PDA

View Full Version : Query reguarding two facets of the P-47 damage model in the upcomming patch



XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 01:43 AM
My questions reguard the damage model of the P-47's turbosupercharger, and fuel tank leaks.

First of all, was it intended that the P-47's engine dies when the turbocharger is damaged?

If it was not intended, is it planned to be fixed in the upcomming patch?

If it was intended, may we ask the reasoning behind it? The turbo charger has no direct connection to the engine, and to my knowledge, in other aircraft, failure of the compressor only results in loss of manifold pressure; problematic, true, but not fatal.

Also, was it intended that fuel leaks on the P-47 should not stop? As it stands currently, any fuel leak will continue until the fuel tank is entirely drained. Even starting at 100% fuel, the entire tank will drain in approximatly fifteen minutes. It's a bit of a problem in the campaign missions.

If it was not intended, is it planned to be fixed in the next patch?

If it was intended, again, may we ask the reasoning behind it? While the P-43 had difficulties with it's self-sealing fuel tanks, I have not heard of such problems with the P-47.

I am aware that these two issues have been discussed before, but I have not read if there has been any resolution to them, and as a dedicated P-47 pilot, I have a vested interest in this.

Harry Voyager

<script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> <script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 01:43 AM
My questions reguard the damage model of the P-47's turbosupercharger, and fuel tank leaks.

First of all, was it intended that the P-47's engine dies when the turbocharger is damaged?

If it was not intended, is it planned to be fixed in the upcomming patch?

If it was intended, may we ask the reasoning behind it? The turbo charger has no direct connection to the engine, and to my knowledge, in other aircraft, failure of the compressor only results in loss of manifold pressure; problematic, true, but not fatal.

Also, was it intended that fuel leaks on the P-47 should not stop? As it stands currently, any fuel leak will continue until the fuel tank is entirely drained. Even starting at 100% fuel, the entire tank will drain in approximatly fifteen minutes. It's a bit of a problem in the campaign missions.

If it was not intended, is it planned to be fixed in the next patch?

If it was intended, again, may we ask the reasoning behind it? While the P-43 had difficulties with it's self-sealing fuel tanks, I have not heard of such problems with the P-47.

I am aware that these two issues have been discussed before, but I have not read if there has been any resolution to them, and as a dedicated P-47 pilot, I have a vested interest in this.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 01:59 AM
Me too.

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 02:11 AM
In addition to the ahystorical performance, you bring up some good points about damage modeling errors.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 02:28 AM
Weird you never try to prove ahistorical things about LW/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=70;o.width=130</script>

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 02:31 AM
carguy_ wrote:
- Weird you never try to prove ahistorical things
- about LW

Weird, Luftwhiners never confirm there's something wrong with the Thunderbolt.

It must be very satisfying for Luftwhiners to shoot down a plane as under modeled as the P-47 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/SkyChimp.jpg



Message Edited on 06/01/0305:32AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 02:36 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- It must be very satisfying for Luftwhiners to shoot
- down a plane as under modeled as the P-47

Hehe you can actually sit on it`s six and stay there cuz it`ll never outmaneuver you.



"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=70;o.width=130</script>

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 02:40 AM
Carguy, I have limited time and money at my disposal. As there are pleanty of people here willing to discuse every minute detail of every single variant of the 109 and 190, and who have the libraries to do so, I will leave that to them, and only raise questions reguarding the logic they have chosen to use, or the interpretations of the data they have posted.

The Thunderbolt, however is my baby, and I really don't expect any of the 109 or 190 advocates to take time off of their advocation just to deal with some planethey have little interest of knowledge about, just to cover your ideas of what is "fair".

It is called division of labor. No one person designed all the aircraft of all the airforces of WWII, neither will one person know all the facets of all the aircraft of all the airforces of WWII. The best we can manage is one, or two planes. This plane is my plane.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 04:41 AM
Nice reply Harry. Could not agree more.

The FW 190 flyers are writing a bloody encyclopedia about their favorite bird, and I have no problem with that. In fact I applaud their efforts. But let someone who likes US aircraft make a post about problems with it's modeling and within seconds some LW apologist will come in and lay down some trash about it.

I fully expect Huck to be here soon...........

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace."

--Amelia Earhart--

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 05:36 AM
Hey Harry,

I think you're right about the turbo-supercharger simply losing manifold pressure. Historically that's what happened if the supercharger ductwork was punctured or damaged.

Holes in ductwork=bleeding air=lost maniflod pressure.

Shouldn't automatically lead to catastrophic failure though.


With regard to self-sealing tanks:

Do they continue to leak until empty when only hit by machine gun fire?

IIRC, 20mm-30mm cannon hits may impair the ability of the tanks to seal.



http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 05:40 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- carguy_ wrote:
-- Weird you never try to prove ahistorical things
-- about LW
-
- Weird, Luftwhiners never confirm there's something
- wrong with the Thunderbolt.
-
- It must be very satisfying for Luftwhiners to shoot
- down a plane as under modeled as the P-47

It's also very satisfying shooting down planes in the P-47.
And I have to say, despite the flaws (engine is too vulnerable, rollrate is unsufficient) It's still one fine plane, and a fine dogfighter at that.

----------------------------------
=38=Backfire
Starshii Leytenant - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 05:45 AM
Chimp,

Not true. I fly LW exclusively and I know the Jug is a joke as presented in here. But given the 190 issues I'm not surprised. The heavier and more to the E side of the continuum a plane, the worst it seems to be represented in this sim--Hurricane as presented in IL2 proves this point.

I would much prefer a challenging match against an accurately modelled Jug anyday of the week. In Janes WW2F my best fights were 190 or 109 versus Jug.

I feel your pain.

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 05:58 AM
Good points in the initial post...

Also, is it me, or is crash landing a P-47 silly-hard? Touch the ground and BAM! It explodes...I know there's a fuel tank there, but this seems a bit exagerated.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/mech.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#FF0000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#696969";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#696969";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 06:08 AM
When the Turb-Supercharger is rendered inoperative, the engine should still run except if you are at "high" altitude. In this case, as described by Johnson, the engine will quit, only to restart when reaching denser air as you glide down.

About the self sealing tanks, I haven't eard on how effective thery actually were. I wished we could select gas tanks, would help to manage "fuel leaks".

I do not have issues with crash landings, especially with the ground bouncing. I guess the plane is so heavy that it's not bouncing on fields.

Seing 109 outrolling me in dives is what is frustrating me. The elevator imput at high speed is funky too.

A couple of miniguns from a He111 killing the engine is a bummer as well as total engine failure after a couple of minutes of oil leak. I would have appreciate more life out of the leaking engine, to help reproduce the accounts of pilots having made it home thank to the Jug.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/rauns/sig2.jpg



Message Edited on 05/31/0310:19PM by Frenchy-

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 06:54 AM
FW190fan wrote:
- With regard to self-sealing tanks:
-
- Do they continue to leak until empty when only hit
- by machine gun fire?
-
- IIRC, 20mm-30mm cannon hits may impair the ability
- of the tanks to seal.
-

I recall some flights against the He-111 and Ju-88 that ended in tank punctures and completely drained tanks, but Ihaven't made an extensive study of it. It's a bit harder to test the leaking tank that it was engine death. With the engine death I could set up dogfights against the Pz.11, do a head on pass, then run away, minimizing the impact zone, but the fuel tank only seems to start leaking from hits from behind.

Also, I have started other aircraft leaking with 20mm cannon rounds, to have the leak quit at a later point. This includes the 190, as well as Yaks.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

Message Edited on 06/01/0312:54AM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 07:11 AM
good thing u bring up these pts.

<center>

http://www.geocities.com/warhawk530/AVG.jpg


'It is Courage, not the score, that counts ...' - Mohd Naqiuddin

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 11:20 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
-
- If it was intended, may we ask the reasoning behind
- it? The turbo charger has no direct connection to
- the engine, and to my knowledge, in other aircraft,
- failure of the compressor only results in loss of
- manifold pressure; problematic, true, but not fatal.
-

Fully agree, though I never had TSC damage in my P-47, so I don`t know what follows it..



-
- Also, was it intended that fuel leaks on the P-47
- should not stop? As it stands currently, any fuel
- leak will continue until the fuel tank is entirely
- drained. Even starting at 100% fuel, the entire
- tank will drain in approximatly fifteen minutes.
- It's a bit of a problem in the campaign missions.
-

That depends on how many hits you received and of what caliber. Face it, self-sealing tanks were not the magic wand some aviation books describe them. They could take only a handful of 12.7 caliber hits (and just look at how many plane has that caliber), and perhaps a dozen or so 7.92 rounds.. after that, they no longer seal the leaks. Cannon hits were even worser, they punctured such big holes that were impossible to seal. Hit it by cannon, and you can write off that tank. That`s why they abandoned SS tanks after WW2... there was little advantage from them by that time, calibers increased.

But another point is planes with multiple fuel tanks, like the P-47, FW190 etc. A hit on _one_ of the tanks should only drain that tank and leave the others alone - maybe it`s possible that Il-2 models it with only one single huge tank for all planes... in that case there`s little hope for correcting that. That would need re-doing every single damage model in a monstre patch.


-
- If it was intended, again, may we ask the reasoning
- behind it? While the P-43 had difficulties with
- it's self-sealing fuel tanks, I have not heard of
- such problems with the P-47.
-

As I said, it`s a general fault with self sealing tanks, they cannot seal themselves after a certain point of damage.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 02:57 PM
All you have to do to get the turbo charger stage damaged is fly a head on pass against any AI plane, except for the MiG-3 (for some reason that plane always shoots too high). The Pz.11c is perfect for this.

The turbo charger damage is indicated by an immediate loss of power, and smoke coming out of the left waste gate. You can confirm that the turbo is what has been hit by saving the track as an offline track, then reviewing it in arcade mode at 1/4 time. The damage occurs when any round hits in the area of the air duct intake leading back to the turbo stage. The turbocharger is housed in the small knot under the aft fuselage. The arrows should point right towards it. Rounds that hit the engine proper don't do that type of damage; not even the 37mm rounds from the Yak-9T. I have a track where my P-47 takes a 37mm round right in the engine compartment, and I didn't even notice until I watched the track.

What bugs me about the leaky tanks is that none of the otehr aircraft suffer from it. The Yak, 109, and 190 all will reseal after cannon hits have caused a leak. Now, it doesn't take a direct hit to puncture a tank; shrapnel will do just as well, and the tanks should reseal from that. I've also had light machine guns cause unstoppable leaks as well. That bothers me.

I suspect that some of that aircraft's code for handling tank punctures may not have been done by the time FB was released. If that's the case, its not a big deal, as long as it does get corrected. There are a lot of aircraft, and every so often some bit gets missed. The Yak-1 was missing it's rockets through all of Il-2, because it just kept getting missed in the hurry to get other details fixed.

I just want to know what is going on here, and if it is a missed bit, then I want to make sure it gets fixed in a timely manner.

Harry Voyager

Addendum: Thanks to everyone for keeping this thread civil. After the last few rounds of "Aircraft Wars" I am very appreciative of it.

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

Message Edited on 06/01/0309:12AM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 06:11 PM
Hey Frenchy now you know what we are going through with the 190 can't even pull the stick at corner speed to stall the damned plane. :-/

Glasses-"I may have four eyes but you only have one wing"

"Kurt Tank is your daddy"

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 08:35 PM
May we leave discution of the 190 to the threads dedicated to the 190?

Threads that begin compairing aircraft often quickly degenerate into vicious flame wars; I'd rather not see that here.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

Message Edited on 06/01/0302:35PM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2003, 09:11 PM
Salute

Has anyone here had a chance to look at an actual Pratt and Whitney R-2800?

This is a monstrous engine, very heavily built.

Has anyone looked at the Turbo charger unit?

I have, and the fact is, the Turbo charger unit is a very heavy duty item, made out of hardened steel, and completely impervious to a 7.92mm bullet. A rifle calibre bullet would also have to deal with the shrouding and other materials before it even got to the Turbo Charger.

A heavy machine gun bullet would also likely have no effect on this equipment. Only a direct hit by a heavy shell would likely damage it, and even then, if it impacted at an angle, it would likely glance off.

I have read anywhere reports or anecdotes regarding hits on the P-47's Turbo Charger unit being a problem. And I have read all the major books written on the subject.

Second, the Turbo Charger does not even kick in until the aircraft is up at higher altitudes. At lower altitudes, the aircraft would be completely unaffected by any damage to the Turbo Charger.

I believe the modelling is incorrect as it stands now.


Salute RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-02-2003, 01:36 AM
Well, I am given to understand that, while the component was very heavily built, it was still rather delicate, due to the temperature, speed, and precision it was required to operate at. If a round were to end up in the impeller, it would likely cripple it. John Deakin has a picture of an R-2800 impeller that inhaled a nut and was heavily damaged as a result, in his artical Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html) I suspect if a 7.9mm round were to get in there, it would do the same sort of damage, just by behing a large metal lump in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

I do recall reading a comment some time ago that the ducts on the P-47 were vulnerable to battle damage, but I don't recall it being stated that it was able to cause crippling damage to the aircraft.

On a side note, is the FB engine capable of dealing with two separate compressors for the engine? It just occured to me that the P-47 is one of the only aircraft simulated in FB that has it's gas driven and gear driven compressors so far appart. It may be that the game is only designed to handle a single compressor with a direct connection to the engine. If one of those fails, you do run the risk of severely damaging the engine.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

Message Edited on 06/01/0307:37PM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
06-02-2003, 11:14 AM
Bump before work, in the hopes that a developer will see this and respond.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

RichardI
06-02-2003, 04:09 PM
Big B U M P...

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
06-02-2003, 08:08 PM
I never had problems to crash with the Jug in FB. In RL, it was the "best" crash plane due to it's huge belly.
The P-47 is full of bugs. Some gauges are missing their dials. There is no ball in the bank indicator, the dial in the boost gauge doesn't move at all. The super charger is automatic but the gauge for it should work nonetheless right? The external model of the bubble-top version shows the gunsight in the position as it is in the razorback version i.e. it is placed more to the right and not centered. The Pipper and the circle in the gunsight of the bubble-top version isn't centered as well. It's slightly in a off center position (to the left). The cockpit mirror is a round one in the cockpit view but a square one on the external model (again bubble-top). The Jug has the worst gunsight of all planes in FB i.e. it has the lowest poly count. Same goes for the cockpit mirror in the bubble-top version.
The pilot seat has the wrong color in the cockpit view(i guess the seat wasn't red). From the external view, the seat is olive drab, from inside, it looks like as if it was painted with blood /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

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

<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Come and see the brilliant light
don't let your emotions mask your sight
it's the manifestation of a deeper fight
that affects me and you
my optimism was running high
a new world order was on my mind
but I couldn't believe it when I heard them say
they're blowing it away

and the fertile cresent is burning today
and baby my emotions are too
the cradle of humanity has led us all astray
and we're all in this together don't you know
´cause our species has nowhere else to go </font></font></td><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Aggression rears it's ugly head
retaliation brings further dread
the two are linked by unseen threads
that wind back through time
I don't agree with this outdated trend
nationalism is an evil friend
but hatred is instilled by invisible lines
drawn in our minds

and the fertile cresent is haunting us today
and baby our instincts are too
the ghost of humanity is warning us this way
and i think we all should heed it don't you know
´cause we've got nowhere else to go </font></font></td></tr></table>

"Fertile Cresent" by Bad Religion

XyZspineZyX
06-03-2003, 08:17 AM
VF2_John_Banks wrote:
- The P-47 is full of bugs.

It does seem so, although I am not a conspiracy
theorist assuming that this means that there is
a pro Soviet bias to the simulation. To me it
suggests that there was pressure, maybe, from
Ubi to release the sim, and it wasn't really
quite ready, and perhaps the P47 was the last
thing to be added in, to appeal to the US
market, and was least ready?

The comment that heavy planes might be ill served
by the physics model is interesting. The 190 and
P47 are heavy, but the VVS planes tend to be
on the lighter end of the scale. So perhaps this
points to an issue with the physics model rather
than the much vaunted pro-Soviet bias. Hopefully
it is an issue that can be addressed.

It was interesting that the roll speed of the P47
seemed closest in the tests that I did when flying
Janes WW2F. Since I've reinstalled Windows I've only
put on a partial set of flight sims (the ones I
actually play) but I could try some other comparative
tests with the P47. The Janes WW2F FM is suspect
in quite a lot of areas (especially spin), though, and
is table based.

XyZspineZyX
06-03-2003, 09:22 AM
No Text

Message Edited on 06/03/0310:24AM by Willey

XyZspineZyX
06-03-2003, 09:23 AM
There are several issues. P-47 is not a La-5FN, but it's a brick right now.

- Roll rate
- Single hits in wastegates / ducting kill the engine instantly
- IMHO it's a little bit to slow.... getting over 500km/h at sea level is a science for itself
- no supercharger control
- Dive and Zoom is way too bad. The only advantage is it's 1050km/h IAS topspeed, but as you are below 700, everything dives better, like 190s or even Yaks, P-39... and when you pull her up from a dive the others close up like rockets, especially Yaks, La and Hurricane. Wasn't the Hug supposed to be able to outclimb a 109 by first diving and then zooming up??? I think I heard something like that. Besides the whole BnZ modelling including most probably weight advantage in BnZ is just wrecked in FB.
I can start a dive from 2000m, 300km/h. At 1000m I'll have let's say 480km/h, then I pull up and reach 2000m with 200km/h. That's just an example. Now I must see in FB, that EVERY plane does almost the same thing. They all have the same speed at the same alt. A Hurricane, weighing something like 109G, but powered like 109E and with really THICK wings for turning (drag @ high speeds, bad accelleration) can just zoom as much as a P-47 or FW with the same initial speed. The point is in FB that the Hurri needs longer for that manoeuver, but the energy is exactly the same. It's not dragged down by it's wings, not worse due to it's less weight compared to FW/Jug and just marginally worse because of weak engine.
As far I can tell FB just handles engine power, but rather only accelleration (that's why espeacially FW and 109 are still very good dive-aways) for BnZ. Maybe also aerodynamic, because P-39 is also rather good in BnZ e retain - but here comes the Hurri again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . It's just not like it should be.


<hr>

<p align=center style="width:100%;filter:glow[color=#33CCFF,strength=2)">

<img src=http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/willey110.jpg border=0 alt="Hier geht's zur I/JG78"> (http://www.jg78.de)

&lt;script>var specwin=window;function openspecs(){specwin=window.open("http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/specs.htm", "specs", "hotkeys=0,width=640,height=480,left=64,top=64,scro llbars=yes");}</script>Die olle Rechenkiste vom noch olleren Willey (java_script: openspecs[))

<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Seit &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("March 20, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*-24));document.write(count);</script> Tagen<sup>*</sup> gibts Il-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
BTW: In &lt;script>var eventdate=new Date("June 7, 2003 00:00:00 GMT");d=new Date();count=Math.floor((eventdate.getTime()-d.getTime())/1000);count=Math.floor(count/(60*60*24));document.write(count);</script> Tag(en) gibt's das n¤chste Development Update von Oleg Maddox, wenn alles schiefl¤uft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<font size="1"><sup>*</sup> In Europa . In den USA gabs FB schon 16 Tage vorher am 4.3. Link (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkyee)</font></font></p>&lt;script>c0="#000000";c1="#400000";c2="#000040";c3="#000050";c4="#000060";c5="#000070";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c2;if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-9].bgColor=c5;}else{a[a.length-5].bgColor=c0;a[a.length-6].bgColor=c1;a[a.length-7].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;};image="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/bar1.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="left center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat";var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src="http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/transparent36.gif";o.height=36;o.width=36;</script><font color=000040>

XyZspineZyX
06-03-2003, 10:09 AM
Salute

I think the possibility of a round actually reaching the Turbocharger and doing some damage is quite remote.

Have a look at these diagrams of the P-47's structure.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/P47cutaw.jpg


http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/uprfuslg.jpg


http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/lwrfuslg.jpg


You will notice the very large number of fuselage cross pieces and spars. All of these are made of heavy gauge aluminum, sufficient either to deflect a bullet if it hit at an angle or to alter its course or slow its progress.

The following is a diagram of the Turbo-Supercharger arrangement in the fuselage of the aircraft.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/images/superchg.jpg


Notice all of the ducting, which would be made of heavy gauge sheet metal, or in the case of the exhaust pipes and runner, of steel. All of these would act to deflect, or slow a bullet.

Also look at the angle of the wastegate exit to the Turbo-Supercharger, or the angle of the intake to the Turbo-Supercharger. A bullet would not have a straight path.


Salute RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-03-2003, 05:34 PM
You can also seethat there is an error in the 3D model of the Jug. Right behind the cowl flaps, the fuselage is curved or bend inwards. In the game, it is straight which looks a bit weird from the sides. This seems to be a minor error but i noticed that right from the start.

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

<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Come and see the brilliant light
don't let your emotions mask your sight
it's the manifestation of a deeper fight
that affects me and you
my optimism was running high
a new world order was on my mind
but I couldn't believe it when I heard them say
they're blowing it away

and the fertile cresent is burning today
and baby my emotions are too
the cradle of humanity has led us all astray
and we're all in this together don't you know
´cause our species has nowhere else to go </font></font></td><td width="50%"><font size=2><font size="-1">Aggression rears it's ugly head
retaliation brings further dread
the two are linked by unseen threads
that wind back through time
I don't agree with this outdated trend
nationalism is an evil friend
but hatred is instilled by invisible lines
drawn in our minds

and the fertile cresent is haunting us today
and baby our instincts are too
the ghost of humanity is warning us this way
and i think we all should heed it don't you know
´cause we've got nowhere else to go </font></font></td></tr></table>

"Fertile Cresent" by Bad Religion

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2003, 12:41 AM
As Oleg is back on the boards, a bit now, bump, in hope of a responce.

Harry Voayger

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

The_Blue_Devil
06-12-2003, 01:10 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- My questions reguard the damage model of the P-47's
- turbosupercharger, and fuel tank leaks.
-
- First of all, was it intended that the P-47's engine
- dies when the turbocharger is damaged?
-
- If it was not intended, is it planned to be fixed in
- the upcomming patch?
-
- If it was intended, may we ask the reasoning behind
- it? The turbo charger has no direct connection to
- the engine, and to my knowledge, in other aircraft,
- failure of the compressor only results in loss of
- manifold pressure; problematic, true, but not fatal.
-
- Also, was it intended that fuel leaks on the P-47
- should not stop? As it stands currently, any fuel
- leak will continue until the fuel tank is entirely
- drained. Even starting at 100% fuel, the entire
- tank will drain in approximatly fifteen minutes.
- It's a bit of a problem in the campaign missions.
-
- If it was not intended, is it planned to be fixed in
- the next patch?
-
- If it was intended, again, may we ask the reasoning
- behind it? While the P-43 had difficulties with
- it's self-sealing fuel tanks, I have not heard of
- such problems with the P-47.
-
--
- Harry Voyager
-
Amen Harry...I brought up the fact that the Jug has an engine with a glass jaw numerous times. Histyorically the Jug was known to return to base with entire cylinder heads missing, parts of trees still lodged in the plane from collisions when ground pounding, huge holes from 20mm shells etc. The smaller hunting rifle caliber rounds rarely went through anything, sans the wings, on the jug that had any kind of armour behind it. the wings and the engine have completely different amounts of armour and reinforncement behind them. As for the fuel tanks..that thread I started on them was shrugged off. Apparently from the responses I was given the self sealing tanks didn't stop large leaks and even if they did stop a leak it was not instantly..Well if that is the case and only small leaks seal..I want them to stop the leaks I get from the BS UBER 7.62mm rounds to seal. Let us pray that they Fix the Jug..but even if they don't we can flex some U.S. muscle in the Mustang. That is of course they don't rush it like they did the Jug.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/MercyMustangIVsmall.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#E0C550";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 10:50 AM
One more bump.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 03:38 PM
"It must be very satisfying for Luftwhiners to shoot down a plane as under modeled as the P-47



Regards,

SkyChimp"


That's the best quote I've heard on these boards in quite some time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The p47 is a much better aircraft than current version of FB - however, no use pushing this point with a patch around the corner.

But, this thread is definitely worth bumping.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 07:46 PM
I'll give it a bump too H
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Chris



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:04 PM
Bumpity bump.

Did Oleg actually say that the P-47 was not fighter?

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:06 PM
Also, what is this post newbie , try again BS? I just saw that under my name...

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:16 PM
Just to correct Harry, Yaks to can go out of fuel from leaking tanks.


Happened to me quite a few times.

<Center>



http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:38 AM
Bump for Oleg/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="LIGHT BLUE">~My at last i'm in compliance, Umm well Sorta Sig~
<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1053396877.jpg
<CENTER>Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<CENTER> <FONT COLOR="RED">

Bearcat99 said: "I sure hope a lot of us have to eat fun and suck enjoyment when this patch comes out because the way some are acting is hilarious.."


&lt;script>var avatar='http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1053887377.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=avatar</script>
&lt;script>a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor="#000000";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundPosition="center center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat"</script>

&lt;script>color="#000000";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=color;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:47 AM
NN_Veverka wrote:
- Just to correct Harry, Yaks to can go out of fuel
- from leaking tanks.
-
-
- Happened to me quite a few times.
-

I know it is possible in other aircraft, however, in other aircraft, they can stop before the tank is drained.

I've had a 50% full tank drain completely over the course of thirty minutes in the P-47, and that is the expected result with a P-47. I haven't tested it yet, but I am quite certain that a P-47, with 100% fuel and a 75 gallon drop tank will completely drain following any fuel leak.

What I really need to do is find someone online who would be willing to start a leak on my plane from the ground, probably using the He-111's side guns, and then let the P-47 just sit, engine off, for the next hour or so.

As I said earlier, it's merely irritating in online play, but it utterly cripples the aircraft in offline campaigns. Minor battle damage invariably means that the aircraft is not making it home, or at least making a dead-stick landing. I am continually loosing aircraft because of light damage, and it is really starting to bother me.

Harry Voayger

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:53 AM
Yes, I completely agree with your observations Harry.

This issue is a no-brainer and should be fixed in the next patch.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:58 AM
I know it's not really a DM problem but a pretty serious performance problem; Where are the paddle blade prop's on the D-22 and 27? There is no difference the way any of the variants climb in any of my tests. Am I wrong? I know that visually the paddle prop's are not modelled but that is the main difference between the D-10 and D-22, aside from the wing pylons. The difference could be substantial in climb rate and overall speed, but the trade would be in low level strafing atttacks and such as the paddle blades were known for their turbulence doing such things.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/CindyII.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#E0C550";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:02 AM
I also think the instability of the pitch axis in the P-47 should be addressed. It was known as a very stable and heavy aircraft in flight.

In my opinion it would have been very difficult to impossible to overcontrol this aircraft at high speeds to the degree one routinely witnesses in FB.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:00 AM
bmwk1200 wrote:
- Also, what is this post newbie , try again BS? I
- just saw that under my name...


It means you dont have a lot of posts in this forum...LOL... I noticed that when I was where you are and I had the same reaction/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif only I didnt post it.....LOL

I am not sweating it...Oleg said a while back he was aware of the problems with the P-47. I will wait and see....even as it is it is a heckuva plane!!! I just hope the Pony is in the patch. Or at least soon thereafter and not in the paid add on..(not that that would stop me.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )
&lt;script>color="#B22222";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#004477";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=co
lor;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

Message Edited on 06/13/0309:02PM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:07 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:
-
- I am not sweating it...Oleg said a while back he was
- aware of the problems with the P-47. I will wait and
- see....even as it is it is a heckuva plane!!! I just
- hope the Pony is in the patch. Or at least soon
- thereafter and not in the paid add on..(not that
- that would stop me.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Ok, that was what I was looking for. I had not heard anything about the status of that aircraft.

It would be really nice if we had aircrat FAQs so this type of thing was more easily accessable, hint hint...

Anyways, thanks for posting that.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:13 AM
Hey Eagle,

When I read your posts, then close my eyes, I can still see it.

Maybe a different shade of yellow? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bump

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/sigwings.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:48 AM
Yeah rgrt, I am tryin to find the perfect hue of eye-singin yellow. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif j/k I need to figure out how I did it, so I can fix it lol.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/CindyII.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#E0C550";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:45 AM
The P-47 is botched in so many major ways, these seem like relatively minor details. The roll rate is impossible, the cockpit interior is so crudely done it looks like something from Warbirds, half the instruments are porked, in fact this thing is simply useless in its present form and Oleg should be ashamed to have released it as it is. I thought the point of having all planes passed by the design team was to keep this kind of shoddy work out of the game.

I didn't even know that the fuel tanks leak, because I've never tried flying combat with this winged abortion. A few test flights of the various versions in QMB was more than enough. Really, I haven't seen such poorly developed Jugs since Kate Moss went topless.

However, I'm not surprised to hear about the leaks. This is a problem that affects *all* the American aircraft in Il-2 and FB. When I first got Il-2 right after it came out, and tried the P-39 in a few QMB fights, one of the first things I thought was, "Doesn't the guy who made this know that American planes in World War II had self-sealing tanks?"

And it hasn't been changed in all the time since. The P-39 still leaks like the Titanic after one or two hits at extreme range from a single rifle-caliber machine gun, and catches fire like a Pinto. (I've never had it go dry from a leak, it always just ignites.)

Now we've got the P-40 and it's got the same bogus characteristics, and now you're telling me so does the P-47. No surprise at all there.

This is quite simply wrong. The self-sealing tanks in USAAF aircraft were not all-powerful, but it took more than a few small-bore hits to induce major leakage like what we see in these models.

What does suprise me is that there don't seem to be any US "whiners" - people accusing Oleg of having an anti-American bias - as you get with the other sides. If FB had included a German airplane as wretchedly done as the P-47, can you imagine the howls? It would make the current FW cockpit argument look like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

Not that I'm trying to start anything of the sort, there's more than enough already. I'm just surprised. It speaks well for the people who favor the U.S. airplanes that they have behaved themselves so well despite the leaky P-39, the undermodeled Brewster, the exploding and also leaky P-40, the peashooter-modeled .50-caliber machine gun, and that ghastly excuse for a P-47.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:01 PM
We don't bother with whining, because we know that it does not work, and mostly irritates the developers. Rather we work to get the problem in question changed, by supplying solid evidence, and careful debates. Even over the course of Il-2 we have alreayd ferreted out many of the errors in the P-39, and gotten them changed, and we plan to do the same with the P-40 and P-47.

Most of the P-47's problems stem from it's operating in an extremely different aerodynamic region than Il-2 was built to handle, and generally doing things that the engine was never built to handle. Problems such as the relatively poor dive performance, and high altitude performance are direct results of the flight engine's limitations. I'm also comming to the strong suspicion that the problems with the damage model may also be due to limitations in the damage engine.

For example, the P-47 is the only aircraft in Forgotten Battles to have a turbosupercharger. It may be that the game only has the damage modeling for a directly connected (geared, or hydraulic) supercharger. If you damage a supercharger, there is the strong likelyhood that it can kill your engine. You damage a turbochager, all you get is a naturally aspirated engine. Similare parts, but two completely different results, and two very different coding requirements.

American aircraft also typically have multiple fuel tanks scattered throughout the aircraft. The last model of the P-47 had no less than four independedn fuel tanks, one forward ofthe pilot, one behind, and one in each wing spar. The tanks were all independent, and did not exchange fuel. It may well be that our tanks were leaky, and would drain with only light damage, but with our massively redundant fuel systems, it didn't matter if a single tank drained out. To my knowledge, Forgotten Battles models all tanks as a single big tank, with locations across the aircraft.

The P-40's explosion bugs, is just that. It's a bug that to my knowledge hasn't been entirely isolated yet. It is some strange spot where it's flight formuli collide and pop the plane like a balloon. I can't get it to happen reliably, but I can't dive reliably in it either.

The reason we don't whine, is because many of us realise that these are not intentional mistakes, and most of them have good explanations behind them. Even the roll rate was a reasonalbe mistake; the chart used was for the roll rate of the aircraft with 30lbs of stick pressure, however the aircraft in this game use 50lbs of pressure. It peaks at around the aircraft's top rate of roll, but it drops off to quickly with speed. Oleg has been made aware of that, and it should be fixed in the next patch, if it doesn't get lost in other issues (which has happened before, with low volume topics).

Harry Voayger

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 07:13 PM
-Even over the course of Il-2 we
- have alreayd ferreted out many of the errors in the
- P-39, and gotten them changed,

You have? Like what? I've been flying the P-39 since before the first patch and the only change I've seen has been the dumbing down of the flight model in FB. Maybe you have documentary proof that the previous FM was wrong and the present Kinder, Gentler P-39 is correct? I'm not saying that isn't possible but I'd like to see some sort of evidence.

- Most of the P-47's problems stem from it's operating
- in an extremely different aerodynamic region than
- Il-2 was built to handle,

This would explain the wallowing-pig roll performance and the cockpit that looks like something drawn in Crayola by an autistic gibbon?

- The reason we don't whine, is because many of us
- realise that these are not intentional mistakes

Quite true. They're stupid ones, or careless ones. Very few people make intentional mistakes. Or perhaps you mean that they weren't the result of deliberate and conscious bias, as some idiots like to claim about supposed errors in their favorite Luftwaffe or Soviet aircraft? There, I agree with you, but then, not being an idiot, I never believed the conspiracy theories to begin with.

- Even the roll rate was a reasonalbe mistake

No, it was a stupid one. Your misspelling of "reasonable" was a reasonable mistake; you weren't getting paid to type this and the typo does no harm. The sodomizing of the Jug's roll rate was a stupid mistake, which makes the model useless, and the failure of the testing staff to catch it, and/or the failure of the developers to correct it, comes under professional negligence.

(I don't know whether the testers caught it or not. According to at least one fairly credible-sounding report, the grotesque blue-wing bug in the Chaika was caught by the testers and was supposed to be corrected, only it wasn't. I'm getting a feeling that the Maddox team's right hand doesn't always know what the left one is up to.)

-To my knowledge, Forgotten Battles
- models all tanks as a single big tank, with
- locations across the aircraft.

Now *that* is genuinely interesting, and thank you for passing this information on. If you are correct, and I'm sure you are, then this is such bad design work it makes my teeth itch. Even the notoriously lousy CFS-2 damage profile system allows for modeling tanks separately.

Any of these bugs and errors that have been mentioned might be excused, on the grounds that "nobody's perfect". But when you add them all up, the list is just too long; there is an obvious pattern here of sloppy workmanship.

Or rather I would say hasty workmanship. Anyone who can fly that P-47 and still refuse to believe that FB was rushed onto the market in an unready state is a hopeless case. Fly hell, just*look* at it, this is *not* up to the usual excellent standards of this sim and I have to believe it is simply unfinished.

Here's a minor but significant example, and it doesn't just affect US planes: the broken attitude indicator. In the P-47, P-40, Brewster, and Hurricane, the attitude indicator only shows roll-axis attitude; it shows the plane in level flight even in a vertical dive. And yet the same gauge is used in the P-39 and it works perfectly! That is just slipshod work.

You can say, "They'll fix it all in the patch," but even if this is true (a big assumption, not warranted by past history), it doesn't excuse anything. Only a very small percentage of the people who bought FB will ever get the patch, because only a small minority will ever visit this site or even know it exists. And anyway, a conscientious professional doesn't work that way.

Suppose you hired a man to put a new roof on your house, and then the next time it rained you got leaks all over the place. Suppose you called him up and he said, "No problem, I'll come over and patch them. Maybe some time next month." Would you hire him to do any more work? Or recommend him to any of your friends?

But here I am getting off topic, since this gets into more general issues rather than those specific to the P-47. And this is an excellent thread, far better than most of those in ORR these days, and I don't want to cause it to get derailed, so I'll stop.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 09:04 PM
I see you are new to these forums, and do not well understand how to present an effective argument. Screeching "You're f'ing stupid" at someone is not going to produce any result other than making them angry, and bakcing yourself into a corner if you are wrong. Witness the Wurkerwhiners, for a prime example of this.

I am attempting to keep this post reasonably free of the level of scorn and derision, that is the halmark of any discussion these forums seem to have about anything that is even percieved as a fault in one of the flight models. I do ask that you please cooperate.

The P-39 in the innitial patches had an undermodelled roll rate, which was corrected in later patches. The MK108 innitially had to low a rate of fire, which was corrected in later patches. The Yak-1 and Yak-1B were innitially lacking underwing mounted rockets. Other issues delayed the rectification of this until FB. The Yak-1 performed to well in several aspects, and was corrected in later patches. The Bf-109 line suffered from a reduced rate of climb, and was fixed in the FM changes in Forgotten Battles.

I don't really know what precisely happened to the P-39, however, after doing some testing, it appears that the plane has not gain much stability, rather it has lost elevator authority and some turn rate. The Q-1 can no longer match the Yak-3 in raw turnrate the way it could in Il-2, and is much more difficult to black out the pilot in, in a maximum turn at highspeeds, but it will just as happily spin if you get it to stall in sharp turn. It is merely much harder to make those overly sharp turns. I'm wondering if the center of gravity was moved forwards some? The Russian pilots heavily modified the P-39, yanking out a great deal of the pilot armour, and armour plates in he back half of the aircraft. That would have given the aircraft a much farther forward center of gravity, and mad the planes signifigantly more stable. If Oleg was using American data for the aircraft CoG in Il-2, it would have been completely wrong for the Russian P-39's.

As for the P-47's cockpit, that's actually what it looked like. That big ugly gap between the instrument panel, and the base of the canopy was there in the real plane. As for the gunsight, from what I understand, that was the sight that either the Brazillians (the people who modelled the aircraft) and/or the Russians got. It is not the American sight typically seen in photographs. We didn't send out many of our good gunsights for foreign use.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

Message Edited on 06/14/0303:08PM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 11:31 PM
For those interested in a description of real world P-47 performance agaist the Luftwaffe check this link out. It was posted by Panther in the general discussion.

http://www.p47pilots.com/cfm_ThereIWas.cfm?pageMode=VIEW&storyid=27

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 12:00 AM
Unfortunately even though I agree with a large part being said here in this thread that article is without value. An "unknown Ace" could be jack blow smoe sitting at his computer one day bored, it has absolutely no authenticity.

http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 12:32 AM
Manuverability is also a very subjective term. I have found that in a group dogfight, the P-47 have more than enough manuverability to out turn any enemy aircraft. The situation is signifigantly different in one on one dogfight, and different yet again, in suprised bounces.

If a P-47 is on your tail, it is extremely difficult to shake off, but conversly, if you are on a P-47's tail, it is relatively easy to stay there.

It is a matter of situation.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:37 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Manuverability is also a very subjective term. I
- have found that in a group dogfight, the P-47 have
- more than enough manuverability to out turn any
- enemy aircraft. The situation is signifigantly
- different in one on one dogfight, and different yet
- again, in suprised bounces.
-
- If a P-47 is on your tail, it is extremely difficult
- to shake off, but conversly, if you are on a P-47's
- tail, it is relatively easy to stay there.
-
- It is a matter of situation.
-
- Harry Voyager

Harry,

You are very right on that. Given the right situation the Jug handles very well. But you are still better off to stick with BnZ tactics that way you yourself don't get suprised.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG



<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/CindyII.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>




<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/CindyII.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>




<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/CindyII.jpg> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#E0C550";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:54 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:

"Manuverability is also a very subjective term. I have found that in a group dogfight, the P-47 have more than enough manuverability to out turn any enemy aircraft. The situation is signifigantly different in one on one dogfight, and different yet again, in suprised bounces.

If a P-47 is on your tail, it is extremely difficult to shake off, but conversly, if you are on a P-47's tail, it is relatively easy to stay there.

It is a matter of situation.

Harry Voyager"

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

Harry, let me say that after 50+ games in FB online, I have never been shot down by a P-47 in the game in any situation, in any flight model I have flown. Offline either.

I was almost shot down once by a P-47 online in a full real + padlock game when I was in the middle of a low altitude dogfight with TooCool(excellent stick) and his buddy suddenly showed up(I was in a 109 G-6), but my wing splashed his buddy and I got TooCool finally with a head on shot.

The 47 in FB is a dog plain and simple. It has many issues, one of which is its instability as a fighter and gun platform. In reality it was one of the most stable fighters in WW2 due to its size and weight. It's also relatively slow compared to other fighters in FB, although it was one of the fastest fighters of the war. It's roll rate is way off, as is it's acceleration in a dive. Climb rate appears accurate.


Message Edited on 06/14/0310:58PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 04:17 AM
Well, I've shot down two 109's flown by competent pilots, and an He-111, in a single sortie (one friendly, but that was an accident, he flew in front of me just as I fired at an enemy aircraft, and got both of his wings chopped off), before, so it is not impossible. I'd even post the tracks, except that was the track I discovered you couldn't run .ntrks for more than an hour.

I've even managed to turn fight a Yak-3 until the pilot hit the respawn key (I hadn't fired a single shot, so I lost the kill). That I have the track for. That was the same flight I had a wingman shoot me down, and claim that he'd run into me.

It is perfectly possible to get kills with the P-47. It just requires a certain dedication to the type, that most people are not willing to make.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 05:12 AM
James_Gang wrote:
-
- The 47 in FB is a dog plain and simple. It has many
- issues, one of which is its instability as a fighter
- and gun platform. In reality it was one of the most
- stable fighters in WW2 due to its size and weight.
- It's also relatively slow compared to other fighters
- in FB, although it was one of the fastest fighters
- of the war. It's roll rate is way off, as is it's
- acceleration in a dive. Climb rate appears accurate.


Oh now I see what you meant when you said that Il2 FM only got worse. The Jug problem! you want to outturn, ouclimb, outdive and outrun La-7 or Bf-109K, isn't it? That's not going to happen because never happend in real life either.

You mention instability. NACA rated P-47 stability at turning speeds as poor, below USAAF requirements. Look for the report, it was posted a number of times. Then whine to NACA if you want.

About slowness, what do you mean? Harry Voyager admitted that P-47 reach the historical max speed performance. If you are refering to acceleration, well it accelerated two times slower that La-7 or Bf-109K. Don't expect to race with them.

About dive. Any aircraft that accelerates faster that its enemy at an altitude will outdive him at that altitude. Since P-47 can outaccelerate most planes at high altitudes (over 25000ft) except late Bf-109, you could outdive them there. Below 15000ft most planes will outdive P-47.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:07 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- About dive. Any aircraft that accelerates faster
- that its enemy at an altitude will outdive him at
- that altitude. Since P-47 can outaccelerate most
- planes at high altitudes (over 25000ft) except late
- Bf-109, you could outdive them there. Below 15000ft
- most planes will outdive P-47.
-

That is a somewhat inaccurate statement, however, in FB it is also a bit of a moot point. All modern fighters in FB have the nearly same accelleration in a dive, reguardless of mass, engine power, or level acceleration. The only signifigant difference in diving performance is the speed at whcih parts begin to rip off. I tested this from 10,000m, so altitude, and altitude performance is not a factor.

I have one track where I followed an unpiloted Yak-3, in a 20-30 degree dive, from 10,000m all the way down to 3,000m, slowly losing distance the entire way. It was pathetic.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 06:52 AM
This is a ~very~ enlightening thread.

Thanks guys/guyettes.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 07:09 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
-- About dive. Any aircraft that accelerates faster
-- that its enemy at an altitude will outdive him at
-- that altitude. Since P-47 can outaccelerate most
-- planes at high altitudes (over 25000ft) except late
-- Bf-109, you could outdive them there. Below 15000ft
-- most planes will outdive P-47.
--
-
- That is a somewhat inaccurate statement, however, in
- FB it is also a bit of a moot point. All modern
- fighters in FB have the nearly same accelleration in
- a dive, reguardless of mass, engine power, or level
- acceleration. The only signifigant difference in
- diving performance is the speed at which parts begin
- to rip off.

Since those fighters don't have the same acceleration in level flight, they also won't have the same acceleration in dive. But dive angle is very important. For example most late war fighters will accelerate in level flight with 3-4 ft/sec^2 at 250 mph, top fighters with 6-7 ft/sec^2 at the same speed. Now if we enter in relatively shallow dive of 30 degrees, we will add half the gravitational acceleration (remember acceleration in dive equals (T-D)/m ,which is aprox level flight acceleration, little bit more at slow speeds, plus sin(dive_angle)*gravitational_acceleration), so we will have another 16 ft/sec^2. You can see that most fighters quadruples their level flight acceleration by going in a relatively shallow dive. If in level flight top fighters accelerate 2 times better than most fighters, by going in a 30 degrees dive their advantage is only 10% !! (in a 90 degrees dive it is even less: 5%) This is the reason why most fighters appear to accelerate at almost the same rate at dives over 30 degrees. The only barriers are compressibility limit and structural limit (a Mach number and a IAS reading).


I tested this from 10,000m, so
- altitude, and altitude performance is not a factor.

Altitude is another important factor. Fighters with small or less efficient superchargers (like russian fighters) lose their power rapidly at altitude. Therefore their level flight acceleration deteriorates and so does their dive performance. Once again I have to stress the fact that before reaching compressibility or structural limits there are little differences in diving acceleration at angles larger than 30 degrees.
Since P-47 turbosupercharger keeps the power rating unchanged until 25000ft, and all other fighters don't, P-47 level acceleration will remain aprox the same as at the sea level. That is why P-47 will outdive most fighters at altitude. If you want to verify this try a shallow 15 degrees dive from 30000 to 25000 ft in a P-47 then in a Yak-3, and measure the time. If it is modeled correctly P-47 should complete the dive in less time.


- I have one track where I followed an unpiloted
- Yak-3, in a 20-30 degree dive, from 10,000m all the
- way down to 3,000m, slowly losing distance the
- entire way. It was pathetic.

It's impossible to draw a conclusion from your test. Yak-3 will gain speed quite fast in shallow dive below 6000m against P-47. Try the test I described above. Tell me the results, I'm curious.


_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

Message Edited on 06/15/0301:14AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:55 PM
When I say the entire flight, I mean the *entire* flight. By 6000m it was already very clear that I was not going to catch him, as I had already opened from the original 0.30km to 1.2km. The Yak-3 was also flying inverted the entire flight in a bank, as well, and was lightly damaged in the wing.

I can send you the track; I've still got it on my harddrive.

Basically, I have found no situation where the P-47 can dive away from an enemy aircraft, not even from high altitude, and I've tried it many, many times. It just can't be done.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'</script> &lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:31 PM
Harry Voyager wrote:
As for the P-47's cockpit, that's actually what it looked like. That big ugly gap between the instrument panel, and the base of the canopy was there in the real plane. As for the gunsight, from what I understand, that was the sight that either the Brazillians (the people who modelled the aircraft) and/or the Russians got. It is not the American sight typically seen in photographs. We didn't send out many of our good gunsights for foreign use.

You know Harry that is an excellent point...one that I have to constantly remember. When we talk about numbers and stats and such we should try to remember that the numbers for the planes we see are not neccessarily the same ones that are modelled in the sim because the planes werent the same. If they were the P-39 wouldnt be quite what it is in this sim. Not that it was a lousy plane but it definitely had some issues. So when we look at stats we have to ask ourselves..is this for the American vesion or the lend lease version. I am sure in some cases they would be the same and should probably be close but IMO the Soviets improved on th 39 with their modifications.

The P-47 is not the greatest plane in FB by any standard but the plane is not the big porking dog some of you have made it to be. I fly it and the P-39s primarily and i have scored kills on line with it. I get kills (At least 1) offline with it on just about every mission I fly with it.


&lt;script>color="#B22222";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#004477";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=co
lor;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

chris455
03-02-2004, 10:52 PM
Harry Voyager wrote these words long ago. As I write this, these two damage model issues with the P-47 still exist, in all 3 versions of the plane:


Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
My questions reguard the damage model of the P-47's turbosupercharger, and fuel tank leaks.

First of all, was it intended that the P-47's engine dies when the turbocharger is damaged?

If it was not intended, is it planned to be fixed in the upcomming patch?

If it was intended, may we ask the reasoning behind it? The turbo charger has no direct connection to the engine, and to my knowledge, in other aircraft, failure of the compressor only results in loss of manifold pressure; problematic, true, but not fatal.

Also, was it intended that fuel leaks on the P-47 should not stop? As it stands currently, any fuel leak will continue until the fuel tank is entirely drained. Even starting at 100% fuel, the entire tank will drain in approximatly fifteen minutes. It's a bit of a problem in the campaign missions.

If it was not intended, is it planned to be fixed in the next patch?

If it was intended, again, may we ask the reasoning behind it? While the P-43 had difficulties with it's self-sealing fuel tanks, I have not heard of such problems with the P-47.

I am aware that these two issues have been discussed before, but I have not read if there has been any resolution to them, and as a dedicated P-47 pilot, I have a vested interest in this.

Harry Voyager

&lt;script&gt;var YourPicName='http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDdAtAclWIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKFerKkyKL*!vY7W 1mvHRQw!Z5x4WTDGhT8D*!Ksv*Z*HbP*GpxTqrVF5B9TYxjko* Q/Avatar-2-500x500-(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077'&lt;/script&gt; &lt;script&gt;var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName&lt;/script&gt;

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

HarryVoyager
03-03-2004, 12:43 AM
The engine death was later found to be that the oil radiator were mounted in the chin of the aircraft. That is most likely what was getting hit, and reasonably corresponds to the effects of the damage.

Though, some responce to the effect, before the whole debate had degenerated into its regretable uglieness, would have been greatly appreciated, and probably would have saved a lot of hard feelings all around.

The fuel tank leak, I still have run into no information on, though I'd hazard a guess that it is an artifact of having the unified fuel tank system. I.e. the aft tank was relatively easy to permanently breach, but the forward tank was separate enough from the aft tank that the aft tank would not drain it. However, as all fuel tanks in Il-2 are modeled as one large interconnected fuel tank, rupturing one tank ruptures them all, netting us, the Leaky Jug syndrome.

Harry Voyager

Addendum: I'm going to have to see if I can find a mod to delete all those defunct sig scrpts from my old posts.

VW-IceFire
03-03-2004, 06:43 AM
So the fixes to the P-47 should generally be:

1) Since the game models a single unified tank and does not accurately represent the robust independent fuel tank system that should be present on the aircraft would it not stand to reason that the aircrafts self sealing tanks should then behave like others to make up for the difference (this has been done elsewhere in the case of the syncronized .50 cals getting more ammo to make up for something else)

2) The aircrafts roll rate on a single version, which has little difference from the other versions with exception of the canopy and some more fuel, needs to be fixed.

Thats not too bad...this is a great plane in the game from time to time. Its just got some teething problems that do need to be addresssed one way or another.

I don't believe in this bias thing either. I'm glad many have rejected it.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"