PDA

View Full Version : Why not a P-47M?



Pages : [1] 2

XyZspineZyX
04-19-2003, 06:53 PM
Yes, why not?


Arrrrggghhhhh, 3600PS, look here!!!!!!!

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html

Cheers,

Message Edited on 04/19/0305:54PM by CHDT

XyZspineZyX
04-19-2003, 06:53 PM
Yes, why not?


Arrrrggghhhhh, 3600PS, look here!!!!!!!

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html

Cheers,

Message Edited on 04/19/0305:54PM by CHDT

XyZspineZyX
04-19-2003, 06:56 PM
Sorry, but arrrrgggghhhhh again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"There is adequate evidence to indicate that some of the more resourceful crew chiefs in the 56th Fighter Group, managed to hotrod the P-47M to the point that some reliable pilots were reporting 500 mph at altitude in level flight. Some may find this next tidbit hard to swallow, however, the test documents still exist."

XyZspineZyX
04-19-2003, 07:21 PM
The P-47M saw very little combat, and had a host of technical problems, relating to its turbosupercharger. It was a great aircraft though, but it took about a year to get the engine to run reliably in combat, and saw most of its action with the P-47N in the Pacific

If they do the Luft '45 campaign, it will fit in perfectly, but for the period prior to that, it's a little out of place.

Doesn't mean I still wouldn't love to see it though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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
04-19-2003, 08:45 PM
The 56th FG seems to have been pretty successful with the "M" in the last few months of the war.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/flag.jpg'</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=75;o.width=110</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-19-2003, 09:43 PM
At least, the problems were solved and it was a fully operational aircraft.

http://www.arcair4.com/Fea1/401-500/Fea473_P-47_Youngerman/Fea473.htm

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
04-20-2003, 04:46 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- The P-47M saw very little combat, and had a host of
- technical problems, relating to its
- turbosupercharger. It was a great aircraft though,
- but it took about a year to get the engine to run
- reliably in combat, and saw most of its action with
- the P-47N in the Pacific


Harry, the first P-47M arrived @ Boxted* on Jan 3 1945 & was issued to Col Dave Schilling. The first combat with a P-47M took place on January 14 1945 when the 61st's Paul Conger shot down a Bf 109 near Magdeburg, 10 German fighters were downed for the loss of 1 P-47M. A second P-47M suffered engine failure, over the channel where the pilot died from exposure before ASR arrived. The 61st FS was completely equipped with P-47M's by mid Jan. all 108 production model P-47M's went to the 56th FG.

Most of the problems with the P-47M were basicly the same as had plauged the P-47C, Ie, cracking in the high tension leads,& the problem with the throttle & turbo supercharger correlation.

The next series of problems with the C engine was faulty carurettor diaphrams, and cylinder overcooling & corrosion found in the cylinder bores from improper storage protection from the elements in shipping from the USA. This led to the 56th reverting back to P-47Ds from Mid Feb, thru early March, while the P-47Ms were brought up to par. Prior to March 24 1945 the 56th had a total of 152 fighters on hand consisting of P-47D, P-47M, & 12 P-51B's, as of March 24 not a single P-47D, or P-51B remained with the 56th.


The 56ths P-47M's were ready & up in force during Operation Varsity, Ie, on March 14th 2 Ar.234's were brought down by P-47Ms. On March 25th 2, Me 262 were destroyed over Parchim. On April 5 another Me 262, on April 7, an Me 262, & 5, Bf 109. On 9 April P-47M's claimed 2 more Me 262. which would be the last 2 German AC to fall to the 56th in combat of the war.


*See: Freeman Roger, A: "56th Fighter Group". pp.107-112.


Regards, John Waters


Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.



Message Edited on 04/19/0311:50PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
04-20-2003, 04:59 AM
CHDT wrote:

- "There is adequate evidence to indicate that some of
- the more resourceful crew chiefs in the 56th Fighter
- Group, managed to hotrod the P-47M to the point that
- some reliable pilots were reporting 500 mph at
- altitude in level flight. Some may find this next
- tidbit hard to swallow, however, the test documents
- still exist."

Robert S. Johnson's P-47D-5-RE, "Lucky," was able to turn in 72" of manifold pressure and about 470 mph true airspeed at 30,000 feet. Due illegal adjustments made to the wastegate linkages. Field 'hot rod' mods were done to many 56th P-47s thatboosted performance far above manufacturer's specs.

Regards,, John Waters


Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
04-20-2003, 09:33 AM
Also 130 of them were built, quite enough to be in the game!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
04-20-2003, 12:22 PM
Possibly the modeller wasn't interested in that one. Therefore, the different details weren't made.

But, then again, everyone is free to build one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
04-20-2003, 03:40 PM
I'm not sure, but the external changes from the D model would be minimal: some changes around the dorsal thin, no pylons, but not much...

Like the A-9, a skin, some FM changes and it's almost done /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
04-20-2003, 06:08 PM
All the P-47D-27 in FB needs is a dorsal fin (the dorsal fins on the "M" were added in the field, they were not produced with them). Or it doesn't need a fin. Not all of the "M"s got them, or didn't get them until the very end of the war.

You could also leave the pylons on. The "M" was used in the ground attack roll. There were also some funky smoke generating pods that could be attached.

The biggest change would be the prop. It would have to be changed to the Curtis Electric "paddle" prop.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/flag.jpg'</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=75;o.width=110</script>

The_Blue_Devil
04-21-2003, 11:58 AM
Don't tease me...hehe..If we got the P-47M and N it would simply be "Game Over" at Altitude and in Energy Fights.

<center>--------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"The P-47 Thunderbolt is the Ultimate Prom Date..Sure She is Ugly..but Man Does She Put Out...Love that Double Wasp"[b]</center>

&lt;script>var avatar="http://www.multied.com/aviation/photos/P47.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>
<img src=http://www.vectorsite.net/avp471.jpg>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#040830";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#0B1760";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-21-2003, 03:40 PM
Ohhh yes.....I want my M model. LOL /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://56thfightergroup.bravepages.com/61.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-29-2003, 01:15 PM
Bump, it would be great to have this aircraft for the year 1945!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
04-29-2003, 02:27 PM
The problems the M-series had with the motors, was nothing with the design. It was the way they were shipped to Europe. They were corroded, etc. Once they solved that piece of the puzzle, the plane was an awesome beast.


--
Surgeon General

Executive Officer 56th Fighter Group
Zemke's Wolfpack
CAVE TONITRUM

XyZspineZyX
04-29-2003, 09:40 PM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
- Don't tease me...hehe..If we got the P-47M and N it
- would simply be "Game Over" at Altitude and in
- Energy Fights.
-

Even against 262 ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-29-2003, 10:17 PM
Yes yes!!


Make the M!


But Oleg is not interested in the P-47.
Or dosen't seem to be.

And he uses Russian data, and there are no P-47ms that went to russia...?


----

"...you know that I'm no coward. Out in eastern Asia we made many hair-raising voyages through typhoons. But I dream constantly of falling zeppelins. There is something in me that I can't describe. It's as if I saw a strange darkness before me, into which I must go."

Chief Machinist Mate, German Navy Airship L-31 (destroyed over London, Oct 1, 1916)

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 01:31 PM
A shameless bump just to prove that I'm not (only) a "Wuergerwhiner" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yes, a P-47M would be great in FB for the year 1945!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 03:28 PM
CHDT wrote:
- A shameless bump just to prove that I'm not (only) a
- "Wuergerwhiner"
-
- Yes, a P-47M would be great in FB for the year 1945!


Man you really are incredible!! Why not a IAR-81? alonside IAR-80 which we hopefully will get in this patch. Both certainly had much more importance on EF and relevance in this particular sim. This goes for dozens of other aircraft.

P-47M was operational only in the last weeks of war. But do we know that it performed according to it's specs, or did it have the performance of a regular 47D? The only thing we know for sure about 47M is that it was troubled by technical difficulties.

If there'll be enough time it can be modelled for hypothetical '46 servers. It should be on position 100 on a priority list.

_______________________________________________&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
05-13-2003, 03:53 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
The only thing we know for sure about 47M is
- that it was troubled by technical difficulties.

What? Is this the Loch Ness plane? Please Huck...once again, you are self serving in your comments. In fact, any credibility you have with your arguments is, and will continue to be, suspect granted your level of bias.

This argument hinges on whether FB whould include planes no matter what the theater. Regardless of the P-47M's obscurity there are far more obscure planes from other theaters being introduced into FB. I mean, the Spits are on the way, a Typhoon (or is that a Tempest?), Go229, P-80, P-38, Whirlwind, etc. Heck, the TB-3 and the P-47 were added because they were modeled. In fact, chances are if you model something well and have flight data Olege will include it. And since the above mentioned examples WILL be included, regardless of Huck's rants, then there's really no reason the P-47M cannot be included. And I say, the more the better. There would be some modest modeling for the P-47M involved...the dorsal fin...and some flight model changes...but why not? It's not a lot of effort...at least we don't think it is. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Oleg may have a different view of this. Perhaps someone should draft a quick dorsal fin in 3dsmax for the aircraft. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If you are something of a purest...and I can understand that argument...it's ALREADY difficult flying in FB. Whatever you do don't go online...you might see things that will make you dizzy...like LAGGs shooting down P-39s and Yaks! Oh, heavens no. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 04:09 PM
So let's get this straight Huck'ster, now theire is some critera to meet before sugesting adding any planes, be added. Does this critera of yours say apply to especialy rare planes, planes that saw little service in small numbers like the Ta-152H?. Or planes that saw service in larger numbers for the last few months of the war like the P-47M only?.


Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.


Message Edited on 05/13/0311:11AM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 04:20 PM
Yes John./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Did not the Ta152H have many technical problems as well as some flight stability problems.

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 04:25 PM
PzKpfw wrote:
- So let's get this straight Huck'ster, now theire is
- some critera to meet before sugesting adding any
- planes, be added. Does this critera of yours say
- apply to especialy rare planes, planes that saw
- little service in small numbers like the Ta-152H?.
- Or planes that saw service in larger numbers for the
- last few months of the war like the P-47M only?.


47M saw action in larger numbers?? how many Ms were operational from 130 built? What was the procent of P-47M from total number of allied prop fighters operational at the end of the war? Compare that procent with that of Ta152H.
You can call me Huck, thanks.

_______________________________________________&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
05-13-2003, 04:30 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Yes John.
- Did not the Ta152H have many technical problems as
- well as some flight stability problems.


Ta152H had only quality of fabrication problems, certainly not stability problems. In fact it was one of the easiest planes to balance. This is just a myth generated probably by a test in which the ground crew did not pay enough attention to the weight balancing of the plane. Of course this result was greatly appreciated by the test organisers and not repeated.

_______________________________________________&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
05-13-2003, 04:33 PM
- Did not the Ta152H have many technical problems as
- well as some flight stability problems.

Hmm, the most serious problem was the pressurized cabin, but it worked.
Later on, some fighters had some problems with the high-alt chargers, but I'm sure if the situation looked better for the germans, they've had delivered the 152H bug-free /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<hr><p align=center>

http://www.brooksart.com/Mountainwolf.jpg

http://www.jg68.de.vu

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

<hr>

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 04:47 PM
Little information I found on the web...seems accurate and can be corraborated in other places. The gist of the article is about Japan's acquisition of Ta 152 plans...interesting stuff. Here ya go:

This wing featured a very simple manufacturing process and offered a much greater internal volume for fuel as well as being a marked improvement over other wing ideas for the Ta 152. So much so was this wing desired that it was standardized for the Ta 152 series, in part as it offered the potential to better handle the North American P-51 "Mustang". Work began on pre-production Ta 152H-0 at Sorau while the assembly line for production Ta 152H aircraft was readied at Cottbus. The first Ta 152H, the Ta 152H V1 and the second, V2, were completed in June and July of 1944 and the former sent to Langenhagen for testing, the other to Rechlin for official evaluation beginning in August. The first Ta 152 series aircraft left the production line at Cottbus was a batch of 20 pre-production Ta 152H-0s which were delivered in October and November of 1944 to Erprobungskommando Ta 152, commanded by Hauptmann Bruno Stolle and based at Rechlin, which would service test the airplane. At the close of November, the Ta 152H-1 began to roll off the lines, 34 being completed by year's end. It was not until January 27, 1945 did the first Ta 152 H models begin to trickle into Luftwaffe service, production being severely hampered by the rapid advance of the Soviets who ultimatly overran the Cottbus facility.

http://members.aol.com/pelzig/ta152.htm

So, when the P-47M's (total: 130...probably over a month or two considering the N's started coming of the line in early '45) entered service in Dec'44 there were only...what...~50 Ta 152H's of both H-0 and H-1? Gimme a break. The numbers argument is ridiculous...so, we're going to assume how many Ta's were made in...what...four months? All the factories were captured prior to May (or at least weren't being supplied with parts)...so...if anything production #'s between the two are equivalent.

- Ta152H had only quality of fabrication problems,
- certainly not stability problems.

And once again Huck, you overstate STABILITY as the source of all problems with an airplane...and as the mark of a great airplane. Simply not so. There are certainly degrees of stability...but a controllable "less" stable airplane is inherently more maneuverable than a controllable "more" stable airplane. Stability makes for good Cessna's...not necessarily good fighters.



<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

Message Edited on 05/13/03 11:48AM by MachineII

Message Edited on 05/13/0311:50AM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 04:54 PM
- And once again Huck, you overstate STABILITY as the
- source of all problems with an airplane...and as the
- mark of a great airplane. Simply not so. There are
- certainly degrees of stability...but a controllable
- "less" stable airplane is inherently more
- maneuverable than a controllable "more" stable
- airplane. Stability makes for good Cessna's...not
- necessarily good fighters.
-


Hmm..interesting !

Tell me more about this "Stability" problem !"

I haven't heard of this kinda problem yet !

What's your reference ?

<hr><p align=center>

http://www.brooksart.com/Mountainwolf.jpg

http://www.jg68.de.vu

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

<hr>

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 04:57 PM
"If there'll be enough time it can be modelled for hypothetical '46 servers"

Some links for you, sorry the P-47M was operational in 1945 and in sufficient numbers for being included in FB (am I thinking to the B-1, the MiG-3U...) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Inbox/n-p/p-47m-early-i.htm

http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/857.html

(500mph, TAS, ihaaaa!!!!!)

http://www.geocities.com/msheftall/p47m.html

(for the Polish people)

http://usfighter.tripod.com/56th_fighter_group.htm

http://eaw.thrustmaster.com/!english/usa.html

(even the "other" sim has a P-47M!!!)

and so on...

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 04:57 PM
Bremspropeller wrote:
- Hmm..interesting !
-
- Tell me more about this "Stability" problem !"
-
- I haven't heard of this kinda problem yet !
-
- What's your reference

Hmm? Which one? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As far as the Ta152 goes, I don't think there was one, merely stating that stability is not the be-all, end-all of a fighter.

Would be glad to discuss it otherwise though. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 05:15 PM
Awright.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<hr><p align=center>

http://www.brooksart.com/Mountainwolf.jpg

http://www.jg68.de.vu

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

<hr>

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 05:17 PM
No Huck, the exact opposite. I refer you to Harmann's Ta152 book where translations of reports are emphatic about the stability problem.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- Ta152H had only quality of fabrication problems,
- certainly not stability problems. In fact it was one
- of the easiest planes to balance. This is just a
- myth generated probably by a test in which the
- ground crew did not pay enough attention to the
- weight balancing of the plane. Of course this result
- was greatly appreciated by the test organisers and
- not repeated.

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 05:25 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- No Huck, the exact opposite. I refer you to
- Harmann's Ta152 book where translations of reports
- are emphatic about the stability problem.


Let'sfirst make clear what kind of stability you are talking about:

1.) the structural stability

2.) the dynamical stability (required rudder inputs to fly straight)

Pls chose /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<hr><p align=center>

http://www.brooksart.com/Mountainwolf.jpg

http://www.jg68.de.vu

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

<hr>

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 05:30 PM
Well Huck, depends on who you believe about the number of Ta152Hs built. If you believe Isegrim, and some others, and his 167, then the percentage will be really small, something like 7%. III./JG301 could not be brought up to any where near its compliment (at least 40 a/c) of required Ta152Hs.

For the P-47M, the whole of 56th FG group was so equiped so the percentage would be at least 37% to 46% with 16 to 20 a/c assigned to a squadron.



Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- 47M saw action in larger numbers?? how many Ms were
- operational from 130 built? ........... Compare that
- procent with that of Ta152H.
-
-

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 05:35 PM
Read the book Brem./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Bremspropeller wrote:

-
-
- Let'sfirst make clear what kind of stability you are
- talking about:
-
- 1.) the structural stability
-
- 2.) the dynamical stability (required rudder inputs
- to fly straight)
-
- Pls chose
-



**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 05:48 PM
LOL

According to ALL the books I read there was none of either problem /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<hr><p align=center>

http://www.brooksart.com/Mountainwolf.jpg

http://www.jg68.de.vu

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

<hr>

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 06:01 PM
Better read some more then Brem./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

try

"Focke-Wulf Ta152: Der Weg zum Hohenjager" by Aviatic Verlag

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 06:01 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:


- 47M saw action in larger numbers?? how many Ms were
- operational from 130 built? What was the procent of
- P-47M from total number of allied prop fighters
- operational at the end of the war? Compare that
- procent with that of Ta152H.
- You can call me Huck, thanks.

The first P-47M arrived at Boxted on Jan 3 1945 & was issued to Col Dave Schilling. The first combat with the P-47M took place on January 14, 1945 when the 61st's Paul Conger shot down a Bf 109 near Magdeburg, 10 German fighters were downed total for the loss of 1 P-47M.

the Stabsschwarm of JG 301, which is the only operatioal unit that flew Ta 152s recieved its first Ta 152s in March 1945.


Most of the problems with the P-47M were basicly the same as had plauged the P-47C, Ie, cracking in the high tension leads,& the problem with the throttle & turbo supercharger correlation. As well as faulty carurettor diaphrams, cylinder overcooling, & corrosion, in the cylinder bores from improper storage protection from the elements during shipping from the USA.


The 56th reverted back to P-47Ds from Mid Feb, thru early March, while the P-47Ms were brought up to par. Prior to March 24 1945 the 56th had a total of 152 fighters on hand consisting of P-47D, P-47M, & 12 P-51B's, as of March 24 not a single P-47D, or P-51B remained with the 56th.

The Stabsschwarm of JG 301 usualy operated how many Ta-152 on a sorties Huck'ster?

Production numbers means squat concerning the Ta-152 when compared to how many actualy flew in combat, Ie, the Germans could not even re-equip III/.JG 301 with 35 Ta 152H, that is why the 16 Ta 152H III./JG 301 had recieved, were turned over to the stabsschwarm, while III/ reverted back to the Fw 190A etc.

So what we have is 1 complete US FG totaly equipped with the, only P-47s left in the 8th AAF; P-47Ms vs the only LW unit flying the Ta 152, the stabsschwarm of JG 301 equipped with a few Ta-152H, from March thru April 1945. What was the % of Ta 152H from total number of of LW prop fighters, operational at the end of the war Huck'ster ?, compare that % to the % of P-47M.


Regards, John Waters


Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.



Message Edited on 05/13/0301:33PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 06:13 PM
Regards, John Waters



_______________________________________________&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
05-13-2003, 06:16 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- No Huck, the exact opposite. I refer you to
- Harmann's Ta152 book where translations of reports
- are emphatic about the stability problem.


You mean german reports about Ta152H1 stability problems? I'm waiting for the quote, a scan would be even better, to see the whole context. Thanks.

_______________________________________________&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
05-13-2003, 06:22 PM
Don't have the time right now Huck but you can order the Ta152 book from Schiffer./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- No Huck, the exact opposite. I refer you to
-- Harmann's Ta152 book where translations of reports
-- are emphatic about the stability problem.
-
-
- You mean german reports about Ta152H1 stability
- problems? I'm waiting for the quote, a scan would be
- even better, to see the whole context. Thanks.
-
-

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 06:31 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Don't have the time right now Huck but you can order
- the Ta152 book from Schiffer.


And I don't have the need either. Thanks, anyway. Come up with this claim when you'll have something more tangible at hand.

_______________________________________________&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
05-13-2003, 06:39 PM
PzKpfw wrote:


- Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das
- reflektieren



hehe... what a crap /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



but funny... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 06:46 PM
If you didn't have the need, then why did you ask? dah! It is there in the book, so, sorry it is contrary info to your German a/c are 103% perfection illusion.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- Don't have the time right now Huck but you can order
-- the Ta152 book from Schiffer.
-
-
- And I don't have the need either. Thanks, anyway.
- Come up with this claim when you'll have something
- more tangible at hand.
-


**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 06:49 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- If you didn't have the need, then why did you ask?
- dah! It is there in the book, so, sorry it is
- contrary info to your German a/c are 103% perfection
- illusion.


Why do you have such problems quoting your sources?


Are you making them up? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


That's no way to discuss matters is it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Put up or shut up?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 06:56 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- If you didn't have the need, then why did you ask?
- dah! It is there in the book, so, sorry it is
- contrary info to your German a/c are 103% perfection
- illusion.


I don't have the need to buy a book for a single proposition in which the author claims that Ta152 had stability problems bringing no evidence whatsoever. Is this what I will find? Bring the scan Milo, then we'll discuss it.

_______________________________________________&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 05/13/0312:58PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 07:52 PM
jippo, you really are something else aren't you, twice I said what the source was. Why don't you learn to read better!

But since you missed them the first time:

Harmann's "Ta152" book published by Schiffer/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

which is the English translation of

"Focke-Wulf Ta152: Der Weg zum Hohenjager" by Aviatic Verlag/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Both well respected and well know books and have been mentioned by others in other posts before./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Leave your personal problems out of the forums. Do something about your crappy attitude jippo.


Jippo01 wrote:
-
-
- Why do you have such problems quoting your sources?
-



As for you Huck, I might be able to find the time when you find the time to make good on all your very numerous promises./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Well there is much more in the book than just the mention of a stability problem Huck./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif If you are too cheap to buy another reference book why don't you say so instead of making lame excuses.

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 07:57 PM
Ooh, c'mon don't be so serious! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

What is the quote! You haven't said that yet, you just mentioned about stability problems. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Relax a bit, m8! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 08:06 PM
Go buy either book jippo, $35.00USD./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The Ta152H section starts on pg 66.

http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/luftwaffe/0764308602.html

Considering you agressive posts lately, how else to take your latest?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 08:16 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Go buy either book jippo, $35.00USD The Ta152H section starts on pg 66.
-
- -
- Considering you agressive posts lately, how else to
- take your latest?


Talking about lame excuses. Is there such a quote or not? I perfectly agree with Jippo, put up or shut up!

_______________________________________________&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
05-13-2003, 08:34 PM
Buy the book McScrooge, then you will know./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You are the one doing all the gum flapping Huck; told you where to find the info, so go look. The book does have copyright status.

You might find what Rechlin had to say about the H-0 interesting as well./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 08:35 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- Go buy either book jippo, $35.00USD The Ta152H section starts on pg 66.
--
-- -
-- Considering you agressive posts lately, how else to
-- take your latest?
-
-
- Talking about lame excuses. Is there such a quote or
- not? I perfectly agree with Jippo, put up or shut
- up!

Huck,

You're the last person that should be asking people for sources.

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 08:46 PM
MiloMorai wrote:


Ok, m8!

I'll take your word for it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Why shouldn't I! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Do you know E. Brown thought H-1 was more stabile than previous versions of 190? And many other pilots said on their behalf some good things about stability of previous 190's. It must be my misunderstanding, sorry about that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good that it is now sorted,I'm outta here!

Thanks! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 09:13 PM
In case ye'all hadn't noticed...the threads says P-47M in the title. If we want to have a conversation about FW's...then Huck or Jippo...start another thread...ok? Seriously, it's uncool to hijack a thread.

The Fw190 stuff has merit...just "take it outside". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 09:57 PM
all your p47 are belong to us...

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 10:09 PM
NuFoerki wrote:
- all your p47 are belong to us...

LOL...it's still not right. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 11:11 PM
hehe... seems like i have a new friend here... wanna go bowling?

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 11:41 PM
NuFoerki wrote:
- hehe... seems like i have a new friend here

I guess its true. There's someone for everyone.


Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2003, 11:59 PM
Huck,

Milo is 100% spot on. I have that book, too, and the instability of the Ta-152 is well documented in it. in fact, its described as a poor gun platform due to instability.

I also agree with Milo's reluctance not to scan the pages for you.

It seems you thrive off information researched, collected or posted by others. I'm not sure that you have ever endeavored to do any of your own research into the things discussed on these boards. Have you ever looked up anything in a book? Have you ever made a request to a manufacturer for documents? Have you ever visited an archive or museum for information?

You ask too much, sometimes. On Butch's board you asked for information on all these planes in one post:

A6M2 and/or A6M5
Ki-43-1b and/or c
Ki-44-2b and/or c
Ki-84-1a
Ki-61-1a, b, and/or c
Ki-100-1a

You asked for their range and empty and loaded weights and internal fuel load. I supplied the answer to you but my question is: Why didn't you research it yourself? Why do you always rely on other people to do your research?

You can't believe the Ta-152 had instability problems becasue you've never seen documents that state it was so. I think you haven't seen them because you haven't bothered to look. Now you wish for Milo post the pages to broaden your knowledge. If you don't want to buy the book, go check it out at the library. Or at least look at it in a bookstore.

From day one on these boards, you've presented yourself as an expert in every aspect of aviation. You're an expert on aerodynamics, mechanics, you name it. You never make a mistake, and everyone else is alwys wrong. But silently, for the most part, I see a vast list of errors you've made in your assumptions about aircraft, errors that could have easily been correct the first time had you bothered to research your "facts."

You didn't know how the turbo on a P-47 worked, yet you were compelled to give us a lesson on it. You didn't know the supercharger on a P-63 was variable speed, so you proceeded to tell us that the chart in AHT was wrong. You condescended to tell us how superior the Fw-190A was to the P-47 in dive, and in doing so got the Cd0 of the Fw-190A GROSSLY wrong, then posted sea level numbers.

Being wrong is not bad, its how we learn. Even Butch learns something new each day, I'm sure. I know I do. But you seem to be above that.

Anyway, that's my piece. Don't bother to ask me for help or numbers anymore. I know its only a ploy to keep from having to do your own research. Do some reseach on your own, ask questions, interact meaningfully, knock of the anti-American bias, and you may find yourself more welcome by people who like to discuss history and learn from each other.




Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 12:54 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huck,
-
- Milo is 100% spot on. I have that book, too, and
- the instability of the Ta-152 is well documented in
- it. in fact, its described as a poor gun platform
- due to instability.
-
- I also agree with Milo's reluctance not to scan the
- pages for you.
-
- It seems you thrive off information researched,
- collected or posted by others. I'm not sure that
- you have ever endeavored to do any of your own
- research into the things discussed on these boards.
- Have you ever looked up anything in a book? Have
- you ever made a request to a manufacturer for
- documents? Have you ever visited an archive or
- museum for information?
-
- You ask too much, sometimes. On Butch's board you
- asked for information on all these planes in one
- post:
-
- A6M2 and/or A6M5
- Ki-43-1b and/or c
- Ki-44-2b and/or c
- Ki-84-1a
- Ki-61-1a, b, and/or c
- Ki-100-1a
-
- You asked for their range and empty and loaded
- weights and internal fuel load. I supplied the
- answer to you but my question is: Why didn't you
- research it yourself? Why do you always rely on
- other people to do your research?
-
- You can't believe the Ta-152 had instability
- problems becasue you've never seen documents that
- state it was so. I think you haven't seen them
- because you haven't bothered to look. Now you wish
- for Milo post the pages to broaden your knowledge.
- If you don't want to buy the book, go check it out
- at the library. Or at least look at it in a
- bookstore.
-
- From day one on these boards, you've presented
- yourself as an expert in every aspect of aviation.
- You're an expert on aerodynamics, mechanics, you
- name it. You never make a mistake, and everyone
- else is alwys wrong. But silently, for the most
- part, I see a vast list of errors you've made in
- your assumptions about aircraft, errors that could
- have easily been correct the first time had you
- bothered to research your "facts."
-
- You didn't know how the turbo on a P-47 worked, yet
- you were compelled to give us a lesson on it. You
- didn't know the supercharger on a P-63 was variable
- speed, so you proceeded to tell us that the chart in
- AHT was wrong. You condescended to tell us how
- superior the Fw-190A was to the P-47 in dive, and in
- doing so got the Cd0 of the Fw-190A GROSSLY wrong,
- then posted sea level numbers.
-
- Being wrong is not bad, its how we learn. Even
- Butch learns something new each day, I'm sure. I
- know I do. But you seem to be above that.
-
- Anyway, that's my piece. Don't bother to ask me for
- help or numbers anymore. I know its only a ploy to
- keep from having to do your own research. Do some
- reseach on your own, ask questions, interact
- meaningfully, knock of the anti-American bias, and
- you may find yourself more welcome by people who
- like to discuss history and learn from each other.


I'm sorry SkyChimp but this has to be the most childish answer ever read by me on this forum. What kind of anti-american ploy are you talking about? My only point I'm making here that can hurt some americans fellings is that there were no competitive dogfighters serving with USAAF in any year of the war. I did not say americans did not have good fighters, just that those fighters were not dogfighters.

Detailing my request on Butch's forum is something you would expect from a four year old child. Many of the posters there post here too. And what did that proved? That I have not enough time to do my research regarding japanese fighters and I was asking for an advice from someone who did. I thanked then, now I have the book that you have recommended.

Your remarks about me not reading any books are simply insults, I won't bother to elaborate.

And yes I made mistakes and I did aknowledge them.
Although this one with GROSSLY erroneus Cd0 for Fw190A I don't remember. Maybe you can enlighten me.

These accusations made by you and Machine with me in some sort of crusade against USAAF and it's personnel are lies. I hold nothing against USAAF pilots, I think I know and understand their reasons when they enlisted. I have no disrespect toward engineers responsible with US fighter designs. But I do have my doubts whether USAAF fighter requirements could generate competitive dogfighters.
Is my position more clearly expressed now?

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 01:09 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- I'm sorry SkyChimp but this has to be the most
- childish answer ever read by me on this forum. What
- kind of anti-american ploy are you talking about? My
- only point I'm making here that can hurt some
- americans fellings is that there were no competitive
- dogfighters serving with USAAF in any year of the
- war. I did not say americans did not have good
- fighters, just that those fighters were not
- dogfighters.
-
- Detailing my request on Butch's forum is something
- you would expect from a four year old child. Many of
- the posters there post here too. And what did that
- proved? That I have not enough time to do my
- research regarding japanese fighters and I was
- asking for an advice from someone who did. I thanked
- then, now I have the book that you have recommended.
-
- Your remarks about me not reading any books are
- simply insults, I won't bother to elaborate.
-
- And yes I made mistakes and I did aknowledge them.
- Although this one with GROSSLY erroneus Cd0 for
- Fw190A I don't remember. Maybe you can enlighten me.
-
- These accusations made by you and Machine with me in
- some sort of crusade against USAAF and it's
- personnel are lies. I hold nothing against USAAF
- pilots, I think I know and understand their reasons
- when they enlisted. I have no disrespect toward
- engineers responsible with US fighter designs. But I
- do have my doubts whether USAAF fighter requirements
- could generate competitive dogfighters.
- Is my position more clearly expressed now?

Yes, but my opinion stands.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

RichardI
05-14-2003, 01:44 AM
Man, I'd love to see A P-47M in FB if it's modelled right....

Ah, nevermind......

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

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 01:48 AM
But I
- do have my doubts whether USAAF fighter requirements
- could generate competitive dogfighters.
- Is my position more clearly expressed now?

Odd statement.

I'm assuming that you would say that the United Kingdom was on the right track with the Spitfire.

How would the Spitfire, FW-190 and Bf-190 look with enough fuel to fly to to the same distances?

Engineering is a balancing act.

But the raids did assist in air superiority and thus success of DDay.

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 01:51 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Yes, but my opinion stands.

Mine too. Which one was yours? (no irony here)



SkyChimp wrote:
- Huck,
-
- Milo is 100% spot on. I have that book, too, and
- the instability of the Ta-152 is well documented in
- it. in fact, its described as a poor gun platform
- due to instability.
-
- I also agree with Milo's reluctance not to scan the
- pages for you.


If it's so well documented where's the document? Until now all I see is a phrase in which the author claims that it was a poor gun platform due to instability. Is there a proof for such a wild claim? Ta152 had guns/cannons mounted in engine cowling, propeller hub and wing roots. Is there any better placement for armament on a ww2 fighter? Was Ta152 a poor gun platform??!

Bring the documents, if there are any.

_______________________________________________&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 05/13/0307:52PM by Huckebein_FW

The_Blue_Devil
05-14-2003, 02:20 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- I'm sorry SkyChimp but this has to be the most
- childish answer ever read by me on this forum. What
- kind of anti-american ploy are you talking about? My
- only point I'm making here that can hurt some
- americans fellings is that there were no competitive
- dogfighters serving with USAAF in any year of the
- war. I did not say americans did not have good
- fighters, just that those fighters were not
- dogfighters.
-
- Detailing my request on Butch's forum is something
- you would expect from a four year old child. Many of
- the posters there post here too. And what did that
- proved? That I have not enough time to do my
- research regarding japanese fighters and I was
- asking for an advice from someone who did. I thanked
- then, now I have the book that you have recommended.
-
- Your remarks about me not reading any books are
- simply insults, I won't bother to elaborate.
-
- And yes I made mistakes and I did aknowledge them.
- Although this one with GROSSLY erroneus Cd0 for
- Fw190A I don't remember. Maybe you can enlighten me.
-
- These accusations made by you and Machine with me in
- some sort of crusade against USAAF and it's
- personnel are lies. I hold nothing against USAAF
- pilots, I think I know and understand their reasons
- when they enlisted. I have no disrespect toward
- engineers responsible with US fighter designs. But I
- do have my doubts whether USAAF fighter requirements
- could generate competitive dogfighters.
- Is my position more clearly expressed now?

Yea But seriously..Milo gave you the title of the book multiple times..and you keep asking for scans like you doubt his resources are valid. I would think that the fact that he even posted the book name and a link to buy it would be proof enough that he got it from there. Hell go to Amazon and look in the book for free if you want. Point is I always seem to see you asking for sources and things of that sort, however I never see you post sources of your own. If you believed that they were wrong about the instability of the Ta-152 why didn't you post a source showing the contrary. Maybe you should prove your stand point with sources proving your opinion just as quickly as you expect others to prove theirs. Oh and this post is about the P-47M not the Ta-152 or any other German/Russian plane. The fact is it was produced in good enough quantity to have it included in this game, as pointed out by others to this point.


<center>--------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"The P-47 Thunderbolt is the Ultimate Prom Date..Sure She is Ugly..but Man Does She Put Out...Love that Double Wasp"[b]</center>

&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];{your script}</script>,
&lt;script>var avatar="http://www.78thfightergroup.com/history/Mustang.gif"</script>&lt;script>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=avatar</script>
<img src=http://www.vectorsite.net/avp471.jpg>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#040830";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#0B1760";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 02:37 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:

- If it's so well documented where's the document?
- Until now all I see is a phrase in which the author
- claims that it was a poor gun platform due to
- instability. Is there a proof for such a wild claim?
- Ta152 had guns/cannons mounted in engine cowling,
- propeller hub and wing roots. Is there any better
- placement for armament on a ww2 fighter? Was Ta152 a
- poor gun platform??!
-
- Bring the documents, if there are any.


Milo gave you the facts. He cited his source. He's absolutely correct. That would be enough for anyone else here. But not you.



I'll give you a info from the book regarding stability:


From page 80-83:

Rechlin testing revealed weak stability about the vertical axis, with a tendacy to skid. A drop tank "worsened the planes already poor stability situation."



Assessment by III/JG 301, page 93:

"No dives have been carried out, or only at speeds below those recommended as safe in the pilot's notes. This caution is attributable to the Rechlin Test Station, which noted serious instability in diving flight above 600 km/h. Instability about the vertical and elevation axes was stressed by Rechlin as an especially negative characteristic."

This problem required "constant retrimming in the climb and constant monitoring of the turn anf bank indicator while turning."

Gunnery flights, which "require precise aiming would have revealed the instability." Therefore, gunnery test flights were not carried out.


The book goes on and on. Not only about the stability problems, but about the design flaws and quality issues with the plane.


All in all, the Ta-152 was an impressive concept, but never fully proven in combat. Severe deficiencies found in testing reveal if was far from the Uberplane German-plane-fanboys want to make it out to be.

Get the book.





Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 03:22 AM
No fighter is perfect in the beginning, and sure there were problems with the development of the Ta152. It's the same with most fighters bulit during WWII.


You people taking a leak on the Ta152 either aren't telling the whole story out of ignorance or because of an agenda.(Or more likely because you're annoyed with Huck the Hi-jacker)

We've already discussed the Ta152 stability issues as well as it's capabilities in a dive on this forum and on others as well now haven't we? Other information as well, isn't there?

But go right ahead and be selective with what you want to post, and share only what information suits you and your agenda. Remember, it works both ways doesn't it?

Since the thread is supposed to be about the P-47M, as well as the fact that Huck can be fairly annoying and I can't really blame the Yankwhiners for being miffed at him, that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

Just remember, it works both ways.

http://www.ifrance.com/luftwaffe35/images/bmw1.jpg

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/FW190-1s_small.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 03:57 AM
FW190fan wrote:
-

-
- You people taking a leak on the Ta152 either aren't
- telling the whole story out of ignorance or because
- of an agenda.(Or more likely because you're annoyed
- with Huck the Hi-jacker)
-
-

Seems that Huckebien, and Isegrim, both like to very much *urinate* on Allied planes. All one sees from them is the same old negatives on Allied planes over, and over, and over again. Now they only preach how good LW planes are, never admitting any faults. So who has an agenda FW190fan, because there is no ignorance?

All the others are doing is pointing out those LW plane had faults that were so conviently left out of the any description of LW planes by Huckebien, Isegrim and any others.

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 11:46 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Yes John
- Did not the Ta152H have many technical problems as
- well as some flight stability problems.

First of all rechlin stated high speed instability (over 600kph), but in their assessment of the Ta 152 H0 by III/JG301, they said they did not observe the instability that the rechlin tests was talking about. They said they didn't do some gunnery flights. But so far they didn't report any kind of instability!

They did, they were fixed more or less by not filling completely the at fuselage tank (using it for MW50 or GM1 instead or something like that).

Anyway the Ta 152 H was maybe not flight tested, but actually saw combat. Most of it's problems were actually due to parts quality/shortage, the shortage of technicians assigned to the construction of prototypes as they were most likely sent to production plants...

Also the quality of fabrication of engines+water contaminated fuel...

a 10+ vs two loss ration for a plane that wasn't tested before production, and built in such conditions is quite impressing I would say...

But sure at some point it had stability problems

Any other one liner to throw around milo?

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

Message Edited on 05/14/0304:24AM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 11:55 AM
Back to the topic (if you want to discuss the Ta-152, open another topic), here you will find a very good pic of a P-47 with dive recovery flaps:


http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/UTILS/info.cgi?id=EL-2001-00456

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 12:10 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- The book does have copyright
- status.
-
- You might find what Rechlin had to say about the H-0
- interesting as well.

HAHAHA I can't post the source because there's a copyright. Next time I'll use this one.

Seriously the rechlin report is praise, and they say the find no serious problem that would not be quickly fixeable, and they say they found very little flaws that wouldn't be expected on a brand new plane. The source is the same you want to make everyone buy.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 12:13 PM
MachineII wrote:
- In case ye'all hadn't noticed...the threads says
- P-47M in the title. If we want to have a
- conversation about FW's...then Huck or Jippo...start
- another thread...ok? Seriously, it's uncool to
- hijack a thread.

Might want to look who brought up the Ta152 and it's "stability problems". Then ask those people to bring these comments somewhere else.

Sheesh

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 12:18 PM
S_Jagger wrote:
- Odd statement.
-
- I'm assuming that you would say that the United
- Kingdom was on the right track with the Spitfire.
-
- How would the Spitfire, FW-190 and Bf-190 look with
- enough fuel to fly to to the same distances?
-
- Engineering is a balancing act.
-
- But the raids did assist in air superiority and thus
- success of DDay.

This is true, but some people really wish some US fighters would outturn, outroll, outclimb and outwhatever every german fighter or russian or well just be the best at everything.

It's wrong, and I don't remember anyone dismissing the strengths of the mustang in it's role.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 12:29 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Milo gave you the facts. He cited his source. He's
- absolutely correct. That would be enough for anyone
- else here. But not you.
-
-
-
- I'll give you a info from the book regarding
- stability:
-
-
- From page 80-83:
-
- Rechlin testing revealed weak stability about the
- vertical axis, with a tendacy to skid. A drop tank
- "worsened the planes already poor stability
- situation."
-
-
-
- Assessment by III/JG 301, page 93:
-
- "No dives have been carried out, or only at speeds
- below those recommended as safe in the pilot's
- notes. This caution is attributable to the Rechlin
- Test Station, which noted serious instability in
- diving flight above 600 km/h. Instability about the
- vertical and elevation axes was stressed by Rechlin
- as an especially negative characteristic."
-
- This problem required "constant retrimming in the
- climb and constant monitoring of the turn anf bank
- indicator while turning."
-
- Gunnery flights, which "require precise aiming would
- have revealed the instability." Therefore, gunnery
- test flights were not carried out.

You quote words of the reichling tests as being a quote from the III/JG301. Actually in the report JG301 QUOTES the rechlin report, and say they DIDN'T observe this kind of instability.

This is lying skychimp, you are pulling things out of context and ignoring some parts of the report. Shame on you.

Don't start with a personnaly attack complaint. If you don't want to be called a liar don't lie.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

Message Edited on 05/14/0305:52AM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 02:02 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- NuFoerki wrote:
-- hehe... seems like i have a new friend here
-
- I guess its true. There's someone for everyone.



so does your dog like you know?

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 02:05 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Being wrong is not bad, its how we learn. Even
- Butch learns something new each day, I'm sure. I
- know I do.



yeah, finally! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 02:10 PM
nicolas10 wrote:

- This is lying skychimp, you are pulling things out
- of context and ignoring some parts of the report.
- Shame on you.



we are pretty much used to skychimps behaviour. but at least he consequent. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 03:12 PM
Talking about stability...


From P-51B`s Flight manual on stability:

"Takeoff: When carryuing a full fusalge tank, there`s some pitching as the aircraft leaves the ground, due to some reversal of stickloads.
When large ferrying droptanks are carried, the airflow may cause the undercarriege downlocks to bind and prevent the undercarriege from being retracted; to release downlocks, yaw the aircraft side by side."

General flying - stabilty:

"When the fusalge tank is full, the aircraft is longitudinally unstable, in all conditions of flight, and tends to tighten up in turns. Until at least 40 gallons been consumed, NO MANOUVERS other than VERY GENTLE turns should eb attempted."

General flying - stalling:

"With fusalge tank full or half full, there is no buffeting to give warning of the approaching stall, but series of stick reversals appear just above stalling speed, at the stall the right wing stalls sharply, and unless IMMIDIATE recovery action is taken, spin may develop.

"The aircraft sinks rapidly as stalling speed is about to developed."
If the control column is held back at stall, the wing will drop rapidly and the airplane will become inverted"

General flying - High speed stalling:

"If the aircraft is stalled in steep turn, either wing drop very rapidly."

General flying - Spinning:

"Spinning is not permitted when drop tanks or fuel in the fusalge tank is carried.
Practice spins are not to be started below 12 000 feet. Recovery action should be taken after not more than 2 turns.

The nose falls down steeply as the spin is entered. The spin tends to be extremely uneven, esp. spins to the right, slwoing down almost to stop at the top, and speeding up the nose lowers in each turn.

The avarge loss of height in two turns, and with recovery is 3000-3500 feet."

General flying - Diving:

"With fusalge tank half full, care should be taken not to impose excessive loading by too rapid recovery from dive, which might overstress the aircraft."

Aerobatics.

"Flick manouveres are not permitted. When carring drop tanks, bombs or with fuel in fusalge tank, aerobatics are PROHIBITED."





http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg


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

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

If climb rate`s with us, who`s against us?

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 03:44 PM
Well Issy, no one is hiding, nor are they not admitting the P-51 had stability problems under >>certain<< flight conditions, unlike some others who post here, who NEVER state or admit what problems any LW a/c had since they want to project that LW a/c are >>perfection personified<<, NOT.

Did the P-51 enter into combat with drop tanks and fuel in the fuselage tank. NO! Another case of not telling the whole story.

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 03:50 PM
Actually I could only notice some desperate attempts from some notorious board members to falsify facts by selectively and also manipulatively qouting on tests done on a prototype nullseries plane, to make it look like as these early bugs natural on a new plane would also apply to the serial produced planes. These attempts were caught and neutralized fully.

We know that production Ta-152H-1s were all fine regarding stability, as Eric Brown found out and presented in his book.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg


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

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

If climb rate`s with us, who`s against us?

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 03:55 PM
Mmm, so how many P-47Ms did the Russians fight with on the Eastern Front?


None? Well..

_______________________________
Hauptmann Jochen "Heidi" Heiden
Jagderband 44
www.JagdVerband44.com (http://www.JagdVerband44.com)

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 03:57 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Talking about stability...
-
-
- From P-51B`s Flight manual on stability:
-
- "Takeoff: When carryuing a full fusalge tank,
- there`s some pitching as the aircraft leaves the
- ground, due to some reversal of stickloads.
- When large ferrying droptanks are carried, the
- airflow may cause the undercarriege downlocks to
- bind and prevent the undercarriege from being
- retracted; to release downlocks, yaw the aircraft
- side by side."
-
- General flying - stabilty:
-
- "When the fusalge tank is full, the aircraft is
- longitudinally unstable, in all conditions of
- flight, and tends to tighten up in turns. Until at
- least 40 gallons been consumed, NO MANOUVERS other
- than VERY GENTLE turns should eb attempted."
-

- General flying - stalling:
-
- "With fusalge tank full or half full, there is no
- buffeting to give warning of the approaching stall,
- but series of stick reversals appear just above
- stalling speed, at the stall the right wing stalls
- sharply, and unless IMMIDIATE recovery action is
- taken, spin may develop.
-
- "The aircraft sinks rapidly as stalling speed is
- about to developed."
- If the control column is held back at stall, the
- wing will drop rapidly and the airplane will become
- inverted"
-
- General flying - High speed stalling:
-
- "If the aircraft is stalled in steep turn, either
- wing drop very rapidly."
-
- General flying - Spinning:
-
- "Spinning is not permitted when drop tanks or fuel
- in the fusalge tank is carried.
- Practice spins are not to be started below 12 000
- feet. Recovery action should be taken after not more
- than 2 turns.
-
- The nose falls down steeply as the spin is entered.
- The spin tends to be extremely uneven, esp. spins to
- the right, slwoing down almost to stop at the top,
- and speeding up the nose lowers in each turn.
-
- The avarge loss of height in two turns, and with
- recovery is 3000-3500 feet."
-
- General flying - Diving:
-
- "With fusalge tank half full, care should be taken
- not to impose excessive loading by too rapid
- recovery from dive, which might overstress the
- aircraft."
-
- Aerobatics.
-
- "Flick manouveres are not permitted. When carring
- drop tanks, bombs or with fuel in fusalge tank,
- aerobatics are PROHIBITED."
-
-
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-deskt
- opweb.jpg">
-
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- If you are interested in some flight curves and
- other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit
- some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net
- to be shared:
-
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim
-
-
- If climb rate`s with us, who`s against us?


Your're comparing apples and oranges Isegrim. You're comparing the P-51's instability while carrying large amounts of extra fuel, which can be jettisoned, burned-off or not filled at all prior to combat, with the Ta 152H's alleged instability in it's combat configuration-a situation that can't be changed.

You are trying to turn one of the Mustang's virtues into a liability by making an out-of-context comparison.

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 04:01 PM
Wow another hi jacked US plane thread go figurehttp://staff.washington.edu/bfiguero/Smiles/roll.gif

.......

So what does the P-51 stability etc have to do with a P-47M?. This topic is on adding a P-47M, if you wish to comment on that,by all means do so, if not, take a hike.


Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 04:09 PM
Wrong Issy. The Ta152H-1 had stability problems, it could not carry its full load of fluids(booster and fuel). Brown never flew the H with a full load of fluids./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The tail surfaces were to be increase in area(0.45m^2/4.85sf) and the wing-fuselage junction was to be modified - hardly something that would be done on the >>perfect<< a/c you are trying say it was, now would it?


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Actually I could only notice some desperate attempts
- from some notorious board members to falsify facts
- by selectively and also manipulatively qouting on
- tests done on a prototype nullseries plane, to make
- it look like as these early bugs natural on a new
- plane would also apply to the serial produced
- planes. These attempts were caught and neutralized
- fully.
-
- We know that production Ta-152H-1s were all fine
- regarding stability, as Eric Brown found out and
- presented in his book.
-
-

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 04:09 PM
I love how we're still trying to poison this sim with planes that don't belong in it.



_______________________________
Hauptmann Jochen "Heidi" Heiden
Jagderband 44
www.JagdVerband44.com (http://www.JagdVerband44.com)

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 04:11 PM
Since your last post had nothing to do with the P-47M, I presume you take a hike now, right, John?

At least this seems to be your own rule, roger that, we`ll see if you follow your own principles you preach about.

As for me, I thinmk I`ll stay for a while, presenting interesting facts, until some show a more honest attitude.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg


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

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

If climb rate`s with us, who`s against us?

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 04:22 PM
ROFLOL, look who is calling the kettle black./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-very-happy.gif


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- As for me, I think I`ll stay for a while,
- presenting interesting facts, until some show a more
- honest attitude.
-
-

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 04:45 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Since your last post had nothing to do with the
- P-47M, I presume you take a hike now, right, John?

Why Isegrem, what have you posted on the P-47M in this thread?.

- At least this seems to be your own rule, roger that,
- we`ll see if you follow your own principles you
- preach about.

My own rule?, are not UBI moderators locking threads that are not "on topic" all over these boards?.


- As for me, I thinmk I`ll stay for a while,
- presenting interesting facts, until some show a more
- honest attitude.

I have no doubt you will stay Isegrem, its a US plane thread after all.http://staff.washington.edu/bfiguero/Smiles/roll.gif



As to your presenting 'interesting' "facts", I haven't seen any presented yet, I see a distorted post about P-51 stability, but nothing on the P-47M. If you have any 'interesting facts' on the P-47M feel free to post them.


Regards, John Waters



Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.


Message Edited on 05/14/0301:00PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 05:06 PM
PzKpfw wrote:
-
- As to your presenting 'interesting' "facts", I
- haven't seen any presented yet, I see a distorted
- post about P-51 stability, but nothing on the P-47M.


Aha, POHs are now presenting a distorted reality? in complete discordance with american history books. I'd say we should burn them all, and rewrite them accordingly.
You really are a TRUE BELIEVER PzKpfw.

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 05:16 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- You really are a TRUE BELIEVER PzKpfw.

Was this suposed to generate some response Huck'ster?, I have provided a thread for non P-47M discussion entitled 'P-51 & Ta-152H Stability issues'. @

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zwcvk

I'm still waiting for you to comment on your posts from yesterday, that I replied to, concerning the % of P-47M operational, seen nothing so far.


Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.



Message Edited on 05/14/0312:24PM by PzKpfw

ZG77_Nagual
05-14-2003, 05:26 PM
I'll say it again - the mustang was a proven dogfighter - this is way too obvious to even have to assert - as was the p38, and a number of others. I'm not sure what the definition of a dog fight is in these assertions - but these were not pure bnz aircraft. I can understand being down on the american planes - they say the victor rights history and this is annoying - but there is no point in overcompensating the other way.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 05:41 PM
Well the P47M wasn't present on the eastern front.

But really if you want to have the P47M I think the only thing needed is a modeler for the 3D model and cockpit. Not some justification by numbers.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 05:51 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- Well the P47M wasn't present on the eastern front.

Neither was the P-51D or Ta-152H, yes both made limited sorties over EF areas, as the front lines moved in on Berlin, but neither was an standard EF fighter by any means, yet both are being modeled in FB.


- But really if you want to have the P47M I think the
- only thing needed is a modeler for the 3D model and
- cockpit. Not some justification by numbers.

I agree, I responded to Huck'ster's reply to my post on rarity.

Regards, John Waters



Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.



Message Edited on 05/14/0312:54PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 05:55 PM
From modelling point of view; how many differences are there between the bubble top D in the game, and the M?

I suppose it wouldn't require that many changes would it?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 06:08 PM
PzKpfw wrote:
- nicolas10 wrote:
-- Well the P47M wasn't present on the eastern front.
-
- Neither was the P-51D or Ta-152H, yes both made
- limited sorties over EF areas, as the front lines
- moved in on Berlin, but neither was an standard EF
- fighter by any means, yet both are being modeled in
- FB.


As long as Ta152 downed an Yak means that it was on EF. Also P-51D was present on EF, over Hungary and Romania.

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 06:14 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- Well the P47M wasn't present on the eastern front.
-
- But really if you want to have the P47M I think the
- only thing needed is a modeler for the 3D model and
- cockpit. Not some justification by numbers.

I think the reason why the P-47M was requested was because it is visually very similar (except for a dorsal fin) to the P-47D-27. And wouldn't require much work in FB to make the D an M, mostly FM and DM changes (more horsies, less armor). Or so the theory goes.

As an aside, the whole "numbers in theater" justification argument is moot in light of some of the planes either flying or that will be flying in FB. The more planes the better. Always nice to fly something new or different.

Honestly, if we're gonna get new P-47 variant...lets get an "N". It's WHOLLY different than the D or the M. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Actually, I'd rather get the D-27 modeled "better" than add another one.

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 06:16 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- As long as Ta152 downed an Yak means that it was on
- EF. Also P-51D was present on EF, over Hungary and
- Romania.

Huck'ster didn't I already admit that in my previous post?. Because the P-51D & Ta 152 made a few forays over the EF or were attacked in German airspace, does not to me define both were standard EF fighter types encounterd in daily operations, obviously your definition of standard may be different. My point was neither was encountered daily over the EF. If you have evidence the P-51D & Ta 152H were operateing daily over the EF for prolonged periods then by all means present it.

One could make a case the P-47M could have technichly entered EF airspace as well in its final operations in the Berlin area, as LW pilots report engageing Yak's P-51's & P-47s in the same sorties, in the Berlin area as well.


Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.


Message Edited on 05/14/0301:20PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 06:17 PM
Is there a Berlin map in IL-2 and IL2/FB?

Did the EF include Berlin?

It seems, so if a map is included.

What a/c flew over Berlin Nic?


nicolas10 wrote:
- Well the P47M wasn't present on the eastern front.
-
-

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 06:18 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- Might want to look who brought up the Ta152 and it's
- "stability problems". Then ask those people to bring
- these comments somewhere else.
-
- Sheesh
-
- Nic

Oh...I know, I know. It was my "side". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But it was a reasonable comparison for a numbers justification. How we got from that to a Ta152 stability discussion seems to elude me.

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 06:26 PM
MachineII wrote:
- How we got
- from that to a Ta152 stability discussion seems to
- elude me.
-
-

Easily, the LW lovers could not believe that one of their beloved >>perfection personified<< a/c could have a flight problem.

Instead of starting a new thread, they hi-jacked this one.

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 06:28 PM
MachineII wrote:
- How we got
- from that to a Ta152 stability discussion seems to
- elude me.


Well, MM brought it up in a cocky way, and it continues elsewhere. But that aside, what point is there to argue about numbers because there are already planes in the game which didn't fight a single battle in the EF!

Germans have their superplanes in, as do Russians, why shouldn't the same happen to US as well? I'm sure, that M would be exiting experience with all the power. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Again: are there many differences between the later D in the game and M? Would it need much work?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 07:05 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- Germans have their superplanes in, as do Russians,
- why shouldn't the same happen to US as well? I'm
- sure, that M would be exiting experience with all
- the power.


Jippo, IMO Ta152 and P47M belong to '46 servers. I think Oleg made a mistake by including Ta152 so early. I know he is curious how it would perform, I am too, especially since the introduction of Me262, which nobody rated as a dogfighter and now is banned almost everywhere.
Ta152 is slower than Dora and has smaller climb rate at lower alts, getting instead a better turn rate. Hard to say which one will be better online, after climb rates of all planes will be fixed. Interesting problem, but not worth opening Pandora's box just for this.

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 07:19 PM
I personally wouldn't brought in Ta either, but then again there are many places regarding selection of planes, where I would have taken a different turn.

But as it is, it is going to be in along the Me-163, MiG-3U, He-162, etc...

What I'm looking after is the the workload in changing D to M. After all there might not be all that much work involved in creating many happy American (and why not other!) customers with minimal work. New skin, but what else?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 07:24 PM
PzKpfw wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- As long as Ta152 downed an Yak means that it was on
-- EF. Also P-51D was present on EF, over Hungary and
-- Romania.
-
- Huck'ster didn't I already admit that in my previous
- post?. Because the P-51D & Ta 152 made a few forays
- over the EF or were attacked in German airspace,
- does not to me define both were standard EF fighter
- types encounterd in daily operations, obviously your
- definition of standard may be different. My point
- was neither was encountered daily over the EF. If
- you have evidence the P-51D & Ta 152H were
- operateing daily over the EF for prolonged periods
- then by all means present it.


P-51 made some forays on EF??! Mustangs were very much present on EF. Romania's top ace in '44, A. Serbanescu was downed in August '44 by two Mustangs.
By the way Serbanescu (44 air kills) did not believe in dogfighting qualities of Mustang (his plane was downed by unobserved planes, not after a dogfight).

And please quit this annoying habit of mispelling my nickname (Huck is ok if Huckebein_FW seems too long).

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 07:29 PM
"Jippo, IMO Ta152 and P47M belong to '46 servers"

No, they were operational in significant numbers with the 56FG from January 45. So, this aircraft is OK for 1945 servers!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 07:29 PM
MachineII wrote:
- Oh...I know, I know. It was my "side". But it was a
- reasonable
- comparison for a numbers justification. How we got
- from that to a Ta152 stability discussion seems to
- elude me.

Hum I think it was milo who was probably p*ssed off that the 152 owns a P47 so he decided to bring up the stability issues.

Anyway the same who brought up the topic then complain that "lufwhiners" always bring up the Ta 152, while it clearly wasn't the case here.

Personally I don't mind I like debates as you can always learn some things (when people don't lie of course), and also I will stand up to defend my fav plane.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

Message Edited on 05/14/0311:33AM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 07:33 PM
You can for instance buy this book:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S0471~ser=AEU

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 07:35 PM
Or look here in this excellent gallery:

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/56thfg-gallery.jsp

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 07:51 PM
What evidence do you have that the Ta 152 would "own" the P-47M in any way? It seems that they would be pretty evenly matched, each having its own strengths, in most areas with the probable exception of performance at 40,000+ feet.


nicolas10 wrote:
- MachineII wrote:
-- Oh...I know, I know. It was my "side". But it was a
-- reasonable
-- comparison for a numbers justification. How we got
-- from that to a Ta152 stability discussion seems to
-- elude me.
-
- Hum I think it was milo who was probably p*ssed off
- that the 152 owns a P47 so he decided to bring up
- the stability issues.
-
- Anyway the same who brought up the topic then
- complain that "lufwhiners" always bring up the Ta
- 152, while it clearly wasn't the case here.
-
- Personally I don't mind I like debates as you can
- always learn some things (when people don't lie of
- course), and also I will stand up to defend my fav
- plane.
-
- Nic
-
- <img
- src="http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jp
- g">
-
-
- <center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well
- that's two more pts than before... woohoo!
-
- <center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
-
- <center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999
-
- <center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch
-
- Message Edited on 05/14/03 11:33AM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 07:58 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- P-51 made some forays on EF??! Mustangs were very
- much present on EF. Romania's top ace in '44, A.
- Serbanescu was downed in August '44 by two Mustangs.

Yes Huck'ster a few, Ie, Operation Frantic, etc, by no means were they a 'standard' EF fighter, compared to Yak's 109s or Fw 190s deployed against the Soviets, on an established front line. As I said as the German fronts constricted around Berlin it raised the % in which LW EF squadrons encounterd anglo Allied fighters Ie, P-47, P-51 etc as well as Soviet fighters on sorties.


- By the way Serbanescu (44 air kills) did not believe
- in dogfighting qualities of Mustang (his plane was
- downed by unobserved planes, not after a dogfight).

IIRC 70% of all fighters downed in WW2 were reportedly from 'unobserved' bounces, dogfighting seems to have played a very little part in WW2 air battles.


Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 08:00 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
- What evidence do you have that the Ta 152 would
- "own" the P-47M in any way? It seems that they
- would be pretty evenly matched, each having its own
- strengths, in most areas with the probable exception
- of performance at 40,000+ feet.


Has this daring affirmation something to do with your troll ratings?

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 08:11 PM
PzKpfw wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- P-51 made some forays on EF??! Mustangs were very
-- much present on EF. Romania's top ace in '44, A.
-- Serbanescu was downed in August '44 by two Mustangs.
-
-
- Yes Huck'ster a few, Ie, Operation Frantic, etc, by
- no means were they a 'standard' EF fighter,
- compared to Yak's 109s or Fw 190s deployed against
- the Soviets, on an established front line. As I said
- as the German fronts constricted around Berlin it
- raised the % in which LW EF squadrons encounterd
- anglo Allied fighters Ie, P-47, P-51 etc as well
- as Soviet fighters on sorties.

No, not a few, P-51 was standard escort plane begining with april '44 over Romania, together with P-38. Lightnings close to bomber formations, Mustangs flying top cover.

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 08:14 PM
Not trolling Huck'ster, just asking for some kind of support for a very bold and subjective statement.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- What evidence do you have that the Ta 152 would
-- "own" the P-47M in any way? It seems that they
-- would be pretty evenly matched, each having its own
-- strengths, in most areas with the probable exception
-- of performance at 40,000+ feet.
-
-
- Has this daring affirmation something to do with
- your troll ratings?
-
- _______________________________________________<sc
- ript language='Javascript'
- src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/
- spectre.js'></script>
- &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcas
- t.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 08:45 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
- Not trolling Huck'ster, just asking for some kind of
- support for a very bold and subjective statement.

Ta152 was better in max speed, climb rate, acceleration, turn rate and radius. Is it more clear now?

We don't know if P-47M really performed to its specs in the few days it was an operational aircraft. P-47N performed as espected only after the initial batch of engines (similar with those who equiped P-47M) was changed with R-2800-77. I have nothing against P-47N, P-47M was a fantasy aircraft.

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 08:53 PM
"P-47M was a fantasy aircraft."

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery-pu.jsp?index=17&Group=56



"Lt. Russell S Kyler. Huntingdon, PA. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47M 44-21116 HV-J "Lorene" Lt. Kyler seen here being strapped in by his crew chief S/Sgt. Van C McGehee. Other crew members were Sgt. Paul Shipman a.c.c. and Sgt. Eugene J Fournier arm. The ten kill markings represent Lt. Kyler's two FW190 and one Me109 air-air kills plus seven ground kills. "


I love your sense of humour /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:01 PM
"P-47M was a fantasy aircraft."


From this excellent site on the 56th FG:

http://www.56thfightergroup.org/HisTest/indexalt.html


A list of some the P-47M's of the 56th FG:

http://www.56thfightergroup.org/HisTest/P4761stFS.html

http://www.56thfightergroup.org/HisTest/P4762ndFS.html

http://www.56thfightergroup.org/HisTest/P4763rdFS.html


So once again, just for the fun, "P-47M was a fantasy aircraft.", yep, you're a great comic /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:01 PM
CHDT wrote:
- "P-47M was a fantasy aircraft."
-
-
-
- I love your sense of humour


I'd like to see docs with the test flights that prove the published specs. Or are they calculated and never achieved?

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 09:01 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- Not trolling Huck'ster, just asking for some kind of
-- support for a very bold and subjective statement.
-
- Ta152 was better in max speed, climb rate,
- acceleration, turn rate and radius. Is it more clear
- now?
-
- We don't know if P-47M really performed to its specs
- in the few days it was an operational aircraft.
- P-47N performed as espected only after the initial
- batch of engines (similar with those who equiped
- P-47M) was changed with R-2800-77. I have nothing
- against P-47N, P-47M was a fantasy aircraft.


The troll rating was mine. he actually quoted me and the troll rating in it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And well I don't see where the P47M would beat the Ta152H except in a dive, maybe top speed (by little), and armour. But actually I only said that to tease Milo.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:11 PM
CHDT wrote:
-
-
-
- So once again, just for the fun, "P-47M was a
- fantasy aircraft.", yep, you're a great comic


Yes I know I'm funny, now bring the docs showing that P-47M achieved that out-of-this-world max speed in level flight.

_______________________________________________&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
05-14-2003, 09:31 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Again: are there many differences between the later
- D in the game and M? Would it need much work?

You only had to ask twice. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The only REAL difference is a new engine. I was WRONG about the dorsal fin on the M...it's visually identicle to the -27.

Here's what Warren M. Bodie has to say about it in Thunderbolt!:

YP-47M. If it wasn't for the bright chromate-yellow cowling and tail, plus M2 emblazoned on the cowling sides and the fuselage sides in early spring time 1944 (snow was still on the ground), it would have taken an "insider" to know it wasn't another P-47D-27-RE. The YP-47Ms (three of them) were supposedly created on a moments notice to deal with German V-1 Buzz Bombs which were falling around London with devastating and demoralizing effect. It just wasn't' so. The rare "XP-47M" flown frequently by tester Carl Bellinger was a very much hot-rodded P-47C modified to test the new R-2800 C-Series. (Those engines are fairly easy to detect because the reduction gear case is split circumferentially, mated with many bolts.) At another early date, when it seemed obvious that the XP-47J was unlikely to go into mass production, a brief study showed there was another route to a powerful and very fast Thunderbolt, and it was a "quick and not-so-dirty" approach of mating the XP-47J powerplant to airplanes currently in production. Without a defined need, it was not even proposed. An even more convincing argument against the V-1 theory: If the 422-mph Hawker Typhoons and even faster Mk.V Tempests were chasing down the V-1s, what was to prevent the 429-mph P-47Ds from doing the same thing? The AAF support effort was probably made at an early stage of the attacks when effectiveness of RAF aircraft and pilots was still an unknown. P-47M production was in high fear when the V-1 threat was essentially ended by October 1st. Supplies of R-2800C engines were already being stockpiled at Republic for the forthcoming P-47N production runs, and internal fuel capacity was up to 370 gallons in all bubble canopy Ds. When a need was expressed for that V-1 chaser, the tools and equipment were ready to produce. The YP-47M was born in a hurry. In nearly every respect except that the engine and performance, the airplanes were P-47D-27s. Initially powered by R-2800-14W engines which were not intended for use with the trubosupercharger at sea level, the three test/prototypes soon were flying with -57 engines. WEP ratings went up to 2800hp, producing speeds in the 470-480 mph range with regularity. On the strength of the YP-47M performance over Long Island, a production contract was created. The new CH-5 turbosupercharger, intended for the XP-47J type, was included in the power package. Factually the YP-47M was an XP-47N with short wings.


P-47M-1-RE. Derived directly from the P-47-D-27-RE fighter - in fact the last four production airplanes were taken from the assembly schedule and the three became YP-47Ms and one became the XP-47N. The P-47M-1-RE was in limited production at Farmingdale. Although enough airplanes were constructed to supply two fighter groups, virtually all were destined for the 56FG in the Eight Air Force. All production units were nearly identical to the YP-47Ms, although there were detail differences. Several problems arose in the ETO when the aircraft were rushed into service. Most disturbing were disturbing were high-altitude ignition problems and a plague of piston ring and piston failures. Vice President Hart Miller flew to England to participate in problem solving. COL Cass Hough's organization at Bovington was also involved. Large numbers of the P-47Ms were given typical 56FG "camouflage" treatment. Most of the airplanes were, initially, flown without drop tank pylons, but at a slightly later date that condition was altered. The first "production" aircraft rolled out in October 44 and arrived with the 56FG in the winter of '44.

P-47M STATS (P-47D-27 below for comparison):

Dimensions: Same as P-47D-28-RE

Weights: Gross Wt.: 15,350 lbs.
Gross Wt. (Max): 18, 250 lbs.
Powerplant: P&W R-2800-14W/-57 w/ G.E. CH-5 turbosupercharger, rated:
Takeoff: 2100 hp @ 2800 rpm (no S.L. turbo on -14w)
Normal: 1700 @ 2600 rpm
Military: 2100 hp @ 2800 rpm @ 28,500 ft.
WEP: 2800 hp @ 2800 rpm
Performance: High Speed: 475 mph.
AHT Climb Data: ~13 min to 30,000 ft.
"In spite of greater aircraft weight COMBAT power climb rates touched 3500fpm low down and stayed above 3000fpm almost to 20,000 feet." So, considering weight comparable to the "D" if slightly faster.
Range: 530 miles.

P-47D-25-RE (only minor differences from the D-27)

Weight: Gross Wt. (Normal): 12,980 lbs.
Gross Wt. (Max.): 15,500 lbs.
Weight Empty: 9980lbs.
Powerplant: P&W R-2800-59 w/ G.E. C-23 turbosupercharger, rated:
Takeoff: 2300 hp @ 2700 rpm
Normal: 1625 hp @ 2550 rpm
Military: 2000 hp @ 2700 rpm @ all alt. thru 25k ft.
WEP: 2300 hp @ 2700 thru 31k ft.
Performance: High Speed: 426 mph
AHT Climb Data: ~14 min to 30,000 ft.
@ 3000 fpm (averaged for comparison w/ M)

And VISUALLY:

Here's the "M":

<img src=http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.jpg>

And here in 56FG Camo:

<img src=http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P47M56th.JPG>


Here's the "D" for comparison:

<img src=http://www.inkart.com/images/Vector/P_47D.jpg>


OLEG! Can we have the "M"....just a faster "D"...but I'll take it.




<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:33 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- No, not a few, P-51 was standard escort plane
- begining with april '44 over Romania, together with
- P-38. Lightnings close to bomber formations,
- Mustangs flying top cover.
-


Huck'ster as I said previously provide evidence the P-51 was a 'standard' EF fighter encounterd daily over protracted periods on the EF & if you can you have a case. Ie, comparative sortie rates for ETO missions vs EF missions etc.

We could count the end where German pilots were running into P-47, P-51, & Yaks etc, around Berlin as well if you wish.

Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:36 PM
I think skychimp said that externally the P47M would need a new prop. That's not so much.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:39 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- We don't know if P-47M really performed to its specs
- in the few days it was an operational aircraft.

Huck'ster as you have been shown previously the P-47M was operational with the 56th in Jan 1945, for details read my previous posts, it was operational far longer then say a "few days".

As to docs, where have you provided any that the P-47M was incapable of its rated speed etc?, how bout you provide some evidence to support your popsition for a change, or ask SC etc to do research for you, their must be a web page out their somewhere you can look it up as well. Before asking for docs the P-47 could or couldn't do something.


Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:44 PM
I can't find the site for the moment, but I saw somewhere a victories list which showed that the P-47M's of the 56FG were rather successful, even against 262's!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:48 PM
Sry, if this is a d u m b question, but what is the difference between the P-47M and N (performance) ?

<hr><p align=center>

http://www.brooksart.com/Mountainwolf.jpg

http://www.jg68.de.vu

Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu

Come As You Are !

<hr>

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:53 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Jippo, IMO Ta152 and P47M belong to '46 servers. I
- think Oleg made a mistake by including Ta152 so
- early

Except for the fact that the P-47M actually was fighting in late 44 and early 45. So, much for your '46 server. I don't know about the 152 and I don't care...it's not the topic...I'd really wish you would take it elsewhere.

- We don't know if P-47M really performed to its specs
- in the few days it was an operational aircraft.
- P-47N performed as espected only after the initial
- batch of engines (similar with those who equiped
- P-47M) was changed with R-2800-77. I have nothing
- against P-47N, P-47M was a fantasy aircraft.

Once again Huck, you indicate your complete a total lack of knowledge in this area.



<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:55 PM
Here's a good page with some infos:

http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/aircraft/p-47/7.html


******************************************3


The P-47M was, essentially, developed collaterally with the XP-47J. The J was fitted with a high output version of the P&W R-2800. Specifically, the R-2800-57. This engine made 2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm at 35,000 feet. This is in War Emergency Power. The aircraft actually attained 507 mph at an altitude of 34,300 feet. 2,800 hp is 133% of rated power. At military power (100%), the XP-47J could sustain 470 mph. 435 mph was attained at 81% of it's rated power (1,700 hp). All performance figures were obtained at 34,300 feet. The J model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds. Time to 30,000 feet was only 6 minutes, 45 seconds. Now that's an interceptor! Yet it had a usable range of 1,075 miles. Rather impressive performance. Nor was this a stripped down hotrod. It was fully armed and carried ballast in the wings equal to 267 rds per gun. The aircraft was flown to a height of 46,500 feet and was capable of a bit more.

Chief test pilot Lowery Brabham warms up the XP-47J prior to an early flight in November of 1943. Note the exceptionally tight cowling installation and spinner. This layout worked well, but was not adopted for production P-47s due to increased cost and complexity. However, a similar cowling was incorporated into the XP-72 little more than a year later.

Originally designed to defeat the FW-190 series fighters, the XP-47J certainly would have exceeded this requirement. In point of fact, with its critical Mach of .83, it had the potential to chase down Me-262's by utilizing a shallow dive, taking advantage of its superior service ceiling.

Despite this incredible performance, the XP-47J was really nothing more than a technology demonstrator. Meanwhile, the R-2800 C series was installed in another, more ordinary Thunderbolt P-47C. The purpose was to trade a little performance for simplicity of manufacture. The idea being that a minimum of changes were required to the current aircraft for the C series engine.

The aircraft that resulted was designated the XP-47M. Not "officially sanctioned", the XP-47M was an "in-house" development program. The "M" was painted in chromate yellow to distinguish it from the run of the mill C and D models. Likely, this overly bright paint scheme was selected to indicate it's test status in order to prevent over-zealous P-47 and F6F pilots from making mock attacks, as was the standard rule of the day over wartime Long Island.

Right out of the starting gate, the XP-47M the horse to beat in terms of speed. The XP-47M proved to be nearly as fast as the XP-47J. 488 mph was obtained on at least one flight. The official maximum speed is 470 mph. However, over-boosting the engine could tweak another 15 to 20 mph out of the big fighter. Some may find this next tidbit hard to swallow, however, the test documents still exist.

During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature caused detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the engine at extreme boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were largely used up, but survived without a single component failure. Try this with Rolls Royce Merlin or Allison V-1710 and see what happens.

As mid June of 1944 arrived, so did the first of Germany's Vengeance weapons. Flying at speeds right around 400 mph., the V-1 was not easy to intercept prior to flying over populated areas, where knocking it down could have a worse effect than leaving it alone. Many of the RAF's latest fighters were thrown into intercepting the "Buzz Bombs", preferably over the English Channel. Tempests, late Mark Spitfires and even the jet powered (but not especially fast) Meteors were put to work intercepting the deadly "Doodle Bugs".

Upon the USAAF being informed of the XP-47M, three YP-47M development aircraft were immediately ordered. These were built using P-47D-27-RE fighters straight off the production line. Having already logged hundreds of flights with the XP-47M, beginning in mid 1943, Republic had a big leg up in terms of development time. Actual production P-47M fighters used the P-47D-30-RE as the basic airframe.

The production P-47M fighters did not reach operational status until after many of the V-1 launch sites were over-run by Allied ground forces. Deployed to 3 squadrons of the 56th Fighter Group, the new fighter likely did not chase very many flying bombs. Inasmuch as most aviation historians claim that the P-47M was designed specifically to intercept the V-1, it will come as a surprise to them to learn that the prototype existed more than a year before the first V-1 was launched at Britain. Moreover, the P-47D, deployed in large numbers, was certainly fast enough to overtake the V-1. It was only coincidence that the XP-47M and the R-2800 C series engines were available when the V-1's began falling on London.

The new M models also suffered a fair amount of teething troubles. The C series engines suffered from high altitude ignition leaks and burned pistons. The 56th kept many of their older D models until the new M had its bugs corrected. Nonetheless, once sorted out, the P-47M was the fastest propeller driven fighter to see combat service in any Air Force in the ETO. Capable of speeds up to 475 mph, the M was a true "hotrod".

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 09:56 PM
And next page for the N:

http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/aircraft/p-47/8.html

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:09 PM
Bremspropeller wrote:
- Sry, if this is a d u m b question, but what is the
- difference between the P-47M and N (performance) ?

Okay...here goes:

Basically identical to the "M" except with a wingspan increase by insertion of 18-inch stubs between the fuselage and the wing panels. Two internal fuel tanks in each stub wing carried an addtional 200 gallons (each). It had a better roll rate aand turn was about the same (wing loading was reduced too):

Performance Date:
High Speed (actual): 455mph @ 38,750ft.
Wing areas was 322 sq./ft.
Max. Gross Weight was 20,160lbs. (with wing tanks).
Range: ~900 miles.

So, as compared to a "D". Better roll-rate, slower climb rate, and faster. But not as fast as the M. It also had a dorsal fin added (but so did the M after a bit). I don't know how MUCH better the N's roll rate was....

<img src=http://www.steehouwer.com/rv/rv21.jpg>

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:12 PM
Two easy external visual differences, square wing tips and very often two antennas masts near the beginning of the dorsal fin.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:39 PM
nicolas10 wrote:

- You quote words of the reichling tests as being a
- quote from the III/JG301. Actually in the report
- JG301 QUOTES the rechlin report, and say they DIDN'T
- observe this kind of instability.
-
- This is lying skychimp, you are pulling things out
- of context and ignoring some parts of the report.
- Shame on you.
-
- Don't start with a personnaly attack complaint. If
- you don't want to be called a liar don't lie.
-
- Nic
-


Are you as big a simp as you make yourself out to be, or is it just an act? This has got to be among your dumbest posts.

If you had BOTHERED to read the information I posted you WOULD SEE that the report was CLEARLY not that of Rechlin!

Reread the post, Nic. If you have trouble with the big words, let me know. Here's what I wrote:

-- "No dives have been carried out, or only at speeds
-- below those recommended as safe in the pilot's
-- notes. This caution is attributable to the Rechlin
-- Test Station, which noted serious instability in
-- diving flight above 600 km/h. Instability about the
-- vertical and elevation axes was stressed by Rechlin
-- as an especially negative characteristic."

Why the hell would Reichlin reference themselves as Reichlin? You still don't get it do you?

That's a portion of the report wherein the evaluator with JG 301 REFERENCES the reichlin report and states WHY certain tests were not done. They were not done because RECHLIN found serious shortcomings with regards to stability. If you read the report in the book, you would see that JG 301 refenced the most serious short comings, among them STABILITY.

NO WHERE, NIC, did I misrepresent ANYTHING. It is rather YOU that MISREAD then MISREPRESENTED my post.

Next time, Nic, TRY to get it right.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:41 PM
Could you continue your discussion on the TA-152 in the other topic!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:42 PM
Not clear at all Huck. The P-47M was operational for much longer (5+ months vs. at most a month) and in much greater numbers than the Ta 152H. The P-47M wins when it comes to max speed (you're denying it doesn't make it so), dive, zoom climb, and roll rate so, like I said previously-each had its own strengths and weaknesses.

Face it Huckebein, the Germans didn't have a monopoly on great fighters.

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- Not trolling Huck'ster, just asking for some kind of
-- support for a very bold and subjective statement.
-
- Ta152 was better in max speed, climb rate,
- acceleration, turn rate and radius. Is it more clear
- now?
-
- We don't know if P-47M really performed to its specs
- in the few days it was an operational aircraft.
- P-47N performed as espected only after the initial
- batch of engines (similar with those who equiped
- P-47M) was changed with R-2800-77. I have nothing
- against P-47N, P-47M was a fantasy aircraft.
-
- _______________________________________________<sc
- ript language='Javascript'
- src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/
- spectre.js'></script>
- &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcas
- t.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:42 PM
Thanks SkyChimp /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:44 PM
"P-47M was a fantasy aircraft"

No, it was a fantastic aircraft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:44 PM
CHDT wrote:
- detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the
- engine at extreme boost pressures that produced
- 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They
- ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any
- failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No
- special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were
- largely used up, but survived without a single
- component failure. Try this with Rolls Royce Merlin
- or Allison V-1710 and see what happens.

They managed that level of power from the RR Eagle
in 1945-6 before canning the project (it was due
to fly in that huge Westland torpedo fighter bomber
-Wyvern???) Still - damn impressive figure from
a single piston engine, whatever the type or nationality!

- As mid June of 1944 arrived, so did the first of
- Germany's Vengeance weapons. Flying at speeds right
- around 400 mph., the V-1 was not easy to intercept
- prior to flying over populated areas, where knocking
- it down could have a worse effect than leaving it
- alone. Many of the RAF's latest fighters were thrown
- into intercepting the "Buzz Bombs", preferably over
- the English Channel. Tempests, late Mark Spitfires
- and even the jet powered (but not especially fast)
- Meteors were put to work intercepting the deadly
- "Doodle Bugs".

At lower level (3000ft, which the V1s were flying at)
was the P47M any faster than the Tempest V? The P47D
was rated at 357 at sea level, about 400 at 10,000ft.
The Tempest V could manage 392mph at sea level,
416 at 5000ft, and was also offered in a non-official
V1 variant for V1 hunting. So the Tempest V was faster
than the P47D at least at low level. I don't have any
figures for the P47M at sea level. I did a google
search and that suggests (from http://204.210.167.58/webx/P-47.htm) 400mph at 10,000
feet, which puts the standard Tempest V possibly 10 to
20mph ahead of the P47M at V1 altitudes.

I'm not knocking the P47M - just saying that the British
had a machine as capable of dealing with V1s, but nothing
to touch the high altitude performance of the P47M in
any way whatsoever. The P47M seems to be the supreme piston
high altitude performer, certainly beating the Spitfire
XIV of 448mph.

Both the P47 and Spitfire are old designs at heart -
the P47 has its roots in the P43, and the Spitfire
XIV was a mangled Spitfire VIII. The Spitfire XIV is
doing well on a little more than 2000hp, but where
would you
find the space for anything bigger??? The 21 put in
broadly the same sort of performance as the XIV.

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:44 PM
Yah yah. They said they DIDN'T do certain things because Rechlin report talked about the instability, and they here mention the rechlin report to describe. They say clearly that they didn't observe instability.

Care to copy the whole passage then instead of just an extract?

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:47 PM
You're perfectly right, AaronGT, in fact I'm thinking to the P-47M for making great dogfights against TA-152H or even 262's for the 1945 restricted servers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,



Message Edited on 05/14/0309:53PM by CHDT

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:49 PM
SOrry CHDT I'm off to the other thread.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:49 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- Yah yah. They said they DIDN'T do certain things
- because Rechlin report talked about the instability,
- and they here mention the rechlin report to
- describe. They say clearly that they didn't observe
- instability.
-
- Care to copy the whole passage then instead of just
- an extract?
-
- Nic


Better yet, NIC, why don't YOU put you money where you MOUTH is and post your source that says I'm wrong?

And not just your two-bit interpretation of it, scan it. Provide the same level of proof you seem to expect from everyone else that dares question a German plane.

Put you money where your mouth is and post the JG 301 report in its entirety.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 10:52 PM
No problem, Nic /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 11:36 PM
You really have yourself all worked up into some sort of snit fit, don't you Nicolas10.


Now for some reveling info. I have NO models of Allied a/c, NOT a ONE!!! All are GERMAN or JAPANESE. I have more books on Kurt Tank's a/c than of Allied a/c and other German a/c combined!!! In fact, except for 2 books on the Typhoon/Tempest, Allied a/c books are only part of series' that also include German a/c./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


I am quite capable of seeing the pluses and minuses of a/c, German or Allied, unlike some that post here that can ONLY see the so-called pluses of the so-called perfect German a/c and none of their minuses. Now that is blind bigited bias! I see you have joined that tunnel vision 'horse blinder'club.


So Nicolas10, you should improve your reading skills, learn to read better before you crap on people.

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 11:47 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
- Not clear at all Huck. The P-47M was operational
- for much longer (5+ months vs. at most a month) and
- in much greater numbers than the Ta 152H. The P-47M
- wins when it comes to max speed (you're denying it
- doesn't make it so), dive, zoom climb, and roll rate
- so, like I said previously-each had its own
- strengths and weaknesses.
-
- Face it Huckebein, the Germans didn't have a
- monopoly on great fighters.


I know that theoreticaly P-47M was operational for 5 months, but they could not solve the problems with engine until the last month of war.
After that we don't know if it actually reached the speeds calculated for it on paper. Or do you know better?

I think it's time for you and CHDT to show the documents that attests the 470mph max speed in level flight was reached by actual flying P-47M to that speed.

_______________________________________________&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 05/14/0305:51PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
05-14-2003, 11:51 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- So Nicolas10, you should improve your reading
- skills, learn to read better before you crap on
- people.

Bring this in the dedicated thread.

And also bring on the quotes and the facts on which we're arguing about. I don't care which books you read.

Yes I got worked out. This quite of fact twisting is p*ssing me off. Reminds me on the ones about the P51 thread, comapring the climb of the D9 to 10KM and the P51 to 30000ft for instance.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

Message Edited on 05/14/0303:56PM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:02 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- I know that theoreticaly P-47M was operational for 5
- months, but they could not solve the problems with
- engine until the last month of war.
- After that we don't know if it actually reached the
- speeds calculated for it on paper. Or do you know
- better?


If you "know" it was operational for 5 months then why keep saying a "few days".Problems with the P-47M were basicly the same as had been experienced with the P-47C, Ie, cracking in the high tension leads, & throttle & turbo supercharger correlation, these were esaily rectified.

The more serious problem had nothing to do with engine malfunctions etc, it was faulty carurettor diaphrams,
cylinder overcooling, & corrosion in the cylinder bores, due to improper shipping storage protection from the elements. This took longer to rectify.


- I think it's time for you and CHDT to show the
- documents that attests the 470mph max speed in level
- flight was reached by actual flying P-47M to that
- speed.

Huck'ster why dont you provide some refrences it couldn't attain 470mph in level flight? your the one questioning P-47M speeds. You make the claim, then support your position witth facts not innuendo.


Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.



Message Edited on 05/14/0307:10PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:06 AM
PzKpfw wrote:
-
-
- Huck'ster whyt dont you provide some refrences it
- couldn't attain 470mph in level flight? your the one
- questioning P-47M speeds not us. You makre the claim
- support your position witth facts not innuendo.


No dude, why should I, in fact Ta152 was the first operational supersonic fighter, everybody knows that. Care to provide some reference that it didn't?

_______________________________________________&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
05-15-2003, 12:14 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- No dude, why should I, in fact Ta152 was the first
- operational supersonic fighter, everybody knows
- that. Care to provide some reference that it didn't?

Nothing new their Huck'ster figured you would do the norm, Ie, ignore refrence requests as your norm, or bow out.

Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:15 AM
Nicolas10 I was responding to your accusation in this thread/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Hum I think it was milo who was probably p*ssed off that the 152 owns a P47 so he decided to bring up the stability issues."

If I was so hot for the P-47 then why do I have no books on it but have lots of Fw books. What in idiotic conclusion you came to! You having brain fade? Sure looks like it.

Yes, one gets mighty tired of hearing about all those uber German a/c that are 103% perfection by some posters, who can not admit that German war machinery were not perfect. Get your head out of the sand Nicolas10.


nicolas10 wrote:

-
- Bring this in the dedicated thread.
-
- And also bring on the quotes and the facts on which
- we're arguing about. I don't care which books you
- read.
-
- Yes I got worked out. This quite of fact twisting is
- p*ssing me off. Reminds me on the ones about the P51
- thread, comapring the climb of the D9 to 10KM and
- the P51 to 30000ft for instance.
-
-

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:19 AM
You and many others here claim that P-47M could reach 470mph in level flight and I requested the official document to prove it. Do you have such document or just veteran stories that eroneusly converted an instrument reading?
Support you claim with evidence.

_______________________________________________&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 05/14/0306:20PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:23 AM
Huck

References are thick on the ground that attribute a 470+ MPH max speed to the P-47M, why should I have to provide more? Maybe you won't be satisfied until presented with some obscure, unauthenticated document culled from a website?

In fact, 470 MPH is the lowest top speed you will find quoted for the M. Members of the 56th FG claim that with 'tweaking' the M could reach 500 MPH TAS in level flight; do *you* care to provide some references that it didn't?

Regards


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- PzKpfw wrote:
--
--
-- Huck'ster whyt dont you provide some refrences it
-- couldn't attain 470mph in level flight? your the one
-- questioning P-47M speeds not us. You makre the claim
-- support your position witth facts not innuendo.
-
-
- No dude, why should I, in fact Ta152 was the first
- operational supersonic fighter, everybody knows
- that. Care to provide some reference that it didn't?
-
-
-
- _______________________________________________<sc
- ript language='Javascript'
- src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/
- spectre.js'></script>
- &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcas
- t.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:30 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You and many others here claim that P-47M could
- reach 470mph in level flight and I requested the
- official document to prove it. Do you have such
- document or just veteran stories that eroneusly
- converted an instrument reading?
- Support you claim with evidence.


Realy Huck'ster point out here in our conversation where I stated the P-47M reached 470mph in level flight etc. You are the one questioning 470mph not I. So in your own words "Support you claim with evidence".


Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:32 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- Huck
-
- References are thick on the ground that attribute a
- 470+ MPH max speed to the P-47M, why should I have
- to provide more? Maybe you won't be satisfied until
- presented with some obscure, unauthenticated
- document culled from a website?
-
- In fact, 470 MPH is the lowest top speed you will
- find quoted for the M. Members of the 56th FG claim
- that with 'tweaking' the M could reach 500 MPH TAS
- in level flight; do *you* care to provide some
- references that it didn't?


I requested documents not references, do you know the difference?
Now I'm sure that 56th technicians got some help from Micky Mouse and pushed the plane over the boundary of 500mph.
Still I rather like a real world document. Thanks, since I know you can't provide it/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

_______________________________________________&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
05-15-2003, 12:37 AM
PzKpfw wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- You and many others here claim that P-47M could
-- reach 470mph in level flight and I requested the
-- official document to prove it. Do you have such
-- document or just veteran stories that eroneusly
-- converted an instrument reading?
-- Support you claim with evidence.
-
-
- Realy Huck'ster point out here in our conversation
- where I stated the P-47M reached 470mph in level
- flight etc. You are the one questioning 470mph not
- I. So in your own words "Support you claim with
- evidence".

Do some logical push-ups buddy, your brain is out of shape.
Doesn't matter who made the claim, CHDT or whatever, the same person should now present the evidence.

_______________________________________________&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
05-15-2003, 12:43 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- PzKpfw wrote:
- Do some logical push-ups buddy, your brain is out of
- shape.
- Doesn't matter who made the claim, CHDT or whatever,
- the same person should now present the evidence.

Of course it doesn't Huck'ster it's your forte to claim things, then try to spin when cornered, you had a good teacher. You realy need to change your name to Strawman, as it would perfeclty suit your posting style as does Huck'ster. Keep posting, your diggin yourself a deeper & deeper hole here.

Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.



Message Edited on 05/14/0307:45PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:45 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- References are thick on the ground that attribute a
- 470+ MPH max speed to the P-47M, why should I have
- to provide more? Maybe you won't be satisfied until
- presented with some obscure, unauthenticated
- document culled from a website?

Glad to see someone is paying attention.

Huck, you have NEVER cited a published source...not ONCE. Certainly not one anybody else seems to have access too. You only serve to incite people in a thread that is otherwise an attempt to get Oleg to model a P-47M. Honestly, I can't see the reason for your senseless and uninformed crusade.

It's put-up or shut-up time in this case. WHERE is your information that the P-47M did not have a top speed of 470 mph?







<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

Message Edited on 05/14/0307:45PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:55 AM
You're right Huck, I can't provide the actual document (though I'll try) that records a top speed of 470 MPH but a preponderance of contemporary evidence supports this claim.

I realize that you doubt any evidence, referenced or documented, that portray U.S. aircraft in a positive light so I have no doubt that you would dismiss any documentation presented anyhow.

Let me ask you: what do you think is a reasonable top speed for a clean P-47 sporting 2800 HP?

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- Huck
--
-- References are thick on the ground that attribute a
-- 470+ MPH max speed to the P-47M, why should I have
-- to provide more? Maybe you won't be satisfied until
-- presented with some obscure, unauthenticated
-- document culled from a website?
--
-- In fact, 470 MPH is the lowest top speed you will
-- find quoted for the M. Members of the 56th FG claim
-- that with 'tweaking' the M could reach 500 MPH TAS
-- in level flight; do *you* care to provide some
-- references that it didn't?
-
-
- I requested documents not references, do you know
- the difference?
- Now I'm sure that 56th technicians got some help
- from Micky Mouse and pushed the plane over the
- boundary of 500mph.
- Still I rather like a real world document. Thanks,
- since I know you can't provide it/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- _______________________________________________<sc
- ript language='Javascript'
- src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/
- spectre.js'></script>
- &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcas
- t.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:55 AM
MachineII wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- References are thick on the ground that attribute a
-- 470+ MPH max speed to the P-47M, why should I have
-- to provide more? Maybe you won't be satisfied until
-- presented with some obscure, unauthenticated
-- document culled from a website?
-
- Glad to see someone is paying attention.
-
- Huck, you have NEVER cited a published source...not
- ONCE.

That's a lie. I quoted even AHT/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



MachineII wrote:
-
- It's put-up or shut-up time in this case. WHERE is
- your information that the P-47M did not have a top
- speed of 470 mph?


I find dubious that a plane of P-47 size needs only 250hp more to go from 430mph to 470mph, and I requested a document to prove this wild claim.
Is that a fair enough treatment for your pet plane?

_______________________________________________&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
05-15-2003, 01:01 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- That's a lie. I quoted even AHT

Huck you don't even own AHT.

- I find dubious that a plane of P-47 size needs only
- 250hp more to go from 430mph to 470mph, and I
- requested a document to prove this wild claim.
- Is that a fair enough treatment for your pet plane?

So, what you're saying is you don't understand how a plane that has more power will go faster? Try reading the thread...you'll figure it out. It's that whole bigger powerplant/turbosupercharger thing the adults are always talking about.

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 01:23 AM
MiloMorai wrote:

-
- Did the P-51 enter into combat with drop tanks and
- fuel in the fuselage tank. NO! Another case of not
- telling the whole story.
-
Well, on exceptionally long missions, the fuselage tank was only half burned before switching to drop tanks. Otherwise, after dropping wing tanks there would not be enough internal left to make it back.

After burning off 1/2 of the fuselage fuel the Mustang's center of gravity was far enough forward to engage in combat maneuvers. Care had to be taken, however. Sometimes back pressure on the stick had to be relaxed to avoid a 3 G turn wrapping into a 5 or 6 G turn.

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 01:27 AM
There you go again Huck, 250 HP? Wild claim?

Try 500 additional HP when considering a speed of 428 MPH (P-47D-25) at 2300 HP.

Do the math.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MachineII wrote:
-- lrrp22 wrote:
--- References are thick on the ground that attribute a
--- 470+ MPH max speed to the P-47M, why should I have
--- to provide more? Maybe you won't be satisfied until
--- presented with some obscure, unauthenticated
--- document culled from a website?
--
-- Glad to see someone is paying attention.
--
-- Huck, you have NEVER cited a published source...not
-- ONCE.
-
- That's a lie. I quoted even AHT/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
-
- MachineII wrote:
--
-- It's put-up or shut-up time in this case. WHERE is
-- your information that the P-47M did not have a top
-- speed of 470 mph?
-
-
- I find dubious that a plane of P-47 size needs only
- 250hp more to go from 430mph to 470mph, and I
- requested a document to prove this wild claim.
- Is that a fair enough treatment for your pet plane?
-
- _______________________________________________<sc
- ript language='Javascript'
- src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/
- spectre.js'></script>
- &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcas
- t.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>





Message Edited on 05/15/0312:30AM by lrrp22

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 01:28 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- I find dubious that a plane of P-47 size needs only
- 250hp more to go from 430mph to 470mph, and I
- requested a document to prove this wild claim.
- Is that a fair enough treatment for your pet plane?

Why couldn't the M reach 470mph Huck'ster?. Robert S. Johnson's P-47D-5-RE, "Lucky," was feild modified to turn 72" of manifold pressure and about 470 mph true airspeed at about 30,000 feet.



Regards, John Waters


Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.



Message Edited on 05/14/0308:43PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 01:48 AM
"America's 100,000", by Dean, has the P-47M's top speed at 470 mph, page 595.

"American Warplanes of WW2", edited by Donald, has it at 470 mph page 229.

There's two refrences agreeing the M model, with basically the same weight, but with 500 more HP, could go faster than the 430+ mph of the D model.

Post one that says otherwise, so we can discuss it.

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 02:18 AM
Huck,

Without Joe Baugher's site at your disposal, you'd have no facts at all on which to rely. You take Baugher's site as the gospel whenever you want to try and prove an American plane was inferior to its German counterpart. Is his site suddenly insufficient for you when it shows a top speed for the P-47M as 470 mph at 30,000 feet?

" Performance of the P-47M-1-RE included a maximum speed of 400 mph at 10,000 feet, 453 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 470 mph at 30,000 feet."

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_12.html

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 02:22 AM
Bremspropeller wrote:
- Sry, if this is a d u m b question, but what is the
- difference between the P-47M and N (performance) ?
-
- <hr><p align=center>
-
- http://www.brooksart.com/Mountainwolf.jpg
-
- http://www.jg68.de.vu
-
-
- Online unterwegs als I/JG68Toryu
-
- Come As You Are !
-
- <hr>


About 5-10 mph. 470mph versus 465-460mph for the P-47N. The N had a worse climb rate, but a great roll rate of about 110 degrees per second - the fastest of the Thunderbolts. The N was purportedly a much nicer handling plane.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 02:27 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- No dude, why should I, in fact Ta152 was the first
- operational supersonic fighter, everybody knows
- that.



/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-very-happy.gif /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-very-happy.gif /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-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Now I've seen it all.

Huck, you really ought to knock off the comedy act.




Regards,

SkyChimp

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



Message Edited on 05/15/0305:28AM by SkyChimp

The_Blue_Devil
05-15-2003, 02:59 AM
So let me get this straight...Oleg signs off on the P-80 but not the P-47M which actually saw more combat during the war? Why? I'm not trying to be a jerk about the planes coming out, I just want an honest answer.

<center>--------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"The P-47 Thunderbolt is the Ultimate Prom Date..Sure She is Ugly..but Man Does She Put Out...Love that Double Wasp"[b]</center>

&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];{your script}</script>,
&lt;script>var avatar="http://www.78thfightergroup.com/history/Mustang.gif"</script>&lt;script>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=avatar</script>
<img src=http://www.vectorsite.net/avp471.jpg>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#040830";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#0B1760";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 03:22 AM
Well, Gibbage is doing the P-80. I don't think anyone has signed up to model the P-47M. But really all that is needed to make it is a new prop on the P-47D-27 already in the game.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 03:24 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
- So let me get this straight...Oleg signs off on the
- P-80 but not the P-47M which actually saw more
- combat during the war? Why? I'm not trying to be a
- jerk about the planes coming out, I just want an
- honest answer.

I don't think we know what Oleg thinks about the P-47M. I think he has probably pretty busy...but I think we can make a couple of asertions to him:

1) The P-47M would require NO changes to the model of the P-47D-27. The dorsal fin was added later, too.

2) The FM would need to be adjusted based on the M's weight and added power and perhaps the Ch-5.

3) The DM might need to be adjusted slightly to reflect the new turbosupercharger...or not...I imagine the physical dimensions are the same.

So, OLEG give us the M!

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

Message Edited on 05/14/0310:53PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 03:32 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- I requested documents not references, do you know
- the difference?
- Now I'm sure that 56th technicians got some help
- from Micky Mouse and pushed the plane over the
- boundary of 500mph.
- Still I rather like a real world document. Thanks,
- since I know you can't provide it


My goodness, Huck. 99.9999% of everything you've ever offered on these boards are your suppositions or references to Joe Baugher's site. Suddenly that's not good enough?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 03:34 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- No dude, why should I, in fact Ta152 was the first
-- operational supersonic fighter, everybody knows
-- that.
-
-
-
-
- Now I've seen it all.
-
- Huck, you really ought to knock off the comedy act.



Have you ever heard about sarcasm SkyChimp, or you're too slow to get it?

_______________________________________________&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
05-15-2003, 03:42 AM
Also Huck'ster if your realy interested you could pose your question here:


http://www.p47advocates.com/wwwboard.html


Regards, John Waters

Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 03:46 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Have you ever heard about sarcasm SkyChimp, or
- you're too slow to get it?

With you Huck, I can never be sure if it's sarcasm, or another serious claim on your part.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 04:34 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how many P-47Ms were on the Eastern Front during WWII..

I keep coming up with none. Why then should it be included in this Eastern Front sim?



_______________________________
Hauptmann Jochen "Heidi" Heiden
Jagderband 44
www.JagdVerband44.com (http://www.JagdVerband44.com)

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 06:41 AM
MachineII wrote:


Hmmm, to me it doesn't sound too bad. And even if somebody really good with skins would do a new template(if there are some minor changes in riveting etc...) and a skin suitable for M, hlaf of the work would already be done.


What about changes in the cockpit? Are there any?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 07:07 AM
To be honest I am slowly beginning to dread discussions like this. There are so many planes that are missing which had an impact on the Eastern Front (Hs-126 totally missing, cockpits for russian bombers) that aren´t even made but yet all the world discusses about planes with minor/no impact on the war just because they´re "keWl". Not to dismiss the work of the modellers because I´m not capable of that, but I could easily live without Ta 152, Go 229 or P80 because they didn´t play a role on the EF.

---------------------------
http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-0001/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg (http://www.lwskins.de.vu)
Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 08:21 AM
Some datas from René Francillon (a very respected aviation historian) book "American Fighters of WWII":

An important fact, wing loading of the P-47M-1.RE was lighter than wing loading of P-47D-26-RA, 42.3 (lb/sq.ft) against 48.3 for the D-26.

Also power loading ratio (lb/hp) was much better in favor of the P-47M, 6.0 against 7.25 for the D-26.

Cruise speed, 360 mph against 300 mph for the D-26.

Climb rate, 32000 in 13,4 minutes!

Powerplant, R-2800-57, 2100hp at start, maximum rating 2800hp.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 08:29 AM
Forgot the top speed:

473mph at 32000 feet!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 08:59 AM
Still being the dolt, eh Heiden.

There is a Berlin map in IL2/FB. American a/c (aluminium overcast) flew over Berlin and points slightly further east.

There is a map of part of Hungary in IL2/FB. Guess what? American a/c flew over that area as well.

In fact, at some points the EF and WF met in 1945.


JV44Heiden wrote:
- I'm still trying to figure out how many P-47Ms were
- on the Eastern Front during WWII..
-
- I keep coming up with none. Why then should it be
- included in this Eastern Front sim?
-


**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 09:10 AM
http://www.donhollway.com/writing/wolfpack/wolfpack.html


" After that the 56th's only real challengers in the air were the new Me 262 jet fighters. The Wolfpack had downed jets before, with lucky passing shots or by catching them over their runways. They'd stuck with the Jug when all other groups went to P-51s, and were sole recipients of the P-47M-up-engined to produce 465 mph (more speed than a Mustang)-with which they accepted combat on the jets' terms. On April 5th, 1945, a Wolfpack pilot actually ran down a 262 in a shallow dive. Attempting to out-turn the P-47, the German pilot was cut off and shot down."

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 10:14 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Nicolas10 I was responding to your accusation in
- this thread
- "Hum I think it was milo who was probably p*ssed off
- that the 152 owns a P47 so he decided to bring up
- the stability issues."
-
- If I was so hot for the P-47 then why do I have no
- books on it but have lots of Fw books. What in
- idiotic conclusion you came to! You having brain
- fade? Sure looks like it.
-
- Yes, one gets mighty tired of hearing about all
- those uber German a/c that are 103% perfection by
- some posters, who can not admit that German war
- machinery were not perfect. Get your head out of the
- sand Nicolas10.

Geez that was second degree sorry you coudlnt' see it. Anyway you were the one to bring the Ta152 stability issues and so on. So don't compain people stand up to defend it. Besides it's tiring to hear lousy arguments.

You could debate the P47M could beat a Ta 152 due to it's strenghts which it could certainly do, but instead of that...

Anyway I don't think all german planes own whatever. But I think the Ta 152 owns most other planes, the P47M being one of the few who could compete. Which one is better depends on many factors, including your pilot style. I think given the US tactics of 1944-1945, the P47M would suit them better.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 11:33 AM
Smart thread.


I dont really get why is this fuss about the P-47M. Bring it in, so I can shoot it down. When it comes, Yankwhiners will be all disappointed that it doesnt really brings much new or more compared to the old P47Ds... the same sluggish plane.Yeah-yeah speed. Try to make an advantage of that, uit wont be easy, especially at low levels where it isnt any exceptionally fast.. it even looses its only good point, firepower.

Frankly, I would be glad to see a faster P-47 variant, because I can already do ANYTHING better than it, and my only trouble used to be when I overshoot the thing, since I outaccelerate it by such a large margin, that I dont even have time to cut back on throttle.

Bring it in, I have never complained about any plane addons. The more the better. And Skychimp can start a few threads in the GD, ORR, Aces High Forum, SimHQ.com etc. etc. titled "Hey mz P-47M is undermodelled" before we even get it.

I worship only 109s, and I only have respect for Spitfires.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg


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

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

If climb rate`s with us, who`s against us?

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 11:37 AM
nicolas10 wrote:
-

-
- Geez that was second degree sorry you coudlnt' see
- it. Anyway you were the one to bring the Ta152
- stability issues and so on. So don't compain people
- stand up to defend it. Besides it's tiring to hear
- lousy arguments.
-
-

Yup, definately brain fade, for don't see any 'second degree sorry' in this thread.

Your last post in this thread was almost 12 hours ago.

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 11:41 AM
milo is back!

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 11:46 AM
NuFoerki wrote:
- milo is back!
-
----------------------------------------


He`s also making a pretty good progress in getting back to the banned pool, too. He`s been launching flamethreads and planting flame bombs in threads ever since he was liberated on a softer moment of the moderators.

Just sit back and enjoy the show before it`s over. I do the same. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg


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

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

If climb rate`s with us, who`s against us?

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 11:48 AM
i enjoy it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif did i understand you right? milo was banned?

i guess i´ll go and buy some popcorn for the next weeks...



sorry, i´ll stop hijacking now...

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 11:58 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Your last post in this thread was almost 12 hours
- ago.

Brain faide N?2 I last posted here about 1 AM yesterday, then went to bed, then came back the next day.

There's a time difference between France and the US you know /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Oh and I don't want to hear you complain the US time is undermodeled because you guys are at least 6 hours late /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

Message Edited on 05/15/0304:05AM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:19 PM
NuFoerki wrote:
- i enjoy it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif did i understand you
- right? milo was banned?
-
- i guess i´ll go and buy some popcorn for the next
- weeks...


For months. Haven`t you noticed how much less flaming was out there lately?

He also has that reserve nickname Cuchlain Uisha or what in use. Fun thing that after his ban was lifted, he still used the other nick to respond to HIS OWN posts... kind like:

Milo Morai: Yada yada German planes are all crap etc.

He logs out. Logs in as Cuchlain Uishna. Clicks reply:

CU: Yeah Milo, you have said that correctly, I am always amazed by your sheer knownladge on everything. etc. etc. And: Oh these bad flamers, you should read Milo`s very polite posts. etc.

Logs out, logs in as Milo Morai, starts all over again.. isn`t that some great fun? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Just look up the "K-4 facts" thread in ORR...

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zwfyk&tpage=1

Just to make the whole thing more obvious, he was stupid enough to send Private Masseges to me with his new nick as well as his old. He didn`t take in mind that I will check his ID tag, and guess what I found there... the same names. Shaun Innes, and LLoyd Innes. Coincidence, oh yeah. Especially when "both" visit the same threads and have the same style. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif He should have been a bit smarter when he registered the new nick. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now, enough of this sillyness. Dont even respond to him, its a waste of time. Besides, he lives for flaming, and if he dont get it, he will either starve or will get agressive to provoke some answers, which will make him banned. Both would only do good for the community.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg


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

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 05/15/0301:34PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:23 PM
Sure what ever you say Huckebein_FW./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I also see your yappy little lap dog is still around.

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg


Message Edited on 05/15/0307:28AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:33 PM
Nicolas10 stop and think for once. If I read a time of a post, no matter where I am in the world, if I come back 12hrs later and make another post on the same computer, still at the same desk, the posted time will be 12hrs from the last post.

Or, to put it another way, there is say a 5 hr difference between two points on the earth but the time between postings does not change.

You posted at 6:16PM, then next at 5:14AM, my time. What is the time difference? The same as whatever time difference you see on your computer for those 2 posts.



nicolas10 wrote:

-
- Brain faide N?2 I last posted here about 1 AM
- yesterday, then went to bed, then came back the next
- day.
-
- There's a time difference between France and the US
- you know

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 12:53 PM
Milo, perhaps an idea for you. Can you open a new topic in which you will explain more precisely your very interesting remarks about your "posting times". If you didn't notice it, it's a topic about the P-47M. Thanks for your attention.

So back to the topic, here's a good story of a Polish pilot on the P-47M:

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/lanow/lanow.htm

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 01:01 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- He also has that reserve nickname Cuchlain Uisha or
- what in use. Fun thing that after his ban was
- lifted, he still used the other nick to respond to
- HIS OWN posts... kind like:
-
- Milo Morai: Yada yada German planes are all crap
- etc.
-
- He logs out. Logs in as Cuchlain Uishna. Clicks
- reply:
-
- CU: Yeah Milo, you have said that correctly, I am
- always amazed by your sheer knownladge on
- everything. etc. etc. And: Oh these bad flamers, you
- should read Milo`s very polite posts. etc.
-
- Logs out, logs in as Milo Morai, starts all over
- again.. isn`t that some great fun?



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



oh, and i for one wouldnt have a problem if the p47m will be added. the allies need more good planes. i although hope that this opens the door for more japanese planes.

if the high alt modelling will be corrected the whole thing can be good fun! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 03:18 PM
Your P-47 thread seems to have died CHDT. So to keep it going here are some links./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_12.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47.html
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/p47thunderbolt/
http://www.vectorsite.net/avp47.html
http://www.aerofiles.com/repub47-regs.html
http://www.internetmodeler.com/2003/january/first-looks/tam_p-47d.htm
http://www.sicuroengineering.com/O_manual/manual/republic/p47.htm
http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/aircraft/p-47/2.html



PS. pass your message on to others as well/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 04:03 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- What about changes in the cockpit? Are there any?

Considering the prototypes were all stock D-27s I am gonna say there were no siginificant changes. There are no photos on the web...that I could find. Does anybody have one? The most significant difference would be the addition of a K-14 style sight. But, that's already modeled for the P-51D. The most significant change was the cockpit was pressurized...but I don't think that changes the panel much.

For what it's worth this is the photo of a late model D-40-RE...it should be very similar to an "M"...and it looks just like the D-27 with the exception of the gunsight:

<img src=http://204.210.167.58/webx/p47_5lg.jpg>

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

Message Edited on 05/15/0311:04AM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 04:22 PM
Machine,

I don't believe that the P-47M's cockpit was pressurized.

As far as cockpit differences, the D-27 featured a 'slatted' floor while the D-40 had a smooth floor as per your photo.

MachineII wrote:
- Jippo01 wrote:
-- What about changes in the cockpit? Are there any?
-
- Considering the prototypes were all stock D-27s I am
- gonna say there were no siginificant changes. There
- are no photos on the web...that I could find. Does
- anybody have one? The most significant difference
- would be the addition of a K-14 style sight. But,
- that's already modeled for the P-51D. The most
- significant change was the cockpit was
- pressurized...but I don't think that changes the
- panel much.
-
- For what it's worth this is the photo of a late
- model D-40-RE...it should be very similar to an
- "M"...and it looks just like the D-27 with the
- exception of the gunsight:
-
- <img src=http://204.210.167.58/webx/p47_5lg.jpg>
-
- <center><img
- src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/si
- g3.jpg>
- <center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3
-
- Message Edited on 05/15/03 11:04AM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 04:30 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
- I don't believe that the P-47M's cockpit was
- pressurized.

Maybe that was the N....

OKay...the slated floor thing...got it...do you think the M had a smooth floor? I dunno...I would assume it would be very close to a late model D cockpit...

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 04:33 PM
I think perhaps Oleg should take a 'controversy test'
on new aircraft before allowing them into the sim :-)

With regards to P47M performance, I think people
might be a disappointed given that in the typical
range of altitudes that people tend to fly (online
at least), i.e. below 3000m, the P47M isn't going
to be a stellar performer - good but not exceptional
when compared to other future Allied aircraft - e.g.
Tempest, Spitfire XIV, P51. If anyone gets high, it
will then excel, but will that happen? Will the P47M
be considered undermodelled not because it is, but
because it won't be used at its best altitudes?

Saying this, the Ta152 is not very nippy at low
altitude either.

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 05:17 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- Saying this, the Ta152 is not very nippy at low
- altitude either.

Dunno Aaron by JV's definition of criteria to get a model into FB, Luthier etc could cancel over 80% of the existing model projects.


I dont think ppl want the P-47M for LA engagements, I believe they want it to chase Ta 152H's around @ 29,000 ft. Not sure what place either will have on the EF as the Soviets said "all altitudes above 15 feet over the tree tops are wasted." Either way as their is no HA model in FB anyway above 32K, IIRC it shouldnt realy matter, and If the Ta 152H is modeled with the MW 50 rank replaceing the aft GM tank as was done with most of the pre production H0/H1 models, as their role was changed to Begleitjager, instead of HA interceptor, will serve it well @ FB altitudes.


Dunno about the Ta 152H not being nippy @ LA either as LW pilots state it handeled like a "glider" @ LA. While their are a few P-47M pilot accounts of mock tests vs P-51D's @ LA where the M 'o utaccelarated', & was faster @ SL, climb rate etc then the P-51D, Of course P-51D pilots deny this
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .


Regards, John Waters


Deutschland soll nie verlieren. IL müssen-2 das reflektieren

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.



Message Edited on 05/15/0312:28PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 05:30 PM
Also, if the work associated with adding an "M" is minor...I think the question becomes why not? Everything we need is already in FB. With the exception of nailing down any cockpit differences, we're not talking about much more than a remodeled prop (or skinned) and some FM changes.

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 05:35 PM
ta-152h at sealevel:

ta-152h sealvel speed 580km/h

that faster as yak3,

is same fast as la-5fn and turn similar and climb is similar,roll i dont know, but la-5fn has too not good roll

la-5fn can good fight in fb too 44 server

turn

ta-152h 18sec

la-5fn 18,5sec

la-7 3 20mm 18-19sec

la-7 2 20mm 18sec

climb

la-5fn 4,7min to 5000m

ta-152h climb 10000m 10,1min,

that means 5000m under 5min,because at low is climb much better

oleg has already post that she is same good turner as la-7 in low altitude

but ta-152h has same bad cockpit as 190


Message Edited on 05/15/0308:05PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 05:54 PM
PzKpfw wrote:
- Dunno Aaron by JV's definition of criteria to get a
- model into FB, Luthier etc could cancel over 80% of
- the existing model projects.

I don't know what his criteria are.

- I dont think ppl want the P-47M for LA engagements,
- I believe they want it to chase Ta 152H's around @
- 29,000 ft.

Sounds like we need to have airstarts enabled for
DF servers :-)

- Dunno about the Ta 152H not being nippy @ LA either
- as LW pilots state it handeled like a "glider" @ LA.

The figure I have at SL is around 350mph for pretty
much all Ta152 versions (aound the same as a P47D,
but a fair bit less than a P51B, for example). 350
isn't slow, but you are talking a 40mph advantage
for the Tempest V, and even greater closing speed
against the Tempest II (406mph at SL), had that seen
action in later 1945 if the war had lasted longer.

- While their are a few P-47M pilot accounts of mock
- tests vs P-51D's @ LA where the M 'o utaccelarated',
- & was faster @ SL, climb rate etc then the P-51D, Of
- course P-51D pilots deny this

If you look at the standard quoted figures, you are
probably talking about 380ish for the P47M at sea level
(extrapolating from 400mph at 10,000), 382 for the P51B,
and 392 for the Tempest V. But then it is also possible
that the P47M might have accelerated faster from cruise
than any of them, but also have had a lower maximum speed
at SL. And it is also possible that a particular P47M
had a faster speed than a P51D - we are talking less
than 10mph here - so racks (none on the P47M AFAIK),
paint jobs, phase of the moon, etc, could easily skew
things either way.

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 06:27 PM
I would like to see the P47M, because it would make some competition for the 152 that I'll always fly. There will be some competition from the La7 it seems, but the more the better. I don't want to see the Ta152 banned from servers because it's too strong compared to other planes.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 07:04 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- I would like to see the P47M, because it would make
- some competition for the 152 that I'll always fly.


Remember to pop down low where we can fly past you
in our Tempests :-)

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 07:32 PM
Hey Machine

IIRC the production M did have a smooth floor but I will check to make sure this evening.

BTW...the N wasn't pressurized either.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
MachineII wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- I don't believe that the P-47M's cockpit was
-- pressurized.
-
- Maybe that was the N....
-
- OKay...the slated floor thing...got it...do you
- think the M had a smooth floor? I dunno...I would
- assume it would be very close to a late model D
- cockpit...
-
- <center><img
- src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/si
- g3.jpg>
- <center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3





Message Edited on 05/15/0306:35PM by lrrp22

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 07:43 PM
MachineII wrote:
- Also, if the work associated with adding an "M" is
- minor...I think the question becomes why not?
- Everything we need is already in FB. With the
- exception of nailing down any cockpit differences,
- we're not talking about much more than a remodeled
- prop (or skinned) and some FM changes.

Actually it`s not a minor work... Oleg posted long ago that creating the 3d model of brand new plane (not like a modification of current P47 3dmodel) means that you have 30% of the work completed... the rest 70% is tweaking the very complex FM so that the plane flies at the same speed, has the same climb, acceleration etc. as the real one (when it`s flyable, non-flyable planes are much simplier, I believe they have a simple FM like with other flightsims, not one based on physical variables only).

So even if you have the complete 3d model, there`s still twice as many to work on the FM itself, and other bugs. Which makes the fact that we already have 80 (!!!!) flyables even more stunning!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg


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

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

If climb rate`s with us, who`s against us?

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 07:58 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Actually it`s not a minor work... Oleg posted long
- ago that creating the 3d model of brand new plane
- (not like a modification of current P47 3dmodel)
- means that you have 30% of the work completed... the
- rest 70% is tweaking the very complex FM so that the
- plane flies at the same speed, has the same climb,
- acceleration etc. as the real one (when it`s
- flyable, non-flyable planes are much simplier, I
- believe they have a simple FM like with other
- flightsims, not one based on physical variables
- only).

Very true. But we're talking about a flight model that already exists in the game. There are no differences aerodynamically from a D to an M. Only added weight and added thrust. Now, I don't know how complex it is to increase the output of a powerplant or to increase the weight of an aircraft in FB, but it certainly is substantlially lower than it would be to construct a new flight model.

In VERY simplistic terms we're talking about taking a spreadsheet, copying the data from the "D" into a column labeled "M" and boosting output based on engine power and increasing weight (CG remains the same). The only monkey wrench I can think of is if substantial cockpit differences exist (which I don't think there are aside from the addition of a K-14...is that realistic?) or problems with turbosupercharger operation considering we're dealing with a Ch-5...but as I see it there shouldn't be huge issues.


<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 08:54 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- nicolas10 wrote:
-- I would like to see the P47M, because it would make
-- some competition for the 152 that I'll always fly.
-
-
- Remember to pop down low where we can fly past you
- in our Tempests :-)

Sure no prob. When I won't fly the tempest that is.

nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 11:16 PM
NuFoerki wrote:
- i enjoy it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif did i understand you
- right? milo was banned?
-

Don't get your panties up. So was Isegrim.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 11:40 PM
Howdy

Although I am a Jughead and would love to see the
M and N,, and C. I'm not going to lose any sleep.

I would much rather see many other "Eastern front"
planes before the other P-47's.
I'm not creating any 3D models so my opinion doesn't
mean diddly/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think the World and Altitude model needs a little
work before the P-47 could come into it's element.


Right now I think the P-47 has a wonderful FM. I
have no clue if the roll is fast or slow. It's
less than a 190, but I think thats right. The elevator
response is about 2-3 times better than a 190.
My "guess" is they should be about the same at least,
the 190 being better if either is.

They both have a high landing speed, but the P-47 is
much easier to land than the 190. Again I "think" that
is reverse.

I'd give the P-47 a 9 out of 10 for stability. It
is very predictable and has a great stall character.
My only complaint is it does things a tad slowly.
But it will do those things slowly at 400-500kmh all
day long/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
The view is terrible out of the razor back,, much better
in the bubble top. Both have a better view over the
nose than the 190 imo. Which is opposite from what
I'd guess.


My biggest complaint with the P-47 is the gun sounds...
All the .50s sound funky to me. Perhaps it's my
sound card? The guns have far to much shush to them
and not enough whump or wack. Nothing at all like the
fixed .50's that I have fired from ships. I guess that
is a different model .50 though.

S!
Weasel

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2003, 11:58 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- NuFoerki wrote:
-- i enjoy it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif did i understand you
-- right? milo was banned?
--
-
- Don't get your panties up. So was Isegrim.



so was me... it can happen to the best you know... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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



under 30k?

The_Blue_Devil
05-16-2003, 08:47 AM
BgWeasel wrote:
- Howdy
-
- My biggest complaint with the P-47 is the gun
- sounds...
- All the .50s sound funky to me. Perhaps it's my
- sound card? The guns have far to much shush to them
- and not enough whump or wack. Nothing at all like
- the
- fixed .50's that I have fired from ships. I guess
- that
- is a different model .50 though.
-
Hmm you are absolutely right. The .50cal sounds are way off, I have no idea where they got them from. I've heard what a MaDuce sounds like and the sounds we have here are not quite there yet.

<center>--------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"The P-47 Thunderbolt is the Ultimate Prom Date..Sure She is Ugly..but Man Does She Put Out...Love that Double Wasp"[b]</center>

&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];{your script}</script>,
&lt;script>var avatar="http://www.78thfightergroup.com/history/Mustang.gif"</script>&lt;script>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=avatar</script>
<img src=http://www.vectorsite.net/avp471.jpg>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#040830";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#0B1760";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
05-16-2003, 09:53 AM
I'm pretty sure that several 0.50 heard from within a plane cockpit behind a 2000+ HP engine and with your helmet and headset on sounds quite different that the sound from a 0.50 just like that.

Of course for externals it's another story.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>7/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar well that's two more pts than before... woohoo!

<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

XyZspineZyX
05-16-2003, 09:56 AM
MachineII wrote:
- Also, if the work associated with adding an "M" is
- minor...I think the question becomes why not?
- Everything we need is already in FB. With the
- exception of nailing down any cockpit differences,
- we're not talking about much more than a remodeled
- prop (or skinned) and some FM changes.


My point exactly!

I do agree with people who say that there should be more planes with more relevance to EF, planes like flyable Hs-129, Ju-88, Pe-2, Moranes, Hawks and Fiats for Finns, Italian and Romanian planes....

But people have to remember the substantial work involved in introducing a completely new plane type or cockpit. Alterations to existing models can be done in "no time" in comparison.

For example I think in the future I personally will concentrate on bringing new variants of Ju-88 instead of starting completely new AC, as it seems to take me 6-12 motnths to produce a new cockpit! I think it would be much mor productive to concentrate on existing model and produce variants with varied performance and and function on the battle field.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
05-16-2003, 03:10 PM
I agree as well. Model planes that were actualy deployed to Eastreen front unit airfields first. Yet when I look at Luthier's site I see a ton of plazne projects that are not EF AC etc.

Regards, John Waters

Deutschland darf nie verlieren, IL2 hat das zu respektieren.

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Prowlsml.jpg


-----


"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_bj.jpg



-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
05-16-2003, 10:24 PM
Howdy
nicolas10 wrote:
- I'm pretty sure that several 0.50 heard from within
- a plane cockpit behind a 2000+ HP engine and with
- your helmet and headset on sounds quite different
- that the sound from a 0.50 just like that.

Well/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I could distinctly hear the .50's while working
in between 4 Fairbanks Morse 24 cylinder ship engines that
were running next to my head. I couldn't hear the
metallic chink that you get from the .50s when topside.
I could still hear the whump or wack. It was even easier
to hear when two fifties were firing at the same time.
M60's were not as easy to recognize over the back ground
noise. I never heard the .45's or M-16s, AK47 yes.

Sure the R2800 is loud, heard a few of them too.
One .50 is really LOUD withing 20 feet. Eight .50 firing
at once... I don't think you would even notice the R2800.

S!
Weasel

XyZspineZyX
05-17-2003, 08:36 AM
BgWeasel wrote:

- Well/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I could distinctly
- hear the .50's while working
- in between 4 Fairbanks Morse 24 cylinder ship
- engines that
- were running next to my head.

How different is the sound in FB from that?

Perhaps the thing to do first it to put the sound
up to R2800 cockpit volumes, with appropriate
amounts of bass and then see if the FB sound matches.
Increased volume will significantly change the
perception of the sound (psychoacoustics).

Assuming that the cockpit volume is about 110dB
(pain threshold is 120dB, and sound level is
measured on a logarithmic scale, so 110dB is
a lot less than the pain threshold) and domestic audio
equipment speakers have a sensitivity of about
90dB at 1W at 1m, and assuming your head is 1m
from the speakers, you need to be running 100W RMS
flat out (not PMPO!) to get to P47 volumes. That's
pretty damn loud, and not very practical. Also a
lot of domestic audio speakers don't put out much
below 100Hz, and domestic subwoofers are less than
90dB efficiency. Quite often computer system subs
are only capable of 15W RMS - about one tenth
of the power needed for full cockpit volume.

Ideally you want it to sound good at low volumes.

What might be a good addition to sound is to get
one of those rumble pads to go on your seat that
vibrates along with the sound heard over the speakers.
Musicians use something similar to allow them to
'feel the music' whilst playing over headphones,
for example. Basically the vibration fools the
mind into thinking the headphone audio is louder,
and also has many times more bass content. I suppose
you can give it a go in the meantime by lowering
your chair a bit and then sitting on your subwoofer :-)

XyZspineZyX
05-17-2003, 04:20 PM
Honestly, if we're gonna complain that the MGs don't sound like they should (and they don't even next to an R-2800...I agree with my friend above...if I can sit next to Detroit Deisel while buttoned up with my CVC on AND hear a .50 on the next track going off....yeah I am sure I can hear 8! .50s...at least they should sound a little more stuccato...is that a word?) we should also highlight that the R-2800 doesn't sound like a REAL R-2800.

I am sure this isnt P-47 specific...other planes use these "generic" sounds too.

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

Message Edited on 05/17/0304:50PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
05-17-2003, 07:56 PM
Howdy

I'm sure I could make my ear's bleed with my headphones
right now/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I'm ok with the engine sounds. The .50's don't even
sound like an MG to me.
Does anyone who has heard a .50 think the fifties in
game sound similar? I'd like to know. Maybe it's
just my sound card settings.

I've been next to an AD1 Skyraider that was starting it's
engine. I think it had a 4360 not a 2800. I've been
next to an A26, and an F4U. They are loud enignes.
Firing, loading, or spotting for a .50 leaves a far
bigger impression/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Maybe I'm just hearing impaired now/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif he he heh


S!
Weasel

XyZspineZyX
05-17-2003, 09:55 PM
BgWeasel wrote:
- Does anyone who has heard a .50 think the fifties in
- game sound similar?

Not just no...h*ll no.

The .50 is, in my opinion, one of the coolest wounding weapons I have had the privelege of hanging out with.

Here...it's the best I can do:

http://www.geekswithguns.com/audio/weapons/50_CAL.WAV

http://www.geekswithguns.com/audio/weapons/50CLMGS1.WAV

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

Message Edited on 05/17/03 04:55PM by MachineII

Message Edited on 05/17/0304:56PM by MachineII

The_Blue_Devil
05-18-2003, 04:58 AM
Like I said before I have heard a .50cal in real life, and I still don't know where they got the sounds for these .50's from. The MaDuce has a sound all her own, once you hear her you'll never forget her.

<center>--------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"The P-47 Thunderbolt is the Ultimate Prom Date..Sure She is Ugly..but Man Does She Put Out...Love that Double Wasp"[b]</center>

&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];{your script}</script>,
&lt;script>var avatar="http://www.78thfightergroup.com/history/Mustang.gif"</script>&lt;script>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=avatar</script>
<img src=http://www.vectorsite.net/avp471.jpg>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#040830";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#0B1760";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
05-18-2003, 08:12 AM
BgWeasel wrote:
- Does anyone who has heard a .50 think the fifties in
- game sound similar?

I've heard .30 MGs firing, but not .50s. The sound
you hear in real life, from maybe a couple of dozen
feet away, is a world away from the sound you hear
replayed from a recording of the same firing.

Partly the differences are going to be from the
loudness of the sounds being different, and also
partly because of the different spatial aspects.
In theory 3D sound APIs should handle part of the
latter.

I've done some recording of live music with various
techniques that in theory capture the sound in a way
that captures the spatial aspects. None of it sounds
'real'. It is very hard to get it to sound real. In
fact a friend's work life is dedicated to research
in this area.

Basically getting the sound to sound right, and what
everyone thinks is right subjectively is hard, and
recording the real things, inside a cockpit probably
won't sound right replayed over PC speakers. We still
need more research on how to do that from Dolby et al.

XyZspineZyX
05-18-2003, 08:14 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
- Like I said before I have heard a .50cal in real
- life, and I still don't know where they got the
- sounds for these .50's from. The MaDuce has a sound
- all her own, once you hear her you'll never forget
- her.


I've heard .30s firing, and in FB they don't sound
like .30s. But then recordings of .30s don't sound
like .30s. Plus I've never been in a Hurricane I
to know what they sound like being fired at 200mph
over a Merlin at full power! That might be very
different.

XyZspineZyX
05-18-2003, 12:11 PM
Is there any 'drum effect' since the weapons are inclosed in an aluminium 'box'? I imagine some of the sound is 'feel' of the reverberations through the airframe.

**** beware the charge of the rhinos ****

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-clifftopchase2.jpg
http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/copic-finalmission2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-18-2003, 07:20 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Is there any 'drum effect' since the weapons are
- inclosed in an aluminium 'box'? I imagine some of
- the sound is 'feel' of the reverberations through
- the airframe.

The feel is part of what I was alluding to with
respect to the impression probably changing
at high enough loudness.

XyZspineZyX
05-18-2003, 10:18 PM
Great story on the P-47M posted by Panther-99FS:

http://www.dyno-tech.com/bravo/yank7.html


"The P-51s's jumped out in front as I crammed the throttle forward. Slowly but inexorably I started to gain and pass these guys. I saw the look of incredulity on their faces as I pulled along side and passed each one."


Please, we want the P-47M!!!!!!!!


Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-18-2003, 10:22 PM
did p-47M exist at eastern front?? in what quatities?

XyZspineZyX
05-18-2003, 10:38 PM
"did p-47M exist at eastern front?? in what quatities? "


A very dead horse, I propose to all to ignore this "new" argument /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-18-2003, 11:03 PM
CHDT wrote:
- Great story on the P-47M posted by Panther-99FS:

GASP! You mean...it's a real plane? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The more I read about the M, the more I want it added to FB.



<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

XyZspineZyX
05-19-2003, 10:38 AM
I'm all for the p-47M but i would love to see the P-47 N model. as it stands with the soon to be released V1 rocket we should have the P-47N as that is what they were desined to do is chase down V1 Rockets. so i see that a need fro both of them is a must.

"Copperhead"
Commanding Officer
310th Virtual Fighter/Bomber Squadron
58th Fighter Group
5th Air Force
U.S. Army Air Forces
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="LIGHT BLUE">~My at last i'm in compliance, Umm well Sorta Sig~
<CENTER>http://members.cox.net/kevo57/bannerlg.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="GREEN">Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar forums

XyZspineZyX
05-19-2003, 10:47 AM
The P-47N was only used in the Pacific, but it would fit perfectly with the Ki-84 that Luthier is currently modeling.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
05-19-2003, 12:34 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- I'm all for the p-47M but i would love to see the
- P-47 N model. as it stands with the soon to be
- released V1 rocket we should have the P-47N as that
- is what they were desined to do is chase down V1
- Rockets. so i see that a need fro both of them is a
- must.

Actually, the "M" was to be designated to chase down V-1's. And it arrived too late in the war to do so...by the time it showed up most of the V-1 bases were in allied hands.

The "N" was slower than the "M" by about 40mph at altitude (same engine as the M + much more weight). By comparison it had a better roll rate than any other P-47 and much longer range...I'd like the roll rate of the "N" but as far as range goes, the P-47 is already one of the longest ranged planes in FB...not that this helps much on the DF servers.

And then there's the serious "N" problem...totally new model (new wings anyway). The "M" requires some FM changes and a new prop...hopefully that's acceptable to Oleg....??

<center><img src=http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg>
<center>EURO_Snoopy Locked Thread Counter: 3

The_Blue_Devil
05-20-2003, 10:52 AM
Woot..post 230 and it's a BUMP

<center>--------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"The P-47 Thunderbolt is the Ultimate Prom Date..Sure She is Ugly..but Man Does She Put Out...Love that Double Wasp"[b]</center>

&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];{your script}</script>,
&lt;script>var avatar="http://www.78thfightergroup.com/history/Mustang.gif"</script>&lt;script>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=avatar</script>
<img src=http://www.vectorsite.net/avp471.jpg>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#040830";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#0B1760";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
05-25-2003, 04:16 PM
Bumpity bump bump.

&lt;script>color="#FF0000";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#666666";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=color;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/mech.gif';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>

<center>http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg

<font size="+1">If...I...could...just...reach...my...utility...bel t. - Batman</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
06-04-2003, 05:36 AM
BUMP

<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>
<center><font color=red>BlitzPigMachine<font>

&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>
&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-05-2003, 08:40 AM
the current jugs in FB are a complete waste of time against other planes. we NEED the M model. and why is the supercharger not modelled in the jug in FB ?

XyZspineZyX
06-05-2003, 01:09 PM
I'll tell you why!!! Because I want a P-40B!!!

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
06-05-2003, 05:31 PM
M model please

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 07:12 PM
Done! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 08:18 PM
Props to CHDT.

<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>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

&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>
&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>

The_Blue_Devil
06-19-2003, 03:54 AM
Indeed why not?

<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/MySig.gif> </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 = "#000000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:12 AM
Bring out the M model, the working cockpits, the new FM's, and the N model!

Bump

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 09:39 PM
Bump

<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>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 06:47 AM
top

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 08:55 AM
bump

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 04:38 PM
Strafnaya wrote:
- did p-47M exist at eastern front?? in what
- quatities?

LOL! You have to be kidding right? I mean with all the SWOTL and JAP aircraft lined up to be added... You really think the eastern front argument will fly? Give me a break! If we dont get the P47M I think I might have to go listen to the conspericy folks on the Lw side of the house again! <G>



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 05:37 PM
top

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 09:06 AM
Just had fun in the P-47s. They aren't half bad, the patch will make em better. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bring on the M, that will be a uber beast!

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 06:39 PM
Bump for the cool pictures in the thread.

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 11:15 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Well Huck, depends on who you believe about the
- number of Ta152Hs built. If you believe Isegrim, and
- some others, and his 167, then the percentage will
- be really small, something like 7%. III./JG301 could
- not be brought up to any where near its compliment
- (at least 40 a/c) of required Ta152Hs.

Hmm I'd say:
167 Ta-152
~30-50 of them Ta-152H /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif or something like that /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


MachineII wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- I find dubious that a plane of P-47 size needs only
-- 250hp more to go from 430mph to 470mph, and I
-- requested a document to prove this wild claim.
-- Is that a fair enough treatment for your pet plane?
-
- So, what you're saying is you don't understand how a
- plane that has more power will go faster? Try
- reading the thread...you'll figure it out. It's
- that whole bigger powerplant/turbosupercharger thing
- the adults are always talking about.

Hey that are 500HP more /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . 2300 vs 2800. But, it seemed strange to me that 21-22% more HP (and wasn't there als more weight? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) 9,3% more speed... Thought it was more % speed over the D at glance /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . Hmm must be OK then...


PzKpfw wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
-- I find dubious that a plane of P-47 size needs only
-- 250hp more to go from 430mph to 470mph, and I
-- requested a document to prove this wild claim.
-- Is that a fair enough treatment for your pet plane?
-
- Why couldn't the M reach 470mph Huck'ster?. Robert
- S. Johnson's P-47D-5-RE, "Lucky," was feild modified
- to turn 72" of manifold pressure and about 470 mph
- true airspeed at about 30,000 feet.

Ah, 72" of MAP -> 470mph. So this guy tuned his M to reach 470. That means, taken straight off the assembly line it doesn't do those 470. I'd say Huck isn't asking for docs for nothing.
Remember the 51?? over 700km/h? Then some smart guy called Oleg Maddox comes by and tells you this is wrong, he's got british documents, etc?? Only for a very short time... less than 690km/h max speed for serial planes etc. I wonder if something similar might happen to the M /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .
Anyway I think at least 450mph are in it. For me, 470mph is OK.


MachineII wrote:
- For what it's worth this is the photo of a late
- model D-40-RE...it should be very similar to an
- "M"...and it looks just like the D-27 with the
- exception of the gunsight:
-
- <img src=http://204.210.167.58/webx/p47_5lg.jpg>

Hmm the cockpit brightness is way overmodelled in this photo /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-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (just another joke to say I don't the darkness in many cockpits in FB!)

Hmm almost no 3D work for it is good. But what about the P-63?? Wasn't it also a minor job? Project started 1,5 years ago and where is it now?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Damn it! No one's doing it. I'd rather like to see the 63 than a 47M. But if the M is finished earlier, I'll take it. The Ds are just target drones for "unter" 109G-6R6 right now /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The M would give a decent fighter for 45 servers.


Someone mentioned sounds in here... that a thing which needs much work. The engine sound is just silly. It's not only the R-2800 that needs lots off bass. All radial engine should have such low sound pitches. Check this link: http://dfwwing.natca.org/wav%20files/downloads.htm . Turn your speakers up to their peak and listen to those F4U sounds. R-2800 inside /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .


<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)

</p><font color=59626B>

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 08:01 PM
BUMP...Massive BUMP.

Why not?

<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>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 08:13 PM
A big thank-you for the bump /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Because this topic is the definite proof I'm not a blue whiner, I'm simply a whiner! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif