind. When two planes are diving, aerodynamic forces (wind, friction) are acting upon the planes, so weight *is* a factor in dive acceleration.

More mass = more inertia = more resistance to the forces that act upon planes as they dive. When something weighs twice as much as another identically shaped object, then it will be more able to resist the force being applied to it by air-resistance/friction more than the less-dense/massive object.

So, at low speeds, the lighter object accelerates quicker due to there being less inertia. As speeds go up though (and aerodynamic forces acting upon the planse increase), the heavier object will be less effected by air resistance and will thus quickly outpace the lighter object *and* reach a higher terminal velocity.

Climb isn't quite that simple.

In *zoom climbs* a heavier object can have an advantage initially as it's momentum carries it upward. As the planes slow down though, the thrust to weight ratio of the ligher object can ultimately give it the advantage in the climb.

I think that last part is very nicely illustrated in Robert Johnson's book when he talks about his "combat" with a spitfire. When he tried to out zoom the spit he initially left him behind rahter quickly, but when he started to slow down the spit quickly caught him and got above him in the zoom.

Skalgrim
06-26-2005, 01:54 AM
43 was main opponent from the p47 a4 with 1,42ata

a6 and a5 has higher ata, and therfore too better accelerate dive accelerate and zoomclimb as the a4

test p47 again a4



Originally posted by Joilet_Xray:
~S!

Recon I enjoyed flying with you and Rel and Bogun last night.

I wondered what happened to the '47, couldn't out dive nor out zoom the A6 anymore. In 3.04 I'd regularly out dive all messrs and Fws if I had enough vertical space..... and out zoom with right timing.....

It maybe headed for the hanger.

BPO5_Jinx
http://www.soaridaho.com/schreder/rs-15/n50gl.html

Skalgrim
06-26-2005, 02:15 AM
never read 190 outzoom 109

1942 190 had outzoom and outdive spit, but 109 too






Originally posted by Fehler:
Yuck.. what happened to the P-47? After reading this thread, I went to go fly it offline. The new FM has not been good to it. And it seems, once again, there is too much parity in dives from aircraft to aircraft. I certainly hope Oleg looks at this plane again, it was one of my favorite to fly when forced to fly red.

I wish I had the time all of you do to test and test and test.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif But my "Feelings" that I get from QMB are spot on with Buzzsaw's here.

I allowed a G-6, late to get on my tail and dove for the dirt from 5k. When I was humming along (800'ish) I pulled up into a zoom. I didnt yank the stick to bleed E, I went into a gentle zoom (I fly 190's, so I know how to do this with minimal E loss) When I was at the apex of the zoom, I looked back and the 109 was still there... Should that be close to correct? Don't think so... Try it yourself, you will see.

Skalgrim
06-26-2005, 02:22 AM
dive from 8000m to 6000m

sure p47 looking than much better at zoomclimb

probable the most account from p47 superior zoomclimb came from those altitude



Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Ok I also made a test but on lower altitude.

I compared the dive and almost vertical zoomclimb on p47-D10 and the later p47 D-27 and compared with a 1944 bf 109G6 AS.

--------------------------------------------
I dove from 2000m from 400km/h initial speed and climbed almost vertically back up to 2000m and checked the speed when i passed 2000m.


The p47 D10 (1943) reached 740km/h at the deck and climbed and passed 2000m with 230km/h.

P47 D-27 (1944) reached 760km/h at the deck and climbed and passed 2000m with 260km/h.

The bf109 G6 AS(1944) reached 740km/h at the deck and climbed and passed 2000m with 220km/h.


The early p47 did as well as a late 1944 bf109
and the late p47 outdived the messer with 20km/h and outclimbed it and exited at 2000m 40km/h faster.

Pretty good to be from 2000m I think.
I wouldn't expect the p47 to outclimb a late 109
with much bigger marginal than that.

Cajun76
06-26-2005, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You have to realise that the P47 was VERY heavy and that it will not keep up with the lighter fighters in a turn or climb.

It MAY match them in a Dive but remember that weight does not affect how fast something drops.

Drop a golf ball and a lump of iron shaped the same from the Eiffel tower and, if there is no wind, they will drop at the same speed.

Also, everyone knows the FW190 isnt a turner so saying the P47 will turn better than a FW190 really isnt that surprising.

That would be "no air", not no wind. Accelerating @ 9.8 m/s, air resistence would start to affect the golf ball sooner. The analogy your looking for is the Eiffel Tower, on the moon, where there is virtually no atmosphere.

In fact, one of the Apollo missions used part of thier payload limit to carry a hammer and a feather to the moon to drop them at the same time, and demonstrate that the acceleration of gravity, independent of other factors like drag is the same for two objects of different mass.

Take 2 sheets of paper, make one into a ball and hold the other flat, horizontal to the ground and drop them. Physics fun at home. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fun for your friends: Ask them which has more weight, a ton of wet feathers or a ton of iron ore. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
06-26-2005, 01:03 PM
S!




quote:
Originally posted by Fehler:
Yuck.. what happened to the P-47? After reading this thread, I went to go fly it offline. The new FM has not been good to it. And it seems, once again, there is too much parity in dives from aircraft to aircraft. I certainly hope Oleg looks at this plane again, it was one of my favorite to fly when forced to fly red.

I wish I had the time all of you do to test and test and test.. But my "Feelings" that I get from QMB are spot on with Buzzsaw's here.

I allowed a G-6, late to get on my tail and dove for the dirt from 5k. When I was humming along (800'ish) I pulled up into a zoom. I didnt yank the stick to bleed E, I went into a gentle zoom (I fly 190's, so I know how to do this with minimal E loss) When I was at the apex of the zoom, I looked back and the 109 was still there... Should that be close to correct? Don't think so... Try it yourself, you will see.



Thank you Fehler http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's good to hear an objective evaluation from an axis pilot.

The P47's greater mass + speed into the dive would create more inertia into the vertical.

It would be like this according to Robert S. Johnson:
The Focke-Wulf just didn't have it. At 8,000 feet he stalled out while the Thunderbolt roared smoothly; I kicked over into a roll and locked onto his tail.1


__

mynameisroland
06-26-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Skalgrim:
43 was main opponent from the p47 a4 with 1,42ata

a6 and a5 has higher ata, and therfore too better accelerate dive accelerate and zoomclimb as the a4

test p47 again a4


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Joilet_Xray:
~S!

Recon I enjoyed flying with you and Rel and Bogun last night.

I wondered what happened to the '47, couldn't out dive nor out zoom the A6 anymore. In 3.04 I'd regularly out dive all messrs and Fws if I had enough vertical space..... and out zoom with right timing.....

It maybe headed for the hanger.

BPO5_Jinx
http://www.soaridaho.com/schreder/rs-15/n50gl.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is we dont get to fly the Fw 190 A4 with 1.42 ata we get to fly it with 1.35 ata as that was the derated version that fought on the Eastern front.

Diablo310th
06-26-2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Diablo: Have some hope. I was there on the frontlines when we got the roll rate issue (back in 1.01) solved so there is hope for the P-47 yet. Its been through alot. The DM was far worse when AEP came out...

There are so many DM issues right now that I think we'll see something come down the pipeline to fix them. What needs to be done now, like any time, is to document with tracks and game data.

Hey IceFire...yeah i know. I need to keep the faith a little better. Like you I've been with teh jug since day one. I'm not sure I've seen the DM worse but we sure ahve been thru worse days with her. I didn't realize tehre were so many other DM issues. I have had very limited flying time with the new patch. I would jsut liek to see a Jug properly modeled so it stands a fair chance. ~S~