PDA

View Full Version : I thought the P47 was supposed to... you know, not suck.



na85
01-03-2008, 11:52 PM
I always read on these boards how the P47 is supposed to be a good climber.

Not in my experience.

I was in a D-27 at 4000m. I dove way down to make a firing pass, and my zoom climb took me back up to the lofty height of 2500m.

No, I did not climb straight up.

So what's so good about the P47 besides the 8 .50's and the fact that it can do 900kph?

Can't turn, can't climb, can't zoom.

A 109F4 zooms better than this brick. Ugh.

Not trying to fish, here, I just honestly can't see what's so good about it. Every time I come across an enemy 47, I think "easy kill"

na85
01-03-2008, 11:52 PM
I always read on these boards how the P47 is supposed to be a good climber.

Not in my experience.

I was in a D-27 at 4000m. I dove way down to make a firing pass, and my zoom climb took me back up to the lofty height of 2500m.

No, I did not climb straight up.

So what's so good about the P47 besides the 8 .50's and the fact that it can do 900kph?

Can't turn, can't climb, can't zoom.

A 109F4 zooms better than this brick. Ugh.

Not trying to fish, here, I just honestly can't see what's so good about it. Every time I come across an enemy 47, I think "easy kill"

leitmotiv
01-04-2008, 12:03 AM
If you have to ask...

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/P-47_3.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
01-04-2008, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">8 .50's and the fact that it can do 900kph </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

leitmotiv
01-04-2008, 12:28 AM
If you treat a P-47 like a J8A, you will be in for grief, if you dive from high altitude on quarry with full military power, blow them to their reward, and tear for the heavens, the air combat Buddha will smile on you. The later paddle prop 47s climbed much better than the earliest model provided in IL-2. Robert Johnson outclimbed a Spitfire IX in his D with a paddle prop in early 1944---much to the consternation of the Spitfire pilot.

Ratsack
01-04-2008, 12:48 AM
One of the famous American aces (I believe it was Blakeslee, but I may be wrong), was no fan of the P-47 even though it could dive with a Focke Wulf. He is supposed to have commented, after catching an Fw 190 in a dive, that the Thunderbold would want to dive, since it sure as h e l l couldn't climb. Whatever his exact words, they weren't far from your:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can't turn, can't climb, can't zoom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of sustained climb, it was never a good climber. Not even after paddle bladed props were fitted. These merely improved its climb so it was no longer appalling.

The all-turning, all-climbing, all-diving, all-rolling, all-singing, all-dancing Thunderbolt is pure fantasy, concocted from wartime hyperbole and post war sentimentality.

It was just a good plane.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
01-04-2008, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
...Robert Johnson outclimbed a Spitfire IX in his D with a paddle prop in early 1944---much to the consternation of the Spitfire pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't that either:

a.) a zoom climb; or
b.) a high speed climb (i.e., at speed close to or higher than the Spit's top speed at that altitude)?

cheers,
Ratsack

leitmotiv
01-04-2008, 01:05 AM
As he described in his book, they started the race from level flight. His Thunderbolt had been eaten alive by a Spitfire V in a similar race a few months earlier. His razorback D with the brand new paddle prop pulled away from the Spit IX in the climbing contest. Since both aircraft were excellent performers at altitude, it was probably a pretty fair test. P.S. In I Flew For the Fuhrer, Knoke had a similar, but more unpleasant experience at the same time. His ever reliable spiral climb in his 109G-6 had always left Thunderbolts far behind, but he suddenly found a pack of Thunderbolts catching up with him as he tried the maneuver. He probably ran into some paddle prop Tbolts.

Ugly_Kid
01-04-2008, 01:28 AM
This paddle blade stuff strikes me as odd, not meaning that it was not an improvement but still...in WW II the prop development or knowledge about the props was more or less already on its prime, a different prop would have improved the efficiency in climb speeds but I find it perverse to think that the efficiency would have been bad to begin with, or otherwise it would have been indeed quite a bad design. Initially, I would expect only few percents (10% seems already unlikely) improvement in efficiency, not something like double or so...

leitmotiv
01-04-2008, 02:44 AM
The British switched to the more efficient Rotol wooden paddle-blade prop in mid-1940 for the Hurricane, and in 1941 for the Spitfire. The Germans dropped the metal VDM prop for a wide, wooden paddle-bladed prop for the Heinkel He 111H-6 and the Ju 88A-4 in 1941. The Fw 190 used a paddle prop from the start, but the blades were wider on later versions of the aircraft. The Bf 109 didn't get a paddle prop until the later G versions. The performance of the Corsair was less than expected until the same paddle-bladed prop fitted to the Hellcat was given to it around 1944.

The thin-bladed metal prop everybody was using at the beginning of the war was based on the American Hamilton Standard prop---this was the German VDM and the British DeHavilland.

PF_Coastie
01-04-2008, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was in a D-27 at 4000m. I dove way down to make a firing pass, and my zoom climb took me back up to the lofty height of 2500m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in this game, 4km should be your absolute hard deck while in the Jug. The Jug is dead meat if met on equal terms below 6km. It really starts to shine above 7km and not much in the game can touch it up there. If you dive from 7km on a plane at 4km then zoom straight up after your pass, you can easily regain all your altitutde back and level out at 300kph. There are very few planes in game that can do that.

Above 7km, the P47D will outclimb any 190 in a spiral climb and it will outrun any 109 in level flight or a very slight climb.

Bottom line, if you are not doing 900kph at 4km and on your way back up, you are not flying it correctly.

stansdds
01-04-2008, 06:16 AM
The real P-47's were never good dog fighters at low altitudes and did not climb well. The P-47's strengths were its long range, excellent performance at high altitude, ability to carry external ordnance, ability to absorb damage, and eight 50 caliber machine guns. Down low it was fine as a ground pounder, but not as a fighter. It could certainly hold its own in the air to air mission at high altitude. Rule of thumb for the P-47: Unless your mission is to take out ground targets, stay high.

Fighterduck
01-04-2008, 07:02 AM
..still...in the hand of skilled pilots it could be good as the p-51 in a dogfight. But best performance was at high alt this is true.

Jaws2002
01-04-2008, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PF_Coastie:

The Jug is dead meat if met on equal terms below 6km. Bottom line, if you are not doing 900kph at 4km and on your way back up, you are not flying it correctly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree with that. You can still fight both 109's and 190's at high speed even if you are lower.
The razorback models are not too good low but the buble top ones can duke it out at all altitudes.
Above 7000m they just dominate but this doesn't mean the late ones can't fight down low.
The Late D can dogfight any A model 190 at any altitude, and outrun most of the 109's.

Jaws2002
01-04-2008, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:



Every time I come across an enemy 47, I think "easy kill" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is exactly the type of pilot, Jug drivers feed on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
01-04-2008, 07:55 AM
Personally, I like jugs.

leitmotiv
01-04-2008, 08:05 AM
Definitely

http://approximately.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/breasts.jpg

Diablo310th
01-04-2008, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PF_Coastie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was in a D-27 at 4000m. I dove way down to make a firing pass, and my zoom climb took me back up to the lofty height of 2500m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in this game, 4km should be your absolute hard deck while in the Jug. The Jug is dead meat if met on equal terms below 6km. It really starts to shine above 7km and not much in the game can touch it up there. If you dive from 7km on a plane at 4km then zoom straight up after your pass, you can easily regain all your altitutde back and level out at 300kph. There are very few planes in game that can do that.

Above 7km, the P47D will outclimb any 190 in a spiral climb and it will outrun any 109 in level flight or a very slight climb.

Bottom line, if you are not doing 900kph at 4km and on your way back up, you are not flying it correctly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen brother.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

SeaFireLIV
01-04-2008, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Definitely

http://approximately.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/breasts.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the kind of thing that makes me want to fly a P47, unfortunately, the P47 is a`jug` designed for specialist pilots. As I`m rubbish with it. Guess I need a slightly smaller size that`s easier to handle. Though I like big jugs... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fighterduck
01-04-2008, 08:18 AM
p-47 an easy kill? uhm..in the 90% of cases yes. BUT...only because in those 90% they are flown by non expert users. Like with the P-38. If you give the Jug to skilled pilots who learned how to use it properly it will become really dangerous!

K_Freddie
01-04-2008, 10:35 AM
AFAIK the P47 proved it's worth at high altitudes when escorting the B17's. The luftwaffe had to get high to intercept and the FW190A's were not suited at such high alts, whereas the Me109 was OK but did not have the firepower.

The P47's large wing area and engine were well suited at this altitude and when the lufwaffe were on their way out, it then shone in the ground attack role.

But as a DF machine it was no good. I remember that Gabreski interview where he was bounced by FW190's and he just put the nose down, kicking left and right rudder. He didn't realise he was upside down and one of his wing mates was roaring with laughter as he went down with the FW190's after him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif He said the P47 just accelerated away from the FW in a dive, that it looked so halarious to his wing-mate.

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

AKA_TAGERT
01-04-2008, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
I always read on these boards how the P47 is supposed to be a good climber.

Not in my experience.

I was in a D-27 at 4000m. I dove way down to make a firing pass, and my zoom climb took me back up to the lofty height of 2500m.

No, I did not climb straight up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well it really depends on the pilot..

That is to say the way you zoomed it can kill your E retention and thus final altitude you reach..

Which is why I used Litche's auto pilot util when doing my E RETENTION and SEPARATION testing..

Which provides you the best chance of having each plane flown the same way i.e. standardized method where..

TEST METHOD
-START @ 10kft @230mph IAS
-Apply Full Throttle & WEP (if aval)
-Dive @ -35? pitch
-Wait until you pass through 5,000ft
-Perform Pull out @ 5g (overload)
-Climb @ 30? pitch
-Wait until IAS = 110mph
-END

With that said..

Here is a graph of the P-47D-10 XY Flight Path

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/P-47D-10/ME_00/XYFP.JPG

As you can see the final alt is higher than the initial altitude

Here is a graph of the P-47D-10 E Retention during that maneuver..

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/P-47D-10/ME_00/ENERGY.JPG

As you can see the final TOTAL MECHANICAL ENERGY is less than the initial.. Thus some energy was lost during the maneuver.. <span class="ev_code_yellow">[1]</span>

Here is the full analysis

P-47D-10_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/P-47D-10/ME_00/P-47D-10_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf)

For more E RETENTION and SEPARATION Tests goto http://airwarfare.com (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8&st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sid=753c52e648eaeb3597ede21778e5c9b5&start=50)

On that note..

I have updated the format of the full analysis since the P-47D-10 test..

Here is an example of the new full analysis format..

Done for the N1K2Ja

N1K2-Ja_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/N1K2-Ja/ME_00/N1K2-Ja_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf)

<span class="ev_code_yellow">[1]'See the full analysis disclaimer page for explanation of obtained TE values'</span>

Cajun76
01-04-2008, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PF_Coastie:

The Jug is dead meat if met on equal terms below 6km. Bottom line, if you are not doing 900kph at 4km and on your way back up, you are not flying it correctly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree with that. You can still fight both 109's and 190's at high speed even if you are lower.
The razorback models are not too good low but the buble top ones can duke it out at all altitudes.
Above 7000m they just dominate but this doesn't mean the late ones can't fight down low.
The Late D can dogfight any A model 190 at any altitude, and outrun most of the 109's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 Jaws

Always, always, always stay fast in the Jug. Did I mention stay fast? Even at low alt the -27 and especially the D late can tangle with just about anyone, although I like to get at least 3km under my wing before engaging. More options should you need them.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by na85:



Every time I come across an enemy 47, I think "easy kill"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jaws:
This is exactly the type of pilot, Jug drivers feed on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the greatest weapons any pilot in any plane has is being underestimated by the opposition. The Jug is consistently underrated, so I look at it as an another advantage of flying it.

BfHeFwMe
01-04-2008, 10:57 AM
Gabby mentions a few times in his book nothing the Luftwaffe had could hang with him in a right tight spiral with his paddle, it was his standard escape technique at any altitude.

His group regularly mixed it up at low level, they had confidence in the Jug. And these were guys who converted from Spitfires. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Of course they never fought alone either, as soon as you lost contact with your wingman, it was gospel you run for home. They had rules, and not playing by them meant you were on your way out. Something he learned from the Poles while flying with them. To obey the tactical rules was more important than anything else, even kills.

Kurfurst__
01-04-2008, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The Bf 109 didn't get a paddle prop until the later G versions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the blades were incrementally getting wider and wider with just about every major engine change in the 109E-F-G/K. Ie. 601A-601N-601E-605A-605AS/D - always a new, slightly wider prop.
The change is just not so striking as in the case of the last change of prop blades for the AS/D series engines. This is not as much as an 'improvement' in blade design, rather a natural evolvement of the blades to match the powerplant`s characteristics - ie. absorb the extra power of higher powered engines and/or to grab more air at high altitude as the rated altitude of the engines increased through the war.

AKA_TAGERT
01-04-2008, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
One of the greatest weapons any pilot in any plane has is being underestimated by the opposition. The Jug is consistently underrated, so I look at it as an another advantage of flying it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same goes for the in-game P38..

Not as much as a year or two ago..

In that since that time a few P38 experts have emerged..

And have been pwning other online pilots with ease..

Thus updating their 'estimation' of the 38 as a big slow turning EZ 200 point target..

But I still run across a Ki61, ZERO, Bf109, Fw190, etc driver that drops in for what he thinks is going to be an easy kill..

Only to find me on his/her six filling him/her full of lead in two shakes of a lambs tail http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Chivas
01-04-2008, 11:49 AM
I found P47's earlier in the IL-2 series were easy kills, until the later FM tweaks, and people learned to fly them properly. You will never catch the P47, if he kept his E and height advantage. I know some great on-line P47 pilots that if you do happen to mix it up, you soon realize you have a tiger by the tail.

Viper2005_
01-04-2008, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought the <span class="ev_code_red">pilot</span> was supposed to... you know, not suck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fixed!

Chivas
01-04-2008, 12:19 PM
Sometimes it can't be helped. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
01-04-2008, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know some great on-line P47 pilots that if you do happen to mix it up, you soon realize you have a tiger by the tail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That has been my experience up high. Down low, if you can find one, it is another story.

I could just be me and my limited experience - of course.

Choctaw111
01-04-2008, 12:36 PM
I find the later model Jug to be exceptional above 6,000 meters. She is a real monster up there.

na85
01-04-2008, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

As you can see the final TOTAL MECHANICAL ENERGY is less than the initial.. Thus some energy was lost during the maneuver.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course some energy is lost, no plane gets back 100% after a dive.

When people say you can dive down, come straight back up and level out at your original altitude at 300kph.... well let's just say it strains credulity. I'd like to see a track of that one.

na85
01-04-2008, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
One of the greatest weapons any pilot in any plane has is being underestimated by the opposition. The Jug is consistently underrated, so I look at it as an another advantage of flying it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same goes for the in-game P38..

Not as much as a year or two ago..

In that since that time a few P38 experts have emerged..

And have been pwning other online pilots with ease..

Thus updating their 'estimation' of the 38 as a big slow turning EZ 200 point target..

But I still run across a Ki61, ZERO, Bf109, Fw190, etc driver that drops in for what he thinks is going to be an easy kill..

Only to find me on his/her six filling him/her full of lead in two shakes of a lambs tail http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a profound respect for anyone who can do well in the 38. I've flown it quite a bit, and it's a difficult bird to learn.

chris455
01-04-2008, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can't turn, can't climb, can't zoom.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Can't climb: Correct.
2. Can't turn: We do not turn in the P-47.
3. Can't zoom: You're not trying hard enough.

The great strength of the Jug is...you guessed it......it has eight .50s and can go 900km/hr.

That's more than enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

na85
01-04-2008, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:

That's more than enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not if your deflection shooting isn't great. I need more than 1 pass with the .50's.

AKA_TAGERT
01-04-2008, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Of course some energy is lost, no plane gets back 100% after a dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe in real life WWII planes..

But my gut says no..

And surly not 'all' in-game planes..

Take the in-game P63 for example..

it's FINAL TE is greater than it's INITIAL TE..

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/P-63C/ME_00/ENERGY.JPG

Be it sim or real..

I 'FEEL' that it really depends on the Thrust to Weight and/or Thrust to Drag ratios..

A plane with good Thrust to Weight and/or Thrust to Drag ratio in theory could increase it's total TE!

AKA_TAGERT
01-04-2008, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
I have a profound respect for anyone who can do well in the 38. I've flown it quite a bit, and it's a difficult bird to learn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you ever get a chance to see BSS CUDA online.. goto externals and watch him for awhile.. He does amazing things in a P38! Sad news is NOW with the sound mod some accuse him of cheating.. but he was doing amazing things in the 38 years ago!! So it really is the man and not the machine!!

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-04-2008, 02:08 PM
Anyone here will be hard pressed to put it into any kind of terms thats going to make you say...ahh I get it now. The only thing that is going to make you see the P-47 in the light of excellence is experience. Quite a few of us flew the JUG exclusively in FB 1.0 when it was horribly undermodeled and got enough experience in it even in that state to gain air superiority. So now we have a respectable P-47 and it is even that much easier for us and actually I stopped flying it as much because it became so common to see the red skies filled with them. You must remember that even a superior aircraft stands little chance against a smart pilot with the tactical advantage. Fly nothing but the P-47 for a few years then come tell us what you think of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S!

chris455
01-04-2008, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:

That's more than enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not if your deflection shooting isn't great. I need more than 1 pass with the .50's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check your convergence: make a track of yourself (icons on) engaging various targets and make a note of the ranges at which you opened fire. Average these and set your convergence thus; this is YOUR personal convergence value. Now, "stagger" your inner and outer battery by about 5 meters; this will give you a somewhat greater chance of scoring, as you improve, set all guns to the same value.
Very few A/C in the game can withstand a solid burst from 8 .50's - "be sure" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PF_Coastie
01-04-2008, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

As you can see the final TOTAL MECHANICAL ENERGY is less than the initial.. Thus some energy was lost during the maneuver.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course some energy is lost, no plane gets back 100% after a dive.

When people say you can dive down, come straight back up and level out at your original altitude at 300kph.... well let's just say it strains credulity. I'd like to see a track of that one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you want a track of this very basic flying skill? Here you go! (http://members.cox.net/bmcoastie/quick0137.ntrk)

I could actually go from 8km down to 4km and get back to original alt at 300kph. But I am afraid if I showed you that, you may have a heart attack! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Trust me, no credibility will be lost by me about flying the Jug IN THIS GAME. I knows the jug!

slipBall
01-04-2008, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Definitely

http://approximately.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/breasts.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mannequin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BfHeFwMe
01-04-2008, 04:39 PM
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/47GECD.gif

This is the optimal way to set up the gun banks. Worked than, and works now. Be sure to convert the yards into meters.

228.6 meters for inboards, and 320.0 for outer banks. Your synchronized with the reticle and can use the original firing table radii for lead.

Note the distances within and past the diamond of death both ways. You get the pipper on and your going to score hits for quite a distance within this zone. Try a few in the mission builder, first a few IL-2's, empty with rookie, with your convergence. Than try it using this, but fire only between your two convergence distances.

crucislancer
01-04-2008, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
I have a profound respect for anyone who can do well in the 38. I've flown it quite a bit, and it's a difficult bird to learn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh so true. And quite true that there are rare exceptions of good P-38 pilots online. But, I don't take that plane for granted, either flying or fighting it.

crucislancer
01-04-2008, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can't turn, can't climb, can't zoom.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Can't climb: Correct.
2. Can't turn: We do not turn in the P-47.
3. Can't zoom: You're not trying hard enough.

The great strength of the Jug is...you guessed it......it has eight .50s and can go 900km/hr.

That's more than enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+10,000

Anyone thinking they can T&B a Jug will find themselves in their chute in no time.

BfHeFwMe
01-04-2008, 05:07 PM
I will any time with any single FW not counting Dora's.

One time I dove so fast with several human run90 pilots behind trying to close the gap. I kept increasing the angle, at the very last second cut power and pulled out. Bang, bang, bang, three Fw's bit the dirt behind, they almost lynched me from the server for that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Tator_Totts
01-04-2008, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/47GECD.gif

This is the optimal way to set up the gun banks. Worked than, and works now. Be sure to convert the yards into meters.

228.6 meters for inboards, and 320.0 for outer banks. Your synchronized with the reticle and can use the original firing table radii for lead.

Note the distances within and past the diamond of death both ways. You get the pipper on and your going to score hits for quite a distance within this zone. Try a few in the mission builder, first a few IL-2's, empty with rookie, with your convergence. Than try it using this, but fire only between your two convergence distances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In the game setup there is Machine guns and Canons. Which one is inboard and outboard?
Thanks

crucislancer
01-04-2008, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
In the game setup there is Machine guns and Canons. Which one is inboard and outboard?
Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inboard - Machine Guns
Outboard - Cannons

Tator_Totts
01-04-2008, 06:02 PM
Thanks

na85
01-04-2008, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can't turn, can't climb, can't zoom.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Can't climb: Correct.
2. Can't turn: We do not turn in the P-47.
3. Can't zoom: You're not trying hard enough.

The great strength of the Jug is...you guessed it......it has eight .50s and can go 900km/hr.

That's more than enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+10,000

Anyone thinking they can T&B a Jug will find themselves in their chute in no time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly didn't try to turn against japanese planes.

crucislancer
01-04-2008, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
I certainly didn't try to turn against japanese planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I wasn't saying you would, just a general statement. I wouldn't turn with a Zero, either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
01-04-2008, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Of course some energy is lost, no plane gets back 100% after a dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe in real life WWII planes..

But my gut says no..

And surly not 'all' in-game planes..

Take the in-game P63 for example..

it's FINAL TE is greater than it's INITIAL TE..

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/P-63C/ME_00/ENERGY.JPG

Be it sim or real..

I 'FEEL' that it really depends on the Thrust to Weight and/or Thrust to Drag ratios..

A plane with good Thrust to Weight and/or Thrust to Drag ratio in theory could increase it's total TE! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To a first order, it's all very simple really:

If you're in roughly 1 g flight, any time you're flying faster than your level flight maximum speed at that altitude, you're losing total energy. Any time you're flying slower than your level flight maximum speed at that altitude, you're gaining total energy.

Integrate away.

It follows that if you're conducting some kind of zoom test of aircraft x, whether you see a nett energy gain or loss at the end of the test is simply a function of where in the envelope you decide to test. Fly fast and you're likely to lose energy. Fly slow and you're likely to gain energy.

It is therefore rather more useful to investigate the shape of the aircraft's drag polar than to look at a single dive and zoom.

Of course, in reality, the nearly 1 g assumption is far from perfect.

The simple model I have put forward does however serve to illustrate what's going on during a dive & zoom.

Dive a biplane over a small altitude range (say 2000 m) from some starting speed (say 250 km/h) and you'll end up holding your limiting speed all the way down, so that at the bottom you've got the KE associated with that speed, and you've lost a load of altitude.

On the way back up, your speed will rapidly fall to some steady-state climb speed (which if you're flying alone would probably be Vy; in combat it would be whatever speed maximised your advantage over the enemy).

Dive a P-47 over the same altitude range from the same starting speed and you'll still be picking up speed as you initiate your recovery. You therefore obviously have retained more energy more energy. Indeed, you may well have gained energy.

Of course this is a chalk and cheese comparison.

Start your P-47 from an equivalent place in its flight envelope (close to its top speed), and dive it so that it spends most of the dive pegged to its limiting dive speed, and you'll see results which are qualitatively more akin to those given by the biplane.

But so what?

Performance doesn't matter in aerial combat. What matters is relative performance.

The P-47's advantage in the dive & zoom is that it generally isn't constrained by its limiting EAS, and can therefore retain lots of energy when diving though large altitude ranges. This allows it to engage the enemy from a position of unassailable energy advantage by diving down for a pass and then zooming back up out of the range of any possible retaliation.

This is directly analogous to the ability of an aircraft with a superior speed in level flight to "drive by". (ie chase the enemy, attack and run away before they can fight back). Which is unsurprising since both situations are examples of the attacker bringing an energy advantage to the party.

Of course, the flip side of this coin is that the P-47's current ability to dive & zoom at high altitude is excessive since IL2 does not include Mach number effects; most good IL2 P-47 pilots regularly exceed the Mach number capabilities of the aircraft by a considerable margin. Whilst similar accusations may be made about most aircraft in the game, the P-47 gains perhaps the biggest relative advantage from this since its R/L tactical Mach number capability was low.

Actually in this respect it had a lot in common with the Typhoon, and both aircraft ended up giving excellent service as tank busters at low level (with the P-47 even "borrowing" the Typhoon's bubble canopy). The P-51 took over the P-47's high altitude escort role as soon as it became available since its tactical Mach number was considerably superior, as demonstrated by extensive tests of all prospective USAAF escort fighters at the RAE.

(In this context it would be remiss of me not to observe that the P-38's bizarre compressibility problems at low altitude serve to damage its combat performance unfairly both due to their unrealistic nature - they seem to be based upon EAS rather than Mach number, and the fact that many aircraft equally "deserving" of Mach number related handling defects are not similarly afflicted...)

Were it given a realistic Mach number capability then the P-47's optimal operational altitude would fall somewhat and virtual tactics would change. But then again, were this to happen the tactical Mach number limitations of all the other aircraft, both red and blue, would force us all to relearn our favourite aeroplanes, and would dramatically alter our virtual tactics. I hope that we get more realistic transonic behaviour in SoW/BoB...

PapaLazarou.LoG
01-04-2008, 08:57 PM
When I played this game more, I usually flown late 109s at 5-6km preying down for the incautious. Now when I spotted a p47 over me the only thing I'd do was dive away to low alt and only engage there if he wouldn't quit.

I took for granted that he was a better pilot, even if I could match it's alt, I'd have no speed, and if I had it, I'd bleed it too soon even in soft turns trying to gain position for a shot. And even if I got a head on with him, my plane would surely be damaged in that star destroyer spray, slowed down and dead meat in no time, unless I was lucky with the cannon, because the 13mm would only tickle him.

P47s are a nightmare for loners, so don't underestimate them when flow by disciplined players, really!

M_Gunz
01-04-2008, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
This paddle blade stuff strikes me as odd, not meaning that it was not an improvement but still...in WW II the prop development or knowledge about the props was more or less already on its prime, a different prop would have improved the efficiency in climb speeds but I find it perverse to think that the efficiency would have been bad to begin with, or otherwise it would have been indeed quite a bad design. Initially, I would expect only few percents (10% seems already unlikely) improvement in efficiency, not something like double or so... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paddle blades were less efficient up to certain amount of power applied. You can over-power
a thin-blade prop and get much the same as putting thin tires on a drag race car. Then you
have less efficience.

However the wide blades allowed the transmission of far more power into thrust. The overall
equation gave more thrust total to allow use of monster engines and associated fuel use that
thin blades could not.

Errrr --- waaaiiit a min! UGLY KID! Hello! I know that YOU know all this and more!

leftguard6
01-04-2008, 09:37 PM
"Comparison tests with the RAF's captured Fw 190A and Me 109F indicated that the P-47C was no match below 15,000ft. However, the higher the altitude the more the Thunderbolt's performance improved, and at 30,000ft it could outpace both enemy types thanks to the powerful turbo-supercharged engine. On the debit side, its rate of climb was, by comparison, abysmal. The FW190A took approximately eleven minutes to reach 25,000ft, the Me 109G seven minutes and the Spitfire IX six minutes against fifteen minutes for the P-47C. The main reason for the Thunderbolt taking twice as long as an Me 109G or Spitfire IX was its size and weight, about double that of the British and German fighters in both respects."

"The Fight for the Skies" by Roger A. Freeman Cassell & Co. 1998 page 86. ISBN 0-304-35298-5

M_Gunz
01-04-2008, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Gabby mentions a few times in his book nothing the Luftwaffe had could hang with him in a right tight spiral with his paddle, it was his standard escape technique at any altitude.

His group regularly mixed it up at low level, they had confidence in the Jug. And these were guys who converted from Spitfires. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Of course they never fought alone either, as soon as you lost contact with your wingman, it was gospel you run for home. They had rules, and not playing by them meant you were on your way out. Something he learned from the Poles while flying with them. To obey the tactical rules was more important than anything else, even kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is that you have to fly that tight spiral at the right speed to keep the other above
his most efficient climb. How many will take a quote like that and make like it should apply
when flown just any old way?

If I consistently fly many planes in a way that suits only some then big surprise that those
some will give better results? Yet tactically that is exactly how you want the encounter to
work, where your plane is at better terms than the other guy's.

I like the way the Jug handles at high speeds but then I can say the same for late FW's, only
not as fast.

Ugly_Kid
01-05-2008, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

However the wide blades allowed the transmission of far more power into thrust. The overall
equation gave more thrust total to allow use of monster engines and associated fuel use that
thin blades could not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, however, the point I was trying to make was that if the original selection of prop was done anywhere near properly, a possible gain should not be quite that world turning. You can shift the most efficient area a bit, but the absolute increase in efficiency, at let's say climb speed - I would initially expect - should be only few percents. IRC, the switch to paddle blade caused a minor decrease in top speed? Unless, as Kurfürst wrote, the power increased meanwhile so much that the prop choice fell too much behind (working with smaller efficiency) - so that net gain from power increase was small. In this case the gain from a prop switch could be more.

What I am trying to say is that with constant _pitch_ prop, there is only one optimum speed and everywhere else the efficiency drops. Switching to a constant _speed_ prop in this case would bring a large benefit in some other areas, would hardly effect the original most efficient area, though. Putting another blade form in a constant speed prop would cause radically less gain if the original choice of prop was anywhere close to appropriate.

So all in all I am a bit sceptic reading the accounts the way that a mere change of prop alone brought jug from clearly underperforming aircraft to one that left spit behind in climb.

In some concrete figures the original prop should have then worked somewhere around a efficiency of only 60% for climb speed and now with about more proper 90%, which would mean that the original was indeed a bad choice...That is a chance that I would describe as dramatic, whereas I would expect the real chance to have moved in percents between 80% and 90%. Of course we usually talk about another engine as well, whereas a pilot might relate the improvement to visual differences i.e. paddle blades, bubble top, polished aluminum skin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif etc. ("you know the one with the bubble top was a huge improvement in performance" - you see he relates the way he visually remembers the aircraft to the way it performed, knowing perfectly well that the visual difference was not at all the cause)

As you know efficiency can be only max. 100%, so the question is how bad do you believe the original prop was to begin with? I don't think it was just a common living room ventilator to begin with... That in short was the point I was trying to make...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
01-05-2008, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

However the wide blades allowed the transmission of far more power into thrust. The overall
equation gave more thrust total to allow use of monster engines and associated fuel use that
thin blades could not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, however, the point I was trying to make was that if the original selection of prop was done anywhere near properly, a possible gain should not be quite that world turning. You can shift the most efficient area a bit, but the absolute increase in efficiency, at let's say climb speed - I would initially expect - should be only few percents. IRC, the switch to paddle blade caused a minor decrease in top speed? Unless, as Kurfürst wrote, the power increased meanwhile so much that the prop choice fell too much behind (working with smaller efficiency) - so that net gain from power increase was small. In this case the gain from a prop switch could be more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, K was first to say in this thread. When I read of the prop switch it was almost like
they discovered this new way so perhaps the prop that fit the lower powered version was not
changed or OTOH like you say the pilot just latches onto an explanation he sees or is given
and since he was there then to some that makes his words absolute.
I've seen it in writing from other than the pilots that the paddle blade props were needed
for the monster engines but I can't say how qualified the statements were except in a rough
way and not down to percents.
K pointed out how with increased power the German planes got progressively wider blades.
That's not just thin vs wide. And Oleg had stated about one of the FW's not matching a climb
chart that the chart was made with wide blade prop while the IL2 model has the high speed
prop. People with charts made by both planes say the speed is right but climb is not without
knowing it is two different planes! How much else of that do we see on forums and in books?
I suspect it is regularly done through the miracle of loose research seeking best goals.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I am trying to say is that with constant _pitch_ prop, there is only one optimum speed and everywhere else the efficiency drops. Switching to a constant _speed_ prop in this case would bring a large benefit in some other areas, would hardly effect the original most efficient area, though. Putting another blade form in a constant speed prop would cause radically less gain if the original choice of prop was anywhere close to appropriate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They started with CSP but I think that's not critical to your point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So all in all I am a bit sceptic reading the accounts the way that a mere change of prop alone brought jug from clearly underperforming aircraft to one that left spit behind in climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree and if the account is the one I think it is then somebody is guilty of taking
a partial account and cutting it off at a critical point, where the P-47 ran out of zoom and
the Spit caught up and left him behind. Considering that in that account the Jug was first
to spin up to full power and took off with a lead it was nothing like a fair test.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In some concrete figures the original prop should have then worked somewhere around a efficiency of only 60% for climb speed and now with about more proper 90%, which would mean that the original was indeed a bad choice...That is a chance that I would describe as dramatic, whereas I would expect the real chance to have moved in percents between 80% and 90%. Of course we usually talk about another engine as well, whereas a pilot might relate the improvement to visual differences i.e. paddle blades, bubble top, polished aluminum skin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif etc. ("you know the one with the bubble top was a huge improvement in performance" - you see he relates the way he visually remembers the aircraft to the way it performed, knowing perfectly well that the visual difference was not at all the cause)

As you know efficiency can be only max. 100%, so the question is how bad do you believe the original prop was to begin with? I don't think it was just a common living room ventilator to begin with... That in short was the point I was trying to make...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference between 80% and 90% is that the latter has 12.5% more which is significant.

IMO it all depends on what you want to do with the plane.

Oh and I was right in that you really do know more!

JtD
01-05-2008, 02:33 AM
I'm sure you are aware that there are plenty of flight test reports of prop comparisons available online?
Like this one. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47b-5942-dec26.html)

Difference here from best to worst is about 250ft/min in climb and 20 mph in top speed.

Clipper_51
01-05-2008, 06:24 AM
To the original poster ... Don't worry. These guys felt the same!

http://www.leisuregalleries.com/aagoebel.jpg

http://www.leisuregalleries.com/blakslee.jpg

http://www.leisuregalleries.com/aagoodsen.jpg

http://www.leisuregalleries.com/aaandersonB.jpg http://www.leisuregalleries.com/aashomo.jpg

http://www.leisuregalleries.com/aadrew.jpg

dugong
01-05-2008, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stansdds:
The real P-47's were never good dog fighters at low altitudes and did not climb well. The P-47's strengths were its long range, excellent performance at high altitude, ability to carry external ordnance, ability to absorb damage, and eight 50 caliber machine guns. Down low it was fine as a ground pounder, but not as a fighter. It could certainly hold its own in the air to air mission at high altitude. Rule of thumb for the P-47: Unless your mission is to take out ground targets, stay high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeap - in other words a great plane for defending the big friends at altitude where it could easily slice and dice with the Germans.

dugong
01-05-2008, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Gabby mentions a few times in his book nothing the Luftwaffe had could hang with him in a right tight spiral with his paddle, it was his standard escape technique at any altitude.

His group regularly mixed it up at low level, they had confidence in the Jug. And these were guys who converted from Spitfires. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Of course they never fought alone either, as soon as you lost contact with your wingman, it was gospel you run for home. They had rules, and not playing by them meant you were on your way out. Something he learned from the Poles while flying with them. To obey the tactical rules was more important than anything else, even kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that was the precursor to today's stringent combat dicta. If you are alone, you scat. Makes sense. Long gone are the days when lone wolf pilots would go off hunting on their own. I think the beginning and the pinnacle of this practice was the first War to end all Wars. After each successive war the pilots figured out that safety in numbers was prudent to not only survival, but victory. A natural evolution of that was wingman, groups. flights, formations and the tactics they developed from this realization.

Monterey13
01-05-2008, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:

So what's so good about the P47 besides the 8 .50's and the fact that it can do 900kph?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It can take one hell of a beating, and still take you home. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anarchy52
01-05-2008, 09:39 AM
In game it floats like a feather, has excellent maneuverability, dives supersonically takes an obscene amount of punishment, easy to fly, forgiving and docile. It can dogfight FW-190As, however I would try dogfighting with 190Ds or 109s.

P-47 in game has been tweaked for game play sake I guess.

The only thing it's not - it's not a Spitfire which seems to be the common downside of US aircraft in game.

AKA_TAGERT
01-05-2008, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
To a first order, it's all very simple really:

If you're in roughly 1 g flight, any time you're flying faster than your level flight maximum speed at that altitude, you're losing total energy. Any time you're flying slower than your level flight maximum speed at that altitude, you're gaining total energy.

Integrate away.

It follows that if you're conducting some kind of zoom test of aircraft x, whether you see a nett energy gain or loss at the end of the test is simply a function of where in the envelope you decide to test. Fly fast and you're likely to lose energy. Fly slow and you're likely to gain energy.

It is therefore rather more useful to investigate the shape of the aircraft's drag polar than to look at a single dive and zoom.

Of course, in reality, the nearly 1 g assumption is far from perfect.

The simple model I have put forward does however serve to illustrate what's going on during a dive & zoom.

Dive a biplane over a small altitude range (say 2000 m) from some starting speed (say 250 km/h) and you'll end up holding your limiting speed all the way down, so that at the bottom you've got the KE associated with that speed, and you've lost a load of altitude.

On the way back up, your speed will rapidly fall to some steady-state climb speed (which if you're flying alone would probably be Vy; in combat it would be whatever speed maximised your advantage over the enemy).

Dive a P-47 over the same altitude range from the same starting speed and you'll still be picking up speed as you initiate your recovery. You therefore obviously have retained more energy more energy. Indeed, you may well have gained energy.

Of course this is a chalk and cheese comparison.

Start your P-47 from an equivalent place in its flight envelope (close to its top speed), and dive it so that it spends most of the dive pegged to its limiting dive speed, and you'll see results which are qualitatively more akin to those given by the biplane.

But so what?

Performance doesn't matter in aerial combat. What matters is relative performance.

The P-47's advantage in the dive & zoom is that it generally isn't constrained by its limiting EAS, and can therefore retain lots of energy when diving though large altitude ranges. This allows it to engage the enemy from a position of unassailable energy advantage by diving down for a pass and then zooming back up out of the range of any possible retaliation.

This is directly analogous to the ability of an aircraft with a superior speed in level flight to "drive by". (ie chase the enemy, attack and run away before they can fight back). Which is unsurprising since both situations are examples of the attacker bringing an energy advantage to the party.

Of course, the flip side of this coin is that the P-47's current ability to dive & zoom at high altitude is excessive since IL2 does not include Mach number effects; most good IL2 P-47 pilots regularly exceed the Mach number capabilities of the aircraft by a considerable margin. Whilst similar accusations may be made about most aircraft in the game, the P-47 gains perhaps the biggest relative advantage from this since its R/L tactical Mach number capability was low.

Actually in this respect it had a lot in common with the Typhoon, and both aircraft ended up giving excellent service as tank busters at low level (with the P-47 even "borrowing" the Typhoon's bubble canopy). The P-51 took over the P-47's high altitude escort role as soon as it became available since its tactical Mach number was considerably superior, as demonstrated by extensive tests of all prospective USAAF escort fighters at the RAE.

(In this context it would be remiss of me not to observe that the P-38's bizarre compressibility problems at low altitude serve to damage its combat performance unfairly both due to their unrealistic nature - they seem to be based upon EAS rather than Mach number, and the fact that many aircraft equally "deserving" of Mach number related handling defects are not similarly afflicted...)

Were it given a realistic Mach number capability then the P-47's optimal operational altitude would fall somewhat and virtual tactics would change. But then again, were this to happen the tactical Mach number limitations of all the other aircraft, both red and blue, would force us all to relearn our favourite aeroplanes, and would dramatically alter our virtual tactics. I hope that we get more realistic transonic behaviour in SoW/BoB... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To each his own..

If 'you' find the shape of the drag polar to be more useful than looking at a dive and zoom..

Good on you!

But the FACT remains that in WWII 'they' found making note of the separation between two planes during a dive and zoom test to be useful!

I personally think 'they' found the separation of a dive an zoom was something the 'combat pilots' could relate to..

Where as the shape of a drag polar requires a little more aerospace background..

Which is why I did it my way and not your way..

Which is NOT to imply your way is better or worse than my way..

Just a different way..

Plotting the XY Flight path and separation graphs what they test pilots would have visually seen take place..

The plotting of TE is included to provide a number to give the viewer a feel for what it means when the pilot said a plane did or did not retain E in such a maneuver.

But instead of repeating myself again, or cut-n-pasting a few pages..

Take a look at section 3:E RETENTION ANALYSIS EXPLAINED: (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/N1K2-Ja/ME_00/N1K2-Ja_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf) for a better understanding of where I am coming from on this subject.

S!

Xiolablu3
01-05-2008, 12:21 PM
I like the Jug, its a great plane in the game.

Nothing seems to keep up with me when I zoom around at high speed, its just when you try and horizontal dogfight that you come unstuck.

You have to remember that this is one heavy beast, its not going to turn like a SPitfire or 109 at low-mid dogfight speeds. It DOES perform well at high speeds however, the controls work at 800kph+ when the Bf109's are almost locked, use this to your advantage.

The Jug has advantages over other aircraft, but you must USE them.

A well flown Jug is certainly not an easy kill, only when teh pilot is stupid enoug to try WW1 style dogfighting vs a Zero is the Jug easy meat. (And even then you have to bring it down)

Good points :- Tough, rugged, FANTASTIC at high speed (best in the game??), Good firepower vs fighters, Fast in everything but a powered climb (shes heavy you know)

Bad Points :- Not good on the horizontal turn, not great powered climb (compared to late war light dogfighters at least)



The Jug can compete with any plane in the game, but you MUST fight to her strengths, not you enemies.

Get online to learn more, watch the experts, ask them if you can wing with them, they will be glad of the extra pair of eyes, dont try to learn by fighting the AI.

mortoma
01-05-2008, 07:24 PM
It's ok against AI offline but I daresay I'd be scared to fly it online unless I practiced in it for about a month!! Then again, if Oleg had simulated a huge paper airplane, you could do well against the AI flying it....lol.

Xiolablu3
01-05-2008, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
It's ok against AI offline but I daresay I'd be scared to fly it online unless I practiced in it for about a month!! Then again, if Oleg had simulated a huge paper airplane, you could do well against the AI flying it....lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its really just like flying a FW190, mate.

Same princples apply, try adn stay in the vertical, dive hard at the enemy and zoom climb away. If you get into trouble, flip and dive for home.

Basically standard Luftwaffe tactics for most of the war. And also in any fighter which doesnt outturn another.

If you can fly the Fw190 well then you should be OK with a 'Bolt. Shes my favourite American fighter in the game along with the 'Cats'. I like the P51 and F4U, but the P47 is a much better and sturdier gun platform. The P51 and F4U noses wobble too much for me, I cant get enough lead on the target. I love the F4F/F6F but the T'Bolt is much faster.

Do you fly under the name 'Mortama'? If so on what servers? I will look out for you and we can go a'flying Jugs one night if you like. I'll teach you what I have learnt.

VW-IceFire
01-05-2008, 08:20 PM
Wow...we haven't had a good P-47 thread like this in quite a while. Back when it was the only real USAAF aircraft around it was everyones center of attention. Now the Mustang is what everyone talks about.

Personally I enjoy the Thunderbolt for its firepower, incredible dive that leaves you absolutely confident that the plane will pull out at the end, and the zoom climb (when done properly). I still usually make a mistake and let my speed get too low at some point but even then it absorbs the punishment most of the time. The turn rate for the Thunderbolt isn't that bad either...but you can't really tighten it up you have to think ahead and plan not to turn with an enemy fighter except for a few seconds.

I think it depends on the scenario but a mixed group of P-47 and P-51 is one of the best combinations.

Ratsack
01-05-2008, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
...

I think it depends on the scenario but a mixed group of P-47 and P-51 is one of the best combinations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When flying blue, I find the combination of either American type with Spits to be a pain. The US types can chase you down and force you to fight with the Spits.

The same is true of the Tempest / Spit combination.

When flying red I usually take the P-51 D, but I took the late P-47D for the first time in ages the other day. At high speed at low alt (suicide run!!) it turned with a Dora. Nasty piece of work.

cheers,
Ratsack

Mysticpuma2003
01-06-2008, 01:42 AM
You could watch this video to see how effective the P-47 is online:

http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/47_Heaven/47Heaven.zip

Made it a while back, but it shows there's nothing wrong with the P-47

You'll need the xvid codec to watch it which can be downloaded here:

http://www.xvidmovies.com/codec/

You really have to love 'The Jug'.

Cheers, MP.

Feathered_IV
01-06-2008, 02:32 AM
I recently read Hub Zemke's book and how he used to always try to keep the fight up around 30,000ft where the Jug had the advantage. I tried this out in Il-2 and found it to be true. The Luftie kites flop around like old fish and the P-47 just keeps climbing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

mortoma
01-06-2008, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
It's ok against AI offline but I daresay I'd be scared to fly it online unless I practiced in it for about a month!! Then again, if Oleg had simulated a huge paper airplane, you could do well against the AI flying it....lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its really just like flying a FW190, mate.

Same princples apply, try adn stay in the vertical, dive hard at the enemy and zoom climb away. If you get into trouble, flip and dive for home.

Basically standard Luftwaffe tactics for most of the war. And also in any fighter which doesnt outturn another.

If you can fly the Fw190 well then you should be OK with a 'Bolt. Shes my favourite American fighter in the game along with the 'Cats'. I like the P51 and F4U, but the P47 is a much better and sturdier gun platform. The P51 and F4U noses wobble too much for me, I cant get enough lead on the target. I love the F4F/F6F but the T'Bolt is much faster.

Do you fly under the name 'Mortama'? If so on what servers? I will look out for you and we can go a'flying Jugs one night if you like. I'll teach you what I have learnt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for the invite but the machine I fly on is not able to get on the internet. Only my laptop gets on the internet. If I go out and buy a wireless G adaptor I would be able to but trying to save up for a new car down payment. Don't have the 40 to 60 bucks for a wireles thingie.

PF_Coastie
01-06-2008, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PF_Coastie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

As you can see the final TOTAL MECHANICAL ENERGY is less than the initial.. Thus some energy was lost during the maneuver.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course some energy is lost, no plane gets back 100% after a dive.

When people say you can dive down, come straight back up and level out at your original altitude at 300kph.... well let's just say it strains credulity. I'd like to see a track of that one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you want a track of this very basic flying skill? Here you go! (http://members.cox.net/bmcoastie/quick0137.ntrk)

I could actually go from 8km down to 4km and get back to original alt at 300kph. But I am afraid if I showed you that, you may have a heart attack! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Trust me, no credibility will be lost by me about flying the Jug IN THIS GAME. I knows the jug! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well bummer, I was really hoping for a reply from you Na85. I mean you basically called me a liar. You did not watch the track?

na85
01-06-2008, 11:10 AM
Not yet, no. I've been busy.

Tell you what, I'll watch it right now.

na85
01-06-2008, 11:24 AM
Coastie,

When you said this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If you dive from 7km on a plane at 4km then zoom straight up after your pass, you can easily regain all your altitutde back and level out at 300kph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assumed (wrongly) that you would be starting out at 300kph as well. My mistake.

Cajun76
01-06-2008, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
In game it floats like a feather, has excellent maneuverability, dives supersonically takes an obscene amount of punishment, easy to fly, forgiving and docile. It can dogfight FW-190As, however I would try dogfighting with 190Ds or 109s.

P-47 in game has been tweaked for game play sake I guess.

The only thing it's not - it's not a Spitfire which seems to be the common downside of US aircraft in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Well, let's see if "In game" and Real life agree.



In game (according to you) <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Vs.</span> Real life



Floats like a feather <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Vs.</span> Lost in Translation?

Has Excellent maneuverability <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Vs.</span> it's maneuverability wasn't horrible, just worse than other fighters. With a bit of high speed separation, those 1-4 seconds can be made up.

Dives supersonically <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Vs.</span> we all know the game/sim doesn't do well with diving acceleration and what not, but the Jug was a good diver, relative to it's contemporaries.

Takes obscene amount of punishment <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Vs.</span> Duh! silly. It's a Thunderbolt, not a Zero.

Easy to fly, forgiving and docile <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Vs.</span> Yes it was. Very stable, no wicked vices when flying. Recommend Zeno's P-47 High Alt and Acrobatics.

It can dogfight Fw-190As <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Vs.</span> Depends on your definition of "dogfighting" Plenty of pilot accounts and video showing that, especially if you enter the fight with slightly more energy. I'm in the process of uploading some guncam of a fairly even match between a Fw-190A7 and a P-47. The FW has the advantage, but it doesn't just own the Thunderbolt outright. If roles were reversed, the Focke Wulf might be in similar trouble.

My first upload to YouTube. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac70ikwpf3I



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> P-47 in game has been tweaked for game play sake I guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None of what you posted is that far out of line with reality, game/sim engine limitations notwithstanding. You basically make the point that it was a good aircraft and that it's reflected fairly well in game/sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Skycat_2
01-06-2008, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
The only thing it's not - it's not a Spitfire which seems to be the common downside of US aircraft in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've never understood the obsession with calling Spitfires 'noob' planes since they can't fully trimmed out. They aren't particularly easy to fly is all I mean. Spitfires have advantages and disadvantages as do P-47s and P-51s.

PF_Coastie
01-06-2008, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Coastie,

When you said this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If you dive from 7km on a plane at 4km then zoom straight up after your pass, you can easily regain all your altitutde back and level out at 300kph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I assumed (wrongly) that you would be starting out at 300kph as well. My mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well why would I be cruising around at 300kph, that is climbing speed. If I do happen to be climbing and see a contact below. I will only dive on it after a careful scan of the surrounding area first. If there are any dots I can see, I will not dive without getting some E first. If I do see other dots, I will continue to climb and re-evaluate the sitution.

na85, If you ever come on Warclouds and see me on, be sure to say hi and I will hook up with you on comms. We can go up for a flight or two in the Jug.

PF_Coastie
01-06-2008, 02:21 PM
Oh yeah, To be more clear on why I used 300kph as a base is because that is a good speed to level out at and still have reasonable control. When you start getting slower than that, she starts getting pretty light on the controls. Which is fine, but it will take you a minute to get speed back and level out if you hammer head or just flop over by riding her all the way to the top.

Badsight-
01-06-2008, 03:36 PM
with proper flying , the P-47 is the UFC of high altitude

na85
01-06-2008, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PF_Coastie:

na85, If you ever come on Warclouds and see me on, be sure to say hi and I will hook up with you on comms. We can go up for a flight or two in the Jug. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll take you up on that. I'm a little burnt out on late-war US vs Luftwaffe planesets at the moment, but I'm sure the fancy will strike me again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif