PDA

View Full Version : The Spitfire won the war... but here is some info on the P-47!



MEGILE
09-28-2004, 10:10 AM
Here are 12 reasons by Lt. Collins, a fighter pilot in the 35thFG who flew both P-51s and P-47s, stating why he preferred the P-47 over the P-51 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Interesting stuff.


1. The Republic Thunderbolt had a radial engine that could take hits and keep on running. I know of an actual case where a Jug brought a pilot back from Borneo after 8 hours in the air. The pilot landed with the master cylinder and three other cylinders blown out of commission. But the Jug kept chugging along, running well enough to bring its pilot back safely to his base at Morotai. I was there.

2. The Jug's radial engine was air cooled, instead of liquid cooled with a radiator system, like the Mustang's V-12. This is significant because one small caliber hit on an aluminum cooling line in a Mustang would let the coolant leak out, and when the coolant was gone, the engine seized, and the show was over.

I took a small caliber hit in a coolant tube over Formosa (Taiwan). When I landed back at base, my crew chief said, "Lieutenant, did you know you got hit?" I replied, "No." He continued, "You took a small caliber shell in the coolant tube on the right side of the engine. I'd give you between 10 and 15 minutes flying time remaining." I had just flown from Formosa, over nothing but the Pacific Ocean, to our fighter strip on Okinawa.

3. The P-47 could fly higher than the P-51. With its huge turbocharger, it could climb to over 40,000 feet. You could just look down at your enemy in a stall and smile.

4. The Jug could out dive the Mustang. As a matter of fact, it could out dive any enemy fighter, and at 7.5 tons loaded, it dove fast! I have personally been in a dive at what we called the "state of compressibility," at nearly 700 mph indicated air speed. I was scared to death, but with a tiny bit of throttle, I pulled it out at about 2,000-foot altitude, literally screaming through the sky.

5. The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six. That's 33 1/3% more firepower. This made a major difference.

6. The later model Thunderbolt's could carry and deliver 2,500 pounds of bombs. (One 1,000-lb. bomb on each wing, and one 500 lb. bomb under the belly.) This was a maximum load and you had to use water injection to get airborne. But it would do this with sufficient runway. I have done this myself.

In addition to being a first class fighter, it was also a superb fighter-bomber and ground level strafer. Jugs practically wiped out the German and Italian railroads. I have strafed Japanese trains, troops, ships, gunboats, warships, airfields, ammo dumps, hangers, antiaircraft installations, you name it. I felt secure in my P-47.

7. The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction. One example was the throttle arm. You can see the difference. What does all this mean? The safety of the fighter pilot.

8. The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom. You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen.

9. The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit. In my Mustang, my shoulders almost scraped the sides on the right and left. I was cramped in with all my "gear." I could not move around like I could in the P-47. I found the ability to move a little bit very desirable, especially on seven and eight hour missions.

10. The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection. That's close to twice the power.

11. The Jug had a very wide landing gear. This made it easy to land just about anywhere, with no tendency to ground loop. Many times we had to land on rice paddies and irregular ground. When you set the Thunderbolt down, it was down. In the Far East, England, Africa, and Italy, this helped you get down and walk away from it. To me, that was very important for the safety of the pilot.

12. The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is remarkable. The ratio of kills to losses was unmistakably a winner. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and 160,000 vehicles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Chuck_Older
09-28-2004, 10:27 AM
Looey Collins is a bit forgetful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

1) Master Cylinder? I took aeronautical engineering at University and I don't recall a master cylinder in an air cooled engine. I have drank a lot of alcohol since then, though

2) Rule #1: Don't Get Shot

3) Which model P-47 vs which model P-51?

4) Common knowledge, nuthin out dives a Jug

5) 4 guns was enough for Gentile...

6) P-51s would be better as escorts, P-47s would be better as ground pounders. I'd say this one is apples and oranges

7) Light weight = performance and range

8) Lt. Collins forgot his training, I think. In a water landing, you came in on a gentle flat turn in a P-51, so one wingtip hit the water first. Then you kicked over the rudder to that side, you didn't come in straight and flat

9) How big was the Lieutenant? Overall, most called the P-51 cockpit 'snug', but almost never 'cramped'. Collins must have been a big guy.

10) The Mustang was both lighter and more aerodynamic than the Tbolt. This is simple physics- a lighter vehicle with better aero can be faster with less power, than a high power, heavy vehicle shaped like a brick

11) P-51 also had relatively widely spaced gear. I note that Lt. Collins didn't contrast the P-51's gear to the P-47s.

12) I would like to see comparitive hours in combat, P-47 versus P-51, and what the circumstances were, before I could even comment

13) Lt. Collins did his duty well, and I thank him. But the C-47 won the war.

geetarman
09-28-2004, 10:28 AM
Nice account from an obvious Jug lover http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Most having to deal with durability and comfort. Doesn't say which plane he would prefer being in if jumped by a couple of Franks and had to fight his way out.

But hell ,I'm a P-38 fan anyway.

RedDeth
09-28-2004, 01:52 PM
bump

DIRTY-MAC
09-28-2004, 02:13 PM
lol "won the war" nah! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

MEGILE
09-28-2004, 02:26 PM
Infact Lt. Collins gave this account in response to a published book which stated that the P-15 was the better airplane.. but at the end of the day.. the SpitXIV won the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Its just something I knew would interest a few of the P51 .vs P47 crowd.

VW-IceFire
09-28-2004, 03:10 PM
Its a great list...I think this really comes down to pilot preference. You'll look at the two opposing lists presented here and they both have valid arguments.

There's reasons for liking the Mustang, reasons for the Thunderbolt...depends on which matter more to you as a pilot. In our limited experience, we see plenty more Mustang drivers...but I've come to respect the Jug ALOT recently...having seen a very small number of well flown Jugs showing up again.

Cmte. Carvalho
09-28-2004, 04:28 PM
I'm also a jug lover and i believe that one of the most good things while flying a Thunderbolt is when you win a dogfight against a smaller and more maneuverable airplane... It's wonderful... Cheers to all jug flyers and lovers!

RocketRobin__
09-28-2004, 04:45 PM
[QUOTE]
1) Master Cylinder? I took aeronautical engineering at University and I don't recall a master cylinder in an air cooled engine. I have drank a lot of alcohol since then, though
[QUOTE]

Here ya go Einstoned ;-)
http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/aero_engines/R-2800_1.htm
The master cylinder in this case would be cylinder #8.

Maple_Tiger
09-28-2004, 05:00 PM
I love the P-47 to. However, I sill like the P-51 and P-38.

I honestly can not choose one that is my favorite lol.

All three have advantages that I like.

Copperhead310th
09-28-2004, 05:21 PM
Virtual P-47 Pilots Association (http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/index.php?showforum=25)
Kind of an idea i had. i thought it would be nice to have our own forum for P:-47's virtual pilots to gather and mingle. share idea's and information about our beloved Thunderbolt. and basilcally chew the fat on all things JUG.
enjoy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Copper'

Snyde-Dastardly
09-28-2004, 05:54 PM
I love the 51 and 38 as well, but it seems the Jug always get me home! The 8 50s dont hurt either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Chuck_Older
09-28-2004, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
[QUOTE]
1) Master Cylinder? I took aeronautical engineering at University and I don't recall a master cylinder in an air cooled engine. I have drank a lot of alcohol since then, though
[QUOTE]

Here ya go Einstoned ;-)
http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/aero_engines/R-2800_1.htm
The master cylinder in this case would be cylinder #8. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I shoulda went to class that day

What about the others?

RocketRobin__
09-28-2004, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
[QUOTE]
1) Master Cylinder? I took aeronautical engineering at University and I don't recall a master cylinder in an air cooled engine. I have drank a lot of alcohol since then, though
[QUOTE]

Here ya go Einstoned ;-)
http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/aero_engines/R-2800_1.htm
The master cylinder in this case would be cylinder #8. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I shoulda went to class that day

What about the others? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, I don't usually respond to posts that I've made (flame wars are non-productive).

If you want to go off the deep end:

On point #10, I suggest that given the maximum speed/motor HP rating/gross weight that the Jug is, in fact, more aerodynamic than the Mustang, at all sub-sonic speeds.

If you have an old copy of Eschbach (circa 1957 or older), the reasons why powerful propeller driven aeroplanes can operate without a "streamined" nose, or spinner will become immediately clear.
If you only have the 1987 version, it might take you several more weeks of calculations...

If so, I await your mathematic results.

Personally, the Jug is my favorite plane.
Claims that the jug "Won the war" are far fetched. However, it is not inconcievable that the Jug helped to kill the 'best of the best' of the Luftwaffe, thus paving the road for the P51 and other planes.

The reason why the Jug was removed from frontline service was due to spiralling US defence costs (Jug = $100,000/copy, Stang = 25,000/copy) that went over a trillion dollars in 1945.

Note: some folks won't blink at a trillion dollars, but in 1945 it was quite significant.
All things considered, I don't think US war spending has ever reached that level.

From here, we will find ill concieved, opinionated argument with illogically supportive data, and I will avoid this.

I leave the fact that the only US fighter group that was allowed option of taking/or leaving Jugs, due to their service record, stuck with Jugs.

For me, it's the titanium cockpit. If I was going into battle, that's a confidence builder.

IMO, I don't fly the Jug in this game because the roll rates and other flight characteristics are incorrect.

Now, you have the tools to form an unique opinion. Or, you can just beak off.

I will not respond to this post. My personal reseach is complete.

MK2aw
09-28-2004, 09:55 PM
Ok I have been playing battle over Europe for 3 months. In this game, at least, the P-47 is the better fighter. I get more kills and survive more missions with the Jug than I do with the P-51.

The Jug turns great, has extra ammo and can take a pounding.

And by the way, I am a huge P-51 fan.The biggest advantage the Mustang had, long range, is not modeled in this game. Other than that (Range was HUGE in WW2 but not in IL2)the Jug has the P-51 beat.

Mk2aw

Eagle_361st
09-28-2004, 10:02 PM
See the truth shall be known, even Oleg agrees.

Copperhead310th
09-28-2004, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
See the truth shall be known, even Oleg agrees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where exactly did oleg say this Eagle?
While will NOT aregue the point with Oleg...
and whole heartedly agree with him....i must have missed that some where.

Eagle_361st
09-28-2004, 10:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
See the truth shall be known, even Oleg agrees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where exactly did oleg say this Eagle?
While will NOT aregue the point with Oleg...
and whole heartedly agree with him....i must have missed that some where. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I was talking to him on the phone last week, he told me this. He got tired of me emailing him about roll-rate and .50 cal dispersion, so he asked for me to call him.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Copperhead310th
09-28-2004, 10:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
See the truth shall be known, even Oleg agrees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where exactly did oleg say this Eagle?
While will NOT aregue the point with Oleg...
and whole heartedly agree with him....i must have missed that some where. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I was talking to him on the phone last week, he told me this. He got tired of me emailing him about roll-rate and .50 cal dispersion, so he asked for me to call him.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<span class="ev_code_RED">Surely you jest?!?</span>

Eagle_361st
09-28-2004, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
See the truth shall be known, even Oleg agrees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where exactly did oleg say this Eagle?
While will NOT aregue the point with Oleg...
and whole heartedly agree with him....i must have missed that some where. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I was talking to him on the phone last week, he told me this. He got tired of me emailing him about roll-rate and .50 cal dispersion, so he asked for me to call him.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<span class="ev_code_RED">Surely you jest?!?</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. My sig is a play on irony. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VFA-195 Snacky
09-28-2004, 11:24 PM
I think people really underestimate how good the P38 really was. If you base your opinions on what you see in IL2FB2.04 then obviousely the P38 would not rank that high on the list. It has many problems in the game and is not the feared plane it should be.
Ironically this was written by a P47 pilot.

"It was a marveleous aircraft! It was the best aircraft I flew in the war by far. I never flew the P-51, its been one of my life regrets, but I flew just about everything else there was. I liked the P-38s rate of climb, its speed, the way it handled, and its firepower directly out the nose. The P-38 would turn with almost anything, in fact it would out turn the P-47, out climb it, and out maneuver it. The P-38 was one of the great aircraft of WWII."...Charles MacDonald, P-38 Ace

Eagle_361st
09-28-2004, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
I think people really underestimate how good the P38 really was. If you base your opinions on what you see in IL2FB2.04 then obviousely the P38 would not rank that high on the list. It has many problems in the game and is not the feared plane it should be.
Ironically this was written by a P47 pilot.

"It was a marveleous aircraft! It was the best aircraft I flew in the war by far. I never flew the P-51, its been one of my life regrets, but I flew just about everything else there was. I liked the P-38s rate of climb, its speed, the way it handled, and its firepower directly out the nose. The P-38 would turn with almost anything, in fact it would out turn the P-47, out climb it, and out maneuver it. The P-38 was one of the great aircraft of WWII."...Charles MacDonald, P-38 Ace <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree the P-38 was a fantastic aircraft as well. Hopefully it will be fixed as the Jug has been. But it will take the dedication of those knowledgeable and ones that care about it's true performance to get it done. It took us a very long time with countless emails and threads to get the Jug fixed. The P-38 is my second choice for aircraft, but I have always been devoted to the Jug(even in CFS1 ewwwwwwwwww).

WUAF_Badsight
09-29-2004, 06:10 AM
LOL @ Copper taking Eagle seriously . . . . (buwhahahahaha)

& what Chuck Older said first . . . you wont get it plainer than that

Biloxi72
09-29-2004, 07:10 AM
BAH CORSAIR WON THE PACIFIC WAR!
Corsair had same engine as the jug, just as rugged. Could fly just as far and carry just as much as the Jug. It was more manuverable then both the jug and the p38 and had better climb rate then the jug. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

I will not take away anything from the Jug, it is a great plane. But give me the corsair cuz it can ground pound AND was a better dogfighter then the jug IMO.

Meg you can se such the troll LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gifS!

JG53Frankyboy
09-29-2004, 07:18 AM
well, Charles MacDonald was a a pacific Ace.
there realy the P-38 brought havoc to the japanese ! just keep speed high and use the concentrated armement to blow the enemy out of the sky.
also with its fantastic range, espacially after Lindbergh showed up , it could be everywhere. fuel ore better range was eminent in the pacifc USAAF fighter war.

Chuck_Older
09-29-2004, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketRobin__:

A lot of stuff that seems like you have a real personal problem with me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF? I forget something I should have remembered from 13 years ago, you call me on it, I acknowledge my memory was lacking in a non-confrontational way, and ask what you think of my other points, and I get this ration?

Mathematical results...for what? Are you seriously telling me that light weight and aerodynamics have no place in this argument?

By the way, I never mentioned the Mustang's inline engine or nose as being the telling factor in aerodynamics. That is your assumption. As I am sure you know, aerodynamics has more to it than just the nose of the plane. And no, I am not going to say "laminar flow wing" because you and I both know the P-51 didn't have a true laminar flow wing and really wasn't even that close to true laminar flow. My understanding is that the shape of the P-51 is more efficient than the P-47's. I have not been involved in studying aerodynamics or any other part of aeronautics for some time- as you may gather from my previous mistake. But I am not going to sit here and give you formulae to prove my points. If I am mistaken, that's one thing, but here you are challenging me to prove it to you. I guess you never heard of 'discussion' before. Your concern is being Right and proving me Wrong. Also, I seem to be the only one in the world who can make a mistake and admit it. I assume you have never made one.

You mention a lot of costs for the cause of the Tbolt's fall from the spotlight as a front line fighter...and you never mention the fact that inline engines had a reputation for better performance, as ill-conceived as that reputation was. The logic of the time was: "Inline is best", and that logic came from combat experience in Europe. I'm not saying it's the right conclusion, you may note.

As far as spinners go, didn't Focke-Wulf spend a lot of time on spinner design for the 190? I'm sure they, too, knew much more about aircraft and design than me.

In closing, I really can't understand your shooting from the hip so broadly in response to me. I could have taken offense at you from the git-go, from the Einstoned comment, but I thought we were having a friendly little chat. I see instead we are in fierce competition. Congratulations, you win.

JG53Frankyboy
09-29-2004, 09:36 AM
i wish we would have the ,so called in game,additional ammo as standart loadout for the brownings.

a P-47 should realy be able to carry such a weight when carring "only" some fuselage droptank/bomb . when fullloaded with bombs and rockets, the ammo load could be reduced.

Old_Canuck
09-29-2004, 11:34 AM
Nobody won the war. The war continues.

It just morphed into another form and hid itself behind balaclavas.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000AWHAA.01-A1V1Z4BJNVFJUK._PE25_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

MEGILE
09-29-2004, 01:16 PM
LOL Canuck! Nice balaclava..

The P-51 and P-47 are my main rides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rufshod..the P-47 pwnz teh Corsair.. and here is why.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P-47M - The 2,800hp R-2800-57 engine gave a top speed of 473mph at 32,500 feet. (Can you say.. BLOODY FAST?!?!)

P-47N - The R-2800-77 gave a top speed of 467mph at 32,500 feet.

F4U-4 Corsair - The R2800-18W gave a top speed of 446 mph at 26,200 ft.

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

TX-WarHawk
09-29-2004, 01:46 PM
It's not the engine, it's the dude on the pilot's seat that can pwnz0r the enemy...

MEGILE
09-29-2004, 02:04 PM
Quite right WarHawk.. but just stick with the irony http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hades_Dragon
09-29-2004, 02:07 PM
While were on the subject of the super models, the F2G had a 3,000 HP engine, top speed in excess of of 450 MPH and could climb to 30,000 feet in 4 minutes. Though the war ended so the contract was cancled and it didn't see miliary service.

grist
09-29-2004, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hades_Dragon:
While were on the subject of the super models, the F2G had a 3,000 HP engine, top speed in excess of of 450 MPH and could climb to 30,000 feet in 4 minutes. Though the war ended so the contract was cancled and it didn't see miliary service. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-47 super model was the XP-72.

Specification of Republic XP-72:

Powerplant: One 3450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major air-cooled radial engine. Performance: Maximum speed was 490 mph at 25,000 feet. Normal range was 1200 miles at 300 mph and maximum range was 2520 miles at 315 mph with two 125 Imp. gall. drop tanks. Initial climb rate was 5280 feet per minute, and climb rate at 25,000 feet was 3550 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 3.5 minutes, 20,000 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. Weights were 11,476 pounds empty, 14,433 pounds normal loaded, 17,490 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 40 feet 11 inches, length 36 feet 7 inches, height 16 feet 0 inches, and wing area 300 square feet.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p72.html

Biloxi72
09-29-2004, 08:26 PM
S!
Hmmm just one question Megs was the p47 that fast at low altitudes where it was supposed to be ground pounding? Last i knew there were no Japanese tanks at 30 thousand feet. So would not that top speed at that height be of no value near the ground? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif Cuz your jug cant get that fast until that height. So that means the corsair will be faster then the jug at lower levels? HMMM Discuss

Hades_Dragon
09-29-2004, 09:26 PM
The Corsair performed very well at low to medium altitudes and was a few MPH faster than the Jug and matched the Mustang as well. Not to mention is was also more manuverable than both of these planes at this altitude.

RedDeth
09-29-2004, 09:44 PM
THAT late model 490 mph jug would have walked all over every other prop plane made. and thats before the mechanics boosted it more...it woulda done over 500 in the field.

nothing could touch that plane

WUAF_Badsight
09-29-2004, 10:36 PM
im pretty sure the Do-335 had the N Jug beat hands down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

chris455
09-29-2004, 10:38 PM
QUOTE]im pretty sure the Do-335 had the N Jug beat hands down [/QUOTE]

Don't be so sure.

For that statement to be provable, the Pfeil
would at least have had to make it into production.
(hint: it didn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif Too many Jugs down low blasting the shyte out of the Reich and it's weird, wacky wunderwaffen.

too bad, so sad-

Touche!

PraetorHonoris
09-29-2004, 11:46 PM
The Do335 was in production, but had a low priority due to the jet production and the J√¬§gernotprogramm. Moreover Daimler-Benz had problems to deliver the engines.
In Total 37 Do335 were produced, 10 Do335 A0 ("A0" = pre serial production aircraft) operated already in September 44 with the Erprobungskommando 335.
At the same time, the first Do335 A1 from serial production was presented in Oberpfaffenhofen, where the Do335 were produced.
When US-troops reached the fabric later they found 9 A1, 4 A2, 2 A12.
70 other Do335 were waiting for the final assembly.

Finally we will get the Do335 in Il2 soon and see how God's own planes will perform against the Anteater. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Eagle_361st
09-29-2004, 11:55 PM
And he shall be struck down and cast away by the mighty Thunderbolt.

Giganoni
09-30-2004, 12:19 AM
And the mighty Thunderbolt shall be struck down with my Demon! Oh..wait...no shoki for PF, so I suppose I'll use..um, hmm. Well, at least I know the H8k2 has more firepower than the P-47 now I just need to figure out how to get all those guns in the nose..yeah.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2004, 03:58 AM
Chuck Older wrote:
"4) Common knowledge, nuthin out dives a Jug"

Apart from the Tempest V and Meteor in WW2, apparently.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2004, 04:02 AM
"7. The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction. One example was the throttle arm. You can see the difference. What does all this mean? The safety of the fighter pilot.

8. The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom. You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen.

9. The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit. In my Mustang, my shoulders almost scraped the sides on the right and left. I was cramped in with all my "gear." I could not move around like I could in the P-47. I found the ability to move a little bit very desirable, especially on seven and eight hour missions.

10. The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection. That's close to twice the power."

7. Larger, and more expensive and requiring more strategic materials to built, which is why post war the P47 was taken out of service with the P51 remaining.

8. The scoop was towards the rear of the plane on the P51 so would be likely to pull the plane nose UP not down.

10. See 7 - P47 bigger.

MEGILE
09-30-2004, 04:04 AM
Thanks for the info Grist.. man that thing would have been freakin beast.

Quite right Rufshod it achievs its maximum speed at a higher altitude no doubt... you can have your lower alt speed advantage. I'll be up high escorting the B-17s and in the words of Lt. Collins I will "look down at your enemy in a stall and smile" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'm not a much of a fighter-bomber guy, and I'll only do it when I have to... the rest of the time I'm up high wondering why I wasn't issued a space suite http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

If I wanted to go down low and fast... 1 word.. Tempest

Maple_Tiger
09-30-2004, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grist:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hades_Dragon:
While were on the subject of the super models, the F2G had a 3,000 HP engine, top speed in excess of of 450 MPH and could climb to 30,000 feet in 4 minutes. Though the war ended so the contract was cancled and it didn't see miliary service. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-47 super model was the XP-72.

Specification of Republic XP-72:

Powerplant: One 3450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major air-cooled radial engine. Performance: Maximum speed was 490 mph at 25,000 feet. Normal range was 1200 miles at 300 mph and maximum range was 2520 miles at 315 mph with two 125 Imp. gall. drop tanks. Initial climb rate was 5280 feet per minute, and climb rate at 25,000 feet was 3550 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 3.5 minutes, 20,000 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. Weights were 11,476 pounds empty, 14,433 pounds normal loaded, 17,490 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 40 feet 11 inches, length 36 feet 7 inches, height 16 feet 0 inches, and wing area 300 square feet.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p72.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Since we have BF109Z, you think Oleg would model in the XP-72?

Maple_Tiger
09-30-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
im pretty sure the Do-335 had the N Jug beat hands down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Lmao.

MEGILE
09-30-2004, 07:28 AM
I changed my mind, the Spitfire MK.22 won the war.. all 272 of them.

and best of all..it's coming http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Biloxi72
09-30-2004, 09:52 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Hehe Megs I was wondering when some National pride would sneak in here! Where did you hear about this new spit? Or have i just not read all of the allied plane list?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

MEGILE
09-30-2004, 11:33 AM
Some dude named Biggs is making it, but it won't be released with Pacific Fighters.. infact I don't think the MK 22 saw combat in the pacific, but it will do well in Europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

At the moment it seems the modeller is having problems making the british gyro gun sight used in the mk 22..but it should eventually get in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

biggs222
09-30-2004, 12:00 PM
thats right he is workign on it....and its gonna be a monster.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
oh and im not the "Biggs" hes talkign about... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mortoma
09-30-2004, 01:20 PM
Real life is one thing, the game is another. But the Jug does great in the game. I have only been shot down by an AI aircraft once in all my many offline campaigns in the Jug. And strangely enough, it was a Finnish Morane 406 that shot me down!!! How do you like them apples?? The little sucker managed to sneak up on me and saw my right wing clean off. But a Morane of all things??? Jeessh!!!

MEGILE
09-30-2004, 01:28 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif mortoma... the germans can throw mk108s into you, the jug sucks it up.. hehe but go up against a morane 406, and you're toast! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

MEGILE
09-30-2004, 01:40 PM
Attention!

Your base is under attack, multiple bandits inbound and YOU are the only pilot left.... which one do you choose?

http://img9.exs.cx/img9/8273/big42.jpg

Smokey669
09-30-2004, 01:42 PM
Planes that won World War 2:
IL-2 Sturmovik
Yak-9
La-5FN
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Lightning
Spitfire
Hurricane
Typhoon & Tempest
B-17
B-24
B-25
A-20
A-26
B-26
Lancaster, Halifax
Mosquito
C-47 Dakota

And on the ground
T-34 and all Allied troops

WOLFMondo
09-30-2004, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Attention!

Your base is under attack, multiple bandits inbound and YOU are the only pilot left.... which one do you choose?

http://img9.exs.cx/img9/8273/big42.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What! Where! Height? speed? Type? bearing? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Put a Tempest II in there and I'll let you know which one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSS_Goat
09-30-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Attention!
Your base is under attack, multiple bandits inbound and YOU are the only pilot left.... which one do you choose?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd choose the one that had a reverse, so I could turn it around. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
09-30-2004, 01:51 PM
LOL goat I was waiting for someone to make a joke of that!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Mondo my thoughts exactly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Smokey669
09-30-2004, 02:11 PM
Attention!

Your base is under attack, multiple bandits inbound and YOU are the only pilot left.... which one do you choose?

P-51: Good performance and decent maneurverability
P-47: Good performance and good firepower
P-38: Good performance, good turning ability, poor roll rate, guns in nose=no converging of guns
Corsair: Good performance, what was handling like?

Cajun76
09-30-2004, 02:35 PM
Someone help me, I'm trying to find a single engined aircraft that can fly over 2,300 miles, have a top speed of at least 467mph, carry 2,500lbs. of bombs and heavy armament like 10 HVARS and 8 X .50cal HMGs and was produced and saw action in significant numbers in WWII, say at least 1000 examples. Find me a single a/c, no special versions or Mks, that exceed these numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif P-47N http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

biggs222
09-30-2004, 02:45 PM
Megile where are u getign these shots?.....and next time show us the mkVIII....id rather have that plane then any of the 4 there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

MEGILE
09-30-2004, 02:50 PM
Hmmm its a hard decision.. but lets assume the bandits are a flight of zeros coming in at low altitude... my first concern would be for the plane which could climb the fastest at low altitudes.... so It would be between the P-38 and Corsair I think..

You could use all to extend and climb.. but thats not good when your base is being attacked by the enemy, and you are the last line of defence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

biggs222
09-30-2004, 05:52 PM
well if u think about it...in that situation u want the plane with good climb, right?...well the mkVIII has the smae climb if not better then the mkIX in AEP. and it is the most nimble of the 4 planes u have in that pic.

Id still go with the Spitfire mkVIII in that situation.

MEGILE
09-30-2004, 06:08 PM
MKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMK VIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIIIMKVIII

There is no MKVIII in the pic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif hehe but I understand...
If we are talking Hypothetical... I'd still go with the Tempest... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Screw "nimble"... nothing is "nimble" compared to the Zero unless its a bi-plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

but out of those 4 I think it would have to be the Corsair.. (Rufshod made me say it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

biggs222
09-30-2004, 06:42 PM
well if u read my other post u see that i was hinting on you putting the mkVIII in the pic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and i said nimble compaired to the 4 planes in your pic! not the Zero...silly billy

btw....do u happen to have any pics of the mkVIII...since u seem to be pulling out all these never-before-seen PF pics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Cajun76
09-30-2004, 09:03 PM
Multiple bogies inbound? Probably going to take a few hits regardless. Take your P-47, taxi over the Spit in your way, take off and release the dogs of war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

huggy87
09-30-2004, 10:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smokey669:
Planes that won World War 2:
IL-2 Sturmovik
Yak-9
La-5FN
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Lightning
Spitfire
Hurricane
Typhoon & Tempest
B-17
B-24
B-25
A-20
A-26
B-26
Lancaster, Halifax
Mosquito
C-47 Dakota

And on the ground
T-34 and all Allied troops <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I can't believe you forgot the hellcat. More confirmed kills than any other allied plane.

biggs222
09-30-2004, 11:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Multiple bogies inbound? Probably going to take a few hits regardless. Take your P-47, taxi over the Spit in your way, take off and release the dogs of war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


ooh yeah?...well doesnt matter if theres munltiple boogies..because unlike the P47 the spit can AVOID getting hit... instead of puttin along and getting a beating from everythgin in the sky.... so NAA! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-30-2004, 11:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
well if u think about it...in that situation u want the plane with good climb, right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly

thats why youd take the Corsair & be considered a fool if you thought about turning with Zeros are you seem hell bent on doing lol

WOLFMondo
10-01-2004, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Multiple bogies inbound? Probably going to take a few hits regardless. Take your P-47, taxi over the Spit in your way, take off and release the dogs of war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit will be up and in the air doing 300mph at 5000 ft before the P47's waddled its way to the end of the run way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif Thats just the VIII, if there were some XIV's there....

I live the P47 as much as anyone but as an interceptor, it sucks allot, it doesn't have the climb needed which is probably the most important asset of an interceptor. *cough*spitfire*cough*.

Aaron_GT
10-01-2004, 04:20 AM
"THAT late model 490 mph jug would have walked all over every other prop plane made. and thats before the mechanics boosted it more...it woulda done over 500 in the field. "

The prototype Hawker Fury could do 480, which is pretty close

MEGILE
10-01-2004, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> before the P47's waddled its way to the end of the run way <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, yeah it waddles like a duck.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

So, we are saying... if you take the P-47, you are probably going to get hit, but you can pretty much take a beating..
And if you take a Spitfire IX/VIII/XIV you probably wont get hit.. but if you do your Merlin is outta there faster than you can say "I wish I had gone radial". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'm in agreement with badsight tho.. out of those 4 planes the Corsair would be the bet option.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Biloxi72
10-01-2004, 06:06 AM
WoW Megs, cant believe you would pick the corsair! There is hope for you yet! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Out of all of them ya have to take corsair simply because it can climb (generally) like a spitfire but take the abuse of the Jug. An ideal interceptor from both land an sea.

WUAF_Badsight
10-01-2004, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
it doesn't have the climb needed which is probably the most important asset of an interceptor. *cough*spitfire*cough*. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no stinkin Mk8 is ever going to beat a corsair to 6K

tis a fact

HellToupee
10-01-2004, 06:28 AM
y not

Smokey669
10-01-2004, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smokey669:
Planes that won World War 2:
IL-2 Sturmovik
Yak-9
La-5FN
Mustang
Thunderbolt
Lightning
Spitfire
Hurricane
Typhoon & Tempest
B-17
B-24
B-25
A-20
A-26
B-26
Lancaster, Halifax
Mosquito
C-47 Dakota

And on the ground
T-34 and all Allied troops <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I can't believe you forgot the hellcat. More confirmed kills than any other allied plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooops yeah, also

F4F Wildcat
F6F Hellcat
SBD Dauntless
Douglas TBD-1 Devastator (for acting as an essential distraction at Midway)
Grumman TBF Avenger
F4U Corsair

Aaron_GT
10-01-2004, 07:58 AM
F4U climb rate typically circa 3300 to 3800 ft/min rising to 4200 ft/min initial rate in the -4 version and 4400 ft/min in the post war -5

Spitfire VIII, 4500 ft/min at sea level. Acording to the AFDU tests, 2.3 minutes to 10,000ft at combat power, 2.8 minutes at sustained power settings.

MEGILE
10-01-2004, 08:19 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You gotta love factual evidence

Cajun76
10-01-2004, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Much as Im a p47 fan, the Spit XIV would eat the P47N alive before if got to a height that which it was effective. The P47 was a good fighter at high alt, the Spitfire, whatever MK, was a good fighter at all atitudes throughout the war, it was _the_ best interceptor, especially the XIV. No plane won the war, an engine did. The Rolls Royce Merlin and to a lesser extent the Griffon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, to each thier own I guess, but I'd rather use an offensive fighter than a defensive one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Offensive fighters help win wars, by escorting bombers or being used to facilitate tactical objectives, like fighter-bombing. Interceptors, by their very nature are defensive. I'd rather take the fight to the enemy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And as far as the Mk. XIV vs. the P-47N, I believe it's the pilot, not the machine that's the ultimate deciding factor. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cajun76
10-01-2004, 09:40 AM
All joking aside as far as bogies inbound, it would probably be the Corsair out of those. The Lightning seems like a good choice too, but you need to start 2 engines to get going.

Really looking forward to flying the Hog, it'll be parked right next to my Jug. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Hawk_9th
10-01-2004, 01:25 PM
corsair why because they would know that a corsair based onland was USMC and was going to kick there *** http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If i had time to get alt I would jump in the p-38 , they might think i was someone like bong or mcguire get scared and go home

biggs222
10-01-2004, 01:50 PM
ok some one mentioned teh mkXIV...now THAT plane spanks all the others mentioned....

4,580 ft/minute climb rate...

357mph @ sea level.
404mph @11,000 ft
440mph @24,500 ft

and out manouvers the Corsair, P47 P51 and P38 , no question.

someone also mentioned turning with zero...i wounldnt do it with the mkVIII or XIV (both have the same turn rate BTW) but it WAS done by a Seafire mkIIIc. so NAA!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif now i want my mkXIV http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Hades_Dragon
10-01-2004, 02:04 PM
@ Smokey

Corsair had light stick forces and an excellent role rate and was probably the most nimble of the 4 and would handle better at lower speeds. The P-47 also had a very good roll rate as well though.

MEGILE
10-01-2004, 03:03 PM
Yeah Biggs, the Spit XIV is one mean piece of shiznasty...

biggs222
10-01-2004, 04:11 PM
it was the SHIZ-NITE!

AND I WANT IT IN PF!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

MEGILE
10-01-2004, 05:33 PM
I'm considering changing the name of this thread to "the spitfire won the war" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

VW-IceFire
10-01-2004, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
ok some one mentioned teh mkXIV...now THAT plane spanks all the others mentioned....

4,580 ft/minute climb rate...

357mph @ sea level.
404mph @11,000 ft
440mph @24,500 ft

and out manouvers the Corsair, P47 P51 and P38 , no question.

someone also mentioned turning with zero...i wounldnt do it with the mkVIII or XIV (both have the same turn rate BTW) but it WAS done by a Seafire mkIIIc. so NAA!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif now i want my mkXIV http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Biggs, a few of us are working on making that a reality. Check the Netwings forum and look for "a dialogue on the Spitfire XIV". New information has surfaced, Fievel has returned, and we are doing what we can to make it happen.

XIV's served both in Europe and Far East. We hope to ensure that we see them too.

I wouldn't want to turn with a Zero...or an Oscar. Especially based on pilot reports. They said that the VIII had such weight advantage over the Oscars that they would dive away with little to no trouble. They were apparently constantly outnumbered even in late 1944 or 1945.

We're working on a XIV...help is appreciated.

MEGILE
10-01-2004, 06:01 PM
Icefire, regretfully all I can do is offer words of encouragement, and a big thank you!
I hope you gents succeed!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Can you imagine, the Spit XIV up high, and the Tempest down low.. what a combination.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

biggs222
10-01-2004, 06:33 PM
hahaha megile u changed the title.... ur too funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
but yeah ice i check that thread out a while ago...i even posted in it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but yeah i hope it all works out... and u got my emil if u need any material.

hope fievel gets back on his horse, and finishes that mkXIV...he was doing a lovely job on it.

Cajun76
10-01-2004, 07:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
ok some one mentioned teh mkXIV...now THAT plane spanks all the others mentioned....

4,580 ft/minute climb rate...

357mph @ sea level.
404mph @11,000 ft
440mph @24,500 ft



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you can help me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'm trying to find a single engined aircraft that can fly over 2,300 miles, have a top speed of at least 467mph @ 32,000ft., roll 100 degrees a second @ 250mph TAS, carry 2,500lbs. of bombs and heavy armament like 10 HVARS and 8 X .50cal HMGs and was produced and saw action in significant numbers in WWII, say at least 500 examples. Find me a single a/c, no multiple special versions or Mks or series combined, that exceed these numbers and saw action. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
10-01-2004, 07:50 PM
Wow deja vu.. a glitch in the matrix, Didn't i read that somewhere before? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://www.visindavefur.hi.is/myndir/matrix_140104.jpg

WOLFMondo
10-01-2004, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
ok some one mentioned teh mkXIV...now THAT plane spanks all the others mentioned....

4,580 ft/minute climb rate...

357mph @ sea level.
404mph @11,000 ft
440mph @24,500 ft



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you can help me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'm trying to find a single engined aircraft that can fly over 2,300 miles, have a top speed of at least 467mph @ 32,000ft., roll 100 degrees a second @ 250mph TAS, carry 2,500lbs. of bombs and heavy armament like 10 HVARS and 8 X .50cal HMGs and was produced and saw action in significant numbers in WWII, say at least 500 examples. Find me a single a/c, no multiple special versions or Mks or series combined, that exceed these numbers and saw action. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much as Im a p47 fan, the Spit XIV would eat the P47N alive before if got to a height that which it was effective. The P47 was a good fighter at high alt, the Spitfire, whatever MK, was a good fighter at all atitudes throughout the war, it was the best interceptor, especially the XIV. No plane won the war, an engine did. The Rolls Royce Merlin and to a lesser extent the Griffon.

biggs222
10-01-2004, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Much as Im a p47 fan, the Spit XIV would eat the P47N alive before if got to a height that which it was effective. The P47 was a good fighter at high alt, the Spitfire, whatever MK, was a good fighter at all atitudes throughout the war, it was _the_ best interceptor, especially the XIV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

**** right!...i mean dang

Copperhead310th
10-02-2004, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Attention!

Your base is under attack, multiple bandits inbound and YOU are the only pilot left.... which one do you choose? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://img9.exs.cx/img9/8273/big42.jpg



<span class="ev_code_RED">gee Megile i think biggs222 asked you a question. you mean you're not going to answer him? the question was where are you getting these screen shots of PF @?
If your going to have softwear you ARE NOT supposed to have you'ld think you'ld have enough common sence not to post screen shots of it on the web site for the publisher.</span>

MEGILE
10-02-2004, 03:10 PM
Quite.

yes Cajun to some extent it is pilot skill, but then again you'd have to be a complete rookie/n00b to loose a fight in a Spit XIV vs. a A6m2 zeke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Korolov
10-02-2004, 04:39 PM
Max range for the Spitfire F Mk XIV (max external fuel):

850 miles (1368km)

Max range for the P-47N-5 (max external fuel):

2,350 miles (3782km)

P-47N-5 Max Speed at 10,000ft (3050m): 397mph (639kmh)

Spitfire F Mk XIV Max Speed at 13,500ft (4115m): 383mph (616kmh)

And finally...

P-47N-5 Empty Weight: 11,170lb (5067kg)

Spitfire F Mk XIV Empty Weight: 6,600lb (2994kg)

The point: Apples and Oranges. One is a heavy, long range high altitude fighter, the other is a short range, medium altitude light interceptor. That means uncomparable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now if you were comparing a P-47N to a Tempest V, you might have something to compare with. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
10-02-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
I believe it's the pilot, not the machine that's the ultimate deciding factor. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the F/22 Raptor has a 486:1 kill record against Eagles,Hornets,& Falcons

the Spitfire Mk9 at cruise speed was more economical than the Mustang at cruise speed . . . .. . what makes you think the Spitfire cannot also be used for escourt duty ?

VW-IceFire
10-02-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Max range for the Spitfire F Mk XIV (max external fuel):

850 miles (1368km)

Max range for the P-47N-5 (max external fuel):

2,350 miles (3782km)

P-47N-5 Max Speed at 10,000ft (3050m): 397mph (639kmh)

Spitfire F Mk XIV Max Speed at 13,500ft (4115m): 383mph (616kmh)

And finally...

P-47N-5 Empty Weight: 11,170lb (5067kg)

Spitfire F Mk XIV Empty Weight: 6,600lb (2994kg)

The point: Apples and Oranges. One is a heavy, long range high altitude fighter, the other is a short range, medium altitude light interceptor. That means uncomparable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now if you were comparing a P-47N to a Tempest V, you might have something to compare with. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehe...Tempest V hard to compair against the P-47N as well. Its best speed is reached at a quarter of the altitude although its weight, speed, and firepower are fairly similar. Range is similar to the Spitfire XIV rather than the Thunderbolt.

The P-47 was definately designed to meet the USAAFs requirements of strategic bombardment. You have big heavy bombers and you have long range fighters to escort them. You make sure your aircraft have the endurance to carry out the mission, that they are tough enough to return home, and are capable of fighting and flying at the same altitudes or better than the escort bombers.

The Spitfire was designed to defend Britain by intercepting enemy fighters and bombers. The emphasis here was speed, firepower (at the time, 8 .303 was considered heavy firepower), climb, and manuverability. Range wasn't important in comparison.

The XIV and the P-47N are extensions of the original design. It shows http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
10-02-2004, 06:10 PM
so.. this thread has gone from, the p47 won the war, to the p47 vs. P51 vs. F4U-X vs. P38 to P47 vs. Corsair and now finaly to P47 vs. Spit XIV.

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

More economical you say Badsight? thats new to me, however I wont argue that fact. Although, even if the Spitfire did more miles to the gallon at cruise speed, wouldn't the P-51s fuel load still enable it to fly MUCH further?


Interesting Korolov, I didn't realize that the P-47N was faster than the Spit XIV at low alts..

I have a question for people "in the know"..

how does the Spit XIV compare to the Spit 22?
It seems we could be getting both, so I'm interested in how they will handle..

and before you say over-modeled Badsight, hold your tongue until they are in game... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

JG53Frankyboy
10-02-2004, 06:16 PM
when did the first Spitifre Mk.VIII appeared in Burma ?
were there before Spitife MkV over Burma ?

MEGILE
10-02-2004, 06:23 PM
and to continue Frankboy's questions, did the Spit XIV server in the pacific theatre?

Cajun76
10-02-2004, 06:46 PM
Yes, I was wondering that too, Megile. For instance, the P-47N had a longer range than the P-51D, but it didn't acheive this by being economical. Two droptanks @ 300 gallons each, plus the internal tankage of 570. They loaded up 1,170 gallons of fuel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif IIRC, avgas is about 6 pounds per gallon, so we're talking 7020lbs. of fuel, or about the normal loaded weight of a Bf-109G-6. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MEGILE
10-02-2004, 06:53 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

w00t to 6 pages btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

biggs222
10-02-2004, 09:40 PM
all because i brought up the 1337ness of the spitfire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Snootles
10-02-2004, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>so.. this thread has gone from, the p47 won the war, to the p47 vs. P51 vs. F4U-X vs. P38 to P47 vs. Corsair and now finaly to P47 vs. Spit XIV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a new one: F8F-1 Bearcat vs. Seafire Mk. XV

WUAF_Badsight
10-02-2004, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
and before you say over-modeled Badsight, hold your tongue until they are in game... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well is the Mk9 ? hmmmm ?

Mk22 Spit should be godly . . .. . . one of the top 5 prop fighters ever

2400 Hp , . . . . awesum

DL Moffet
10-02-2004, 10:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Looey Collins is a bit forgetful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

1) Master Cylinder? I took aeronautical engineering at University and I don't recall a master cylinder in an air cooled engine. I have drank a lot of alcohol since then, though

2) Rule #1: Don't Get Shot

3) Which model P-47 vs which model P-51?

4) Common knowledge, nuthin out dives a Jug

Except in FB! My first fight in a Thunderbolt I was on the 109G-14's tail when he winged over and dived. A wicked grin instantly appeared on my face, thinking he was pretty much meat at making the mistake of diving to evade a Jug. Imagine my surprise after I had winged-over with the throttle wide open and went diving after him, only watch him pull farther and farther away until the distance between us easily exceeded a klick.
In FB a 109 out dives a Jug. It'll out-roll one too (Not that it could in reality, only an Fw-190 could manage that in the E/MTO).

5) 4 guns was enough for Gentile...

6) P-51s would be better as escorts, P-47s would be better as ground pounders. I'd say this one is apples and oranges

7) Light weight = performance and range

8) Lt. Collins forgot his training, I think. In a water landing, you came in on a gentle flat turn in a P-51, so one wingtip hit the water first. Then you kicked over the rudder to that side, you didn't come in straight and flat

9) How big was the Lieutenant? Overall, most called the P-51 cockpit 'snug', but almost never 'cramped'. Collins must have been a big guy.

10) The Mustang was both lighter and more aerodynamic than the Tbolt. This is simple physics- a lighter vehicle with better aero can be faster with less power, than a high power, heavy vehicle shaped like a brick

11) P-51 also had relatively widely spaced gear. I note that Lt. Collins didn't contrast the P-51's gear to the P-47s.

12) I would like to see comparitive hours in combat, P-47 versus P-51, and what the circumstances were, before I could even comment

13) Lt. Collins did his duty well, and I thank him. But the C-47 won the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DL Moffet
10-02-2004, 11:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Looey Collins is a bit forgetful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

1) Master Cylinder? I took aeronautical engineering at University and I don't recall a master cylinder in an air cooled engine. I have drank a lot of alcohol since then, though

2) Rule #1: Don't Get Shot

Good luck, there. I know of one pilot who's made the claim he never got hit by enemy fire: His name was Erich Hartmann. He shot down 352 aircraft: 345 Soviets and 7 P-51s over Ploesti. Maybe if you're that good...

3) Which model P-47 vs which model P-51?

4) Common knowledge, nuthin out dives a Jug

5) 4 guns was enough for Gentile...

6 guns, you mean. By the time the USAAF began operating Mustangs they had been up-gunned to 6 Ma Deuces.

6) P-51s would be better as escorts, P-47s would be better as ground pounders. I'd say this one is apples and oranges

Only because of range. That is one of the 2 reasons the Mustang replaced the Jug as our primary fighter. What was the other?
Price tag. Thunderbolts cost more.
Mustangs turn better, Thunderbolt rolls faster.
Mustangs do better in sustained climbs, Thunderbolt has faster zoom climb.
P-47 takes a lickin' and keeps on ticking (Ever hear about Bob Johnson's run-in with Egon Meyer?), Mustangs not so tough. Head-to-head attacks against heavily armed Kraut fighters bad idea (Ask Chuck Yeager about that one...Ever wonder why he only had 5 victories in WWII[By which I mean only that a pilot of his caliber could easily have gained more], and all those in one day? Next time around he went head-on with an Fw-190A8, Wurger: 4 20mm + 2 13mm vs 6 Ma Deuces. Verdict: 6 Ma Deuces insufficient. Yeager's Mustang was converted to confetti. Wurger much tougher. Thunderbolts much better at coping with that problem.)

7) Light weight = performance and range

Performance? Power-to-Weight ratio more important. P-47M/N: 473 MPH.
P-51 Razorback: 440s
P-51 Bubble Canopy: 437 MPH.

8) Lt. Collins forgot his training, I think. In a water landing, you came in on a gentle flat turn in a P-51, so one wingtip hit the water first. Then you kicked over the rudder to that side, you didn't come in straight and flat

And, exactly how many flight hours do you have in Mustangs and Thunderbolts?

9) How big was the Lieutenant? Overall, most called the P-51 cockpit 'snug', but almost never 'cramped'. Collins must have been a big guy.

10) The Mustang was both lighter and more aerodynamic than the Tbolt. This is simple physics- a lighter vehicle with better aero can be faster with less power, than a high power, heavy vehicle shaped like a brick

Again: Fastest Jug - 473 MPH
Fastest Mustang - Low 440s
The mustang is also less stable, according to Chuck Yeager, particularly when it has spare fuel tanks. I remember one incident where a Mustang pilot described how just after he had taken off - Everyone had spare tanks - a Mustang came tumbling out of the clouds in a spin. The pilot only barely recovered before hitting mother earth. He aborted at that point for obvious reasons...

11) P-51 also had relatively widely spaced gear. I note that Lt. Collins didn't contrast the P-51's gear to the P-47s.

Correct there, but not as wide as the Jug's.

12) I would like to see comparitive hours in combat, P-47 versus P-51, and what the circumstances were, before I could even comment

13) Lt. Collins did his duty well, and I thank him. But the C-47 won the war.

Really? I grant that honor more to Hitler, Goring and the Infantry.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MEGILE
10-03-2004, 04:47 AM
Why did the Spitfires go from using the Merlin to the Griffon powerplant?
I thought the Merlin was a fairly tried and tested engine.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

btw, Some pictures to show the planes we are referring to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

P-47N
http://www.aerofiles.com/repub-p47n.jpg

Sptfire XIVe
http://www.avions-de-legende.com/avdeleg/img/25E.jpg

F8F-1 Bearcat
http://www.watsonvilleflyin.org/images/bearcat.jpg


anymore?

Cajun76
10-03-2004, 04:55 AM
Moffet, you must be flying a different Jug than me, because I reguarly outdive (I prefer to outclimb them) 109s and I haven't seen a 109 yet that can outroll the Jug, unless he's missing most of a wing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Vector rolling makes it extremely difficult for a slower rolling 109 to get a firing solution.

You're also lucky he wasn't that great of a 109 pilot. If you follow a 109 in a Split-S at anything other than high speed, he can easily turn the tables on you by climbing above you while you're still pulling out. He just gave you an energy advantage, use it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

As far as P-51 vs. Jug at rolling, the Stang does have an advantage there, in game and RL.

I'm a Jug fan, but even I think some of Lt. Collins observations are not quite relevent, however, I don't agree with Chuck on some of his points, too.

They were both great fighters, each in thier own way. The P-47 was there when we needed it, and was able to meet and beat the best the LW had to offer, to paraphrase Robert S. Johnson. Had the P-51's altitude not been raised by installing the Packard-built Merlin, variants like the P-47M and N, who's protoypes were already waiting in the wings for the oppoutunity and orders, would have been put into production sooner. Instead, the Mustang got a lot of glory for finishing what the P-47 had well started. I know the contributions of the Jug, and I believe the P-47N to be the best all around fighter/fighterbomber of the war. It's combination of speed, range, A2A and A2G loads, reliability, toughness and other details (like automated 'pit for long flights) have yet to be shown inferior to any other combarable aircraft that saw significant action in WWII.

MEGILE
10-03-2004, 07:24 AM
These two are my favourite skins for the P-47D27 which I have downloaded..

DL them @ il2skins.com

Egypt 1944
http://img43.exs.cx/img43/1507/P47SKIN1.jpg

PTO
http://img43.exs.cx/img43/1408/P47SKIN2.jpg

Cajun76
10-03-2004, 07:42 AM
RustBucket http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif and I have seen many battles. Used to be on IL2Skins, no longer hosted. Would love to give credit to the maker though.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/RustBucket03m.jpg

MEGILE
10-03-2004, 11:07 AM
Rust Bucket http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I think I saw that once in my net cache http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

VW-IceFire
10-03-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
and to continue Frankboy's questions, did the Spit XIV server in the pacific theatre? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It did serve but I haven't found out if it was in active combat duty rotation. They were definately in Burma, they were definately in the reserve stations and they were being ferried to the front as the war ended. Some mention has been made of several important patrols bringing down aircraft but I haven't found anything further. Sounds like it had a very short and gloryless war career in that area.

The pilots weren't always too thrilled to switch their VII's in for XIV's. Torque on takeoff was immense, the engine ran roughly, and the XIV was heavier and didn't manuver quite the same way. Its overall manuverability was still that of a Spitfire, but it was noted to mush into some manuvers that the VIII didn't. The same goes for comparison between VIII/IX or the Mark V which was much lighter. Hopefully FB models that...the IX certainly isn't as nice to fly as the Mark V ingame...so I suspect the same will go for the XIV. It may be more of an experienced pilots fare than the IX is. Especially if you have to be more calculating in your manuvers.

aminx
10-03-2004, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
[QUOTE]
1) Master Cylinder? I took aeronautical engineering at University and I don't recall a master cylinder in an air cooled engine. I have drank a lot of alcohol since then, though
[QUOTE]

Here ya go Einstoned ;-)
http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/aero_engines/R-2800_1.htm
The master cylinder in this case would be cylinder #8. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


thanks link,is there no oil at all anywhere in the radial engine to keep parts lubricated under friction movement and vibrations ?
aminx

WOLFMondo
10-03-2004, 12:21 PM
There were some XIV's in India as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Why did the Spitfires go from using the Merlin to the Griffon powerplant?
I thought the Merlin was a fairly tried and tested engine.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin was a small engine but quite powerful, the Griffon was a huge engine and even more powerfulhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It had 10 more litres on the Merlin.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
how does the Spit XIV compare to the Spit 22?
It seems we could be getting both, so I'm interested in how they will handle..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 22 had allot more HP and was very fast down low and had 4 20mm cannon. Its the definitive Spitfire.

MEGILE
10-03-2004, 01:18 PM
4 20mm? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif That is gonna hurt... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

biggs222
10-03-2004, 04:28 PM
yeah just picture the mk22 as a hurri mkIIc hopped up on crack cocaine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


about the mkXIV...although it was heavier then the mkIXand mkVII it still maintained the SAME turn radius as the mkIX/mkVIII.

btw i think the mkXIV with the razorback cannopy is one of the sexiest looking fighters of the war.

MEGILE
10-03-2004, 04:34 PM
Yeah Biggs as was already said, it retained more or less the same turn radius, but it was sluggish in some meneuvres, referring to icefires post.

The sexiest fighter? hmm I wouldn't quite bestow that upon the Spitfire, I'm undecided as to whether it particularly looks good, but I know the V and IX sure fly well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img66.exs.cx/img66/8124/lol28.jpg

DL Moffet
10-03-2004, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Moffet, you must be flying a different Jug than me, because I reguarly outdive (I prefer to outclimb them) 109s and I haven't seen a 109 yet that can outroll the Jug, unless he's missing most of a wing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Vector rolling makes it extremely difficult for a slower rolling 109 to get a firing solution.

You're also lucky he wasn't that great of a 109 pilot. If you follow a 109 in a Split-S at anything other than high speed, he can easily turn the tables on you by climbing above you while you're still pulling out. He just gave you an energy advantage, use it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

As far as P-51 vs. Jug at rolling, the Stang does have an advantage there, in game and RL.

I'm a Jug fan, but even I think some of Lt. Collins observations are not quite relevent, however, I don't agree with Chuck on some of his points, too.

They were both great fighters, each in thier own way. The P-47 was there when we needed it, and was able to meet and beat the best the LW had to offer, to paraphrase Robert S. Johnson. Had the P-51's altitude not been raised by installing the Packard-built Merlin, variants like the P-47M and N, who's protoypes were already waiting in the wings for the oppoutunity and orders, would have been put into production sooner. Instead, the Mustang got a lot of glory for finishing what the P-47 had well started. _I_ know the contributions of the Jug, and I believe the P-47N to be the best all around fighter/fighterbomber of the war. It's combination of speed, range, A2A and A2G loads, reliability, toughness and other details (like automated 'pit for long flights) have yet to be shown inferior to any other combarable aircraft that saw significant action in WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't know...it did not happen just once during that fight. (It was a quick combat mission) You say you out-dive them, but I nearly got creamed later when the 109 had gotten behind and I attempted to dive away - instinct in a Jug for me, in Jane's WWII fighters it works: 2Lt. Pickett evaded more than 1 109-G6AS(?) that way - and soon had the G-14 right on my ---. Incidentally, I never follow anyone or thing straight into a dive. I wing-over and look first. If he keeps going down, then I dive after him. Split S, then I convert to a turn and maneuver as I see it. In the case I was describing the 109 kept going down. I had expected to catch up, but it never happened. Not the next time either, and I didn't pull away when I dove to evade. Possibly my computer is reading the program wrong, or some such. Incidentally, while the 109 drove me nuts, he was the one who ended up a smoking hole.
(Which is not to say I never lose. Just yesterday I lost my leading VVS ace [He is one of 2 VVS pilots] Alexei Kurdanov, 12 Victories, who flew a MiG-3UD - except for a bout back in August when they ran out of MiGs and were temporarily re-equipped with I-16s - during a disastrous mission in which the entire Squadron he was in got ruthlessly slaughtered by a staffel of 109F2s. I can say, though, that I was the last MiG in the air and I almost made it back to base, just not quite...I was being chased by four of them and my engine had taken a dump.)
As far as rolling goes, that's not how I understand it. I have always understood the roll rates to go, from fastest to slowest:FW-190, P-47, Bf-109/P-51, Spitfire, Lightning. The monstrous torque of the R-2800 Double Wasp is what gave the Jug such an out-standing roll rate.

biggs222
10-03-2004, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Yeah Biggs as was already said, it retained more or less the same turn radius, but it was sluggish in some meneuvres, referring to icefires post.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah but watch Oleg pork it like he porked the mkIX back when it first came out....im not going to get all excited about the mkXIV untill i actually compair it ot the mkIX we have now.

VW-IceFire
10-03-2004, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Yeah Biggs as was already said, it retained more or less the same turn radius, but it was sluggish in some meneuvres, referring to icefires post.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah but watch Oleg pork it like he porked the mkIX back when it first came out....im not going to get all excited about the mkXIV untill i actually compair it ot the mkIX we have now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are seemingly right that it should have the same turn radius (within a very small margin) but if you read the pilots reports its not all milk and cookies either.

In one instance, I've read a story (its in one of my Spit books) where a pilot was demonstrating the XIV to new pilots. He did a loop at low altitude...but the XIV mushes and shudders (apparently!) through such a manuver because of the weight (and despite the awesome horsepower of the Griffon) and he came far too close to the ground. The story goes that he got out afterwards and looked ten years older...so yeah http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It should be like the difference between the V and the IX. The IX takes alot more work to manuver. Faster, better climb, and all that yes...but the Mark V is the better close in dogfighter. Its just harmonization of weight to power...the Mark V is reported to have been the nicest in that regard...the XIV being an overpowered beast but nonetheless well liked because of its speed and climb rate above all else.

BTW: Biggs, can you grab any documents you have on turn rate comparisons and mail them to me. I'll send it in at the end.

WUAF_Badsight
10-03-2004, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:

about the mkXIV...although it was heavier then the mkIXand mkVII it still maintained the SAME turn radius as the mkIX/mkVIII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you dont like your grains of salt do you ?

the Mk14 was heavier with the same wings . . . . . the only way in hell it managed to do a similer turn time/radius is due to power

dont be thinking the Mk14 will be as good at low speed TnB as the Mk9 just because it could do level turns in similer times (or was it radiuses) to the Mk9

cause it shouldnt

biggs222
10-03-2004, 11:51 PM
Ice as u proabably read before, the test results are here....ive been going through my other books and they all say the same thing.....

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html

of course all the whiners will come out now....oh brother.

"Turning Stall
8. The Spitfire XIV gives less warning of a stall in a tight turn than a Spitfire IX, though the same pre-stall characteristic ("shuddering") occurs. This is a good point as it allows sighting to be maintained nearer the stall. This aircraft tends to come out of a dive in a similar manner to other Spitfires."

"Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV."

MEGILE
10-04-2004, 09:09 AM
Interesting stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif However, we will ofcourse have to wait till the Spit XIV flies in-game to get Oleg's perspective of her http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
10-04-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
Ice as u proabably read before, the test results are here....ive been going through my other books and they all say the same thing.....

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html

of course all the whiners will come out now....oh brother.

"Turning Stall
8. The Spitfire XIV gives less warning of a stall in a tight turn than a Spitfire IX, though the same pre-stall characteristic ("shuddering") occurs. This is a good point as it allows sighting to be maintained nearer the stall. This aircraft tends to come out of a dive in a similar manner to other Spitfires."

"Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think even with those in mind...its not going to be as "nice" in a turn as the IX or V is. We'll send Oleg the info that we have...he can make up his mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hafta try and pull things together and see if we can get it done too.

biggs222
10-04-2004, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>he can make up his mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah unfortuneatly we have to leave it up to oleg and not the offial Boscombe Down reports http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

k5054
10-04-2004, 02:49 PM
Well, the Spit V doesn't have a completely perfect record as far as turning was concerned, some early versions had pitch instability in turns which required the pilot to push the stick to stay in turns. Several lost their wings for this reason in 1941/2. The fix was a bobweight in the elevator control, which kind of worked but caused the a/c to be impossible to bail out of when inverted, see Crossley's 'They gave me a Seafire'

faustnik
10-04-2004, 02:51 PM
Hey Biggs cheer up, the Spit IX turn did get fixed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
10-04-2004, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>yeah unfortuneatly we have to leave it up to oleg and not the offial Boscombe Down reports <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boscome Down don't make video games http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Trust Oleg, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

biggs222
10-04-2004, 03:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

MEGILE
10-04-2004, 03:33 PM
A doubter of Oleg! Burn Him!

biggs222
10-04-2004, 04:40 PM
hee hee....how about this..if im wrong and oleg gets it accurate, then u can all hit me with tomatoes

MEGILE
10-13-2004, 05:39 AM
http://img51.exs.cx/img51/849/Corsairturning.jpg

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