PDA

View Full Version : P-47: Whine and Cheese Party



XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 12:54 PM
IL-2: great game overall but the latest patch leaves much to be desired for several planes, including my beloved P-47.

The Whine:

- 8x 50 cals ; improved somewhat, but still undermodelled IMO, especially when firing at Fw190's. A 3 second burst should leave 30 lbs of lead in any target, not including the effects of AP and incendiary explosive ammo. I can fire half an ammo load into a FW and still see negative results. Granted, the FW190 was an uber plane, but its ability to absorb damage should not vastly exceed that of the P-47.

- Lack of Diving ability: see the thread on immobility, but there is some thruth with a lot of GAME planes keeping up with the P-47 in a dive.

- Roll rate: already addressed and to be fixed in the next patch.

- Engine damage: this plane should have more ability to withstand engine damage, IAW (in accordance with) historical testimony.

- Cockpit armor: yes, later models did have armor, so why do I receive so many PKs on me when shot from behind?


- D10: upgraded razorback series with new engine. OK.
- D22: should have the 13' Hamilton Standard prop for increased performance. Not noticable in Il-2.
- D25: bubble canopy, 13' prop, new gunsight and compressibility dive-flaps should all be there but are not.

The Cheese:

- I'll keep flying the P-47, regardless of its game flaws. I preferred its capabilities in the older patch. Actually, the real cheese here is all those other players who now have converted to the FW190 A9 and its overmodelled abilities, but would never haved dreamed of flying it pre-patch!

Before one critizes my critique, note that I am not American. (no offensive intended to the American nation but included here to halt any ameri-whiner comments). I am also a WW2 military historian and current military pilot with 3000 military hours, flown on various types of jet and prop aircraft, and helicopters.

PS - and for the LA-7 falling apart at 700+ kph, come-on!

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 12:54 PM
IL-2: great game overall but the latest patch leaves much to be desired for several planes, including my beloved P-47.

The Whine:

- 8x 50 cals ; improved somewhat, but still undermodelled IMO, especially when firing at Fw190's. A 3 second burst should leave 30 lbs of lead in any target, not including the effects of AP and incendiary explosive ammo. I can fire half an ammo load into a FW and still see negative results. Granted, the FW190 was an uber plane, but its ability to absorb damage should not vastly exceed that of the P-47.

- Lack of Diving ability: see the thread on immobility, but there is some thruth with a lot of GAME planes keeping up with the P-47 in a dive.

- Roll rate: already addressed and to be fixed in the next patch.

- Engine damage: this plane should have more ability to withstand engine damage, IAW (in accordance with) historical testimony.

- Cockpit armor: yes, later models did have armor, so why do I receive so many PKs on me when shot from behind?


- D10: upgraded razorback series with new engine. OK.
- D22: should have the 13' Hamilton Standard prop for increased performance. Not noticable in Il-2.
- D25: bubble canopy, 13' prop, new gunsight and compressibility dive-flaps should all be there but are not.

The Cheese:

- I'll keep flying the P-47, regardless of its game flaws. I preferred its capabilities in the older patch. Actually, the real cheese here is all those other players who now have converted to the FW190 A9 and its overmodelled abilities, but would never haved dreamed of flying it pre-patch!

Before one critizes my critique, note that I am not American. (no offensive intended to the American nation but included here to halt any ameri-whiner comments). I am also a WW2 military historian and current military pilot with 3000 military hours, flown on various types of jet and prop aircraft, and helicopters.

PS - and for the LA-7 falling apart at 700+ kph, come-on!

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:37 PM
Some excellent points ISU_152. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif We like to call ourselve's Jugwhiners, it's OK to be one I am and will continue until they stop nuetering the P-47. Anyway I agree I will keep flying it even if they don't ever get it completely right as it is the best model closest to reality as I have seen yet.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:39 PM
I play some time in p47 online and only killed 3 FW's; 2 A9 and 1 A8,,, /i/smilies/16x16_robot-sad.gif

<center>
http://www.army.fr.pl/foto/mig31.jpg <center>
<marquee> <FONT COLOR="red">[b] HAHAHAHAHAHA <marquee> <FONT COLOR="red">[b]
<font color="red">I</font> <font color="blue">c</font><font color="green">a</font><font color="orange">n</font>
<font color="yellow">d</font><font color="pink">o</font> <font color="purple">c</font><font color="red">o</font><font color="blue">l</font><font color="lime">o</font><font color="yellow">r</font> /i/smilies/16x16_robot-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:40 PM
BF is one of the easyest plane to kill in p47/i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

<center>
http://www.army.fr.pl/foto/mig31.jpg <center>
<marquee> <FONT COLOR="red">[b] HAHAHAHAHAHA <marquee> <FONT COLOR="red">[b]
<font color="red">I</font> <font color="blue">c</font><font color="green">a</font><font color="orange">n</font>
<font color="yellow">d</font><font color="pink">o</font> <font color="purple">c</font><font color="red">o</font><font color="blue">l</font><font color="lime">o</font><font color="yellow">r</font> /i/smilies/16x16_robot-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:53 PM
As for me there's no problem. The jug can still take a lot from its opponents, and that's a good point, either off- or online.

It is still quite powerfull when you open fire from the right distance. In any other case the ammo shove right and left without much damage, sure.

I put a FW ablaze in no time from 300m, a very short burst, while he was passing through my gunsight line (with a bit of deflection, of course).

The Jug is OK for me.

http://membres.lycos.fr/fawbounty/photos/logoboris.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:16 PM
True - the jug can withstand a lot of pain, but its still a heck more fragile than reality or pre-patch planes.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:29 PM
you know what:

P47 never was a great fighters and that's why like typhoon for britannics it was used mostly for ground attack(except on pacific theater and at the beginning of the B17 raid)lol if you want a real fighters take a tempest for brits and mustang for american(for mustang take some altitudes lol it wasn't a great plane below 6000m hehe like LW one in FB).

<A HREF=http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/</A>pilotes/profils/enigmus.jpg">


NN_EnigmuS.
Normandie Niemen virtuel.
http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:32 PM
Pre-patch : I agree.

Reality : Not so sure. The engine is still a very good shield, and can take much in. The airframe is more light with the patch but the real Jug, at least the real one that I saw last June, has not so thick a metal covering.

I was mostly shot down by commands being torn off or wires cut, when not shot in the cockpit.

http://membres.lycos.fr/fawbounty/photos/logoboris.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:52 PM
Sorry NN Enigmus, but Flight Aviation Magazine nominated the Jug as the best overall fighter of WW2. The FW190 came second, followd by the Mustang, Spitfire and so on...

True, the Jug was not the best dogfighter, but neither was the 109, FW, nor P-51! The P-47 was relinquished from its bomber escort/fighter role once the "ranged" P-51 entered operational theatre. Note that the 56th FG maintained operations with the P-47 throughout the war.



Message Edited on 09/02/0302:56PM by ISU-152

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:00 PM
NN_EnigmuS wrote:
- you know what:
-
- P47 never was a great fighters and that's why like
- typhoon for britannics it was used mostly for ground
- attack(except on pacific theater and at the
- beginning of the B17 raid)lol if you want a real
- fighters take a tempest for brits and mustang for
- american(for mustang take some altitudes lol it
- wasn't a great plane below 6000m hehe like LW one in
- FB).
Are you serious? The P-47 destroyed more enemy a/c than any other allied plane in the ETO and that wasn't all ground attack. Infact it was almost 50/50, the P-51 was not fully operational until early 44 and most groups were not equipped with them until mid to late 44. Until that point they were all flying the Jug and quite effectively I might add. Sure it was not a dogfighter but the airwar was not fought that way sorry to inform you, it was done in teams doing slashing BnZ attacks. And yes the P-51 was not a agile dogfighter(see above about dogfights) at low altitude or low speed's but how many times did they fall for that trick and go low? Not very often. And for the Brit's why the Tempest are you afraid to discuss the Spitfire? Do not think because the way things are in FB means that they were that way in real life quite the contrary in alot of aspects. Main one being th elow level fur-balls in the ETO they almost never happened.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:24 PM
ISU-152 wrote:
- IL-2: great game overall but the latest patch leaves
- much to be desired for several planes, including my
- beloved P-47.
-
- The Whine:
-
-- 8x 50 cals ; improved somewhat, but still undermodelled IMO, especially when firing at Fw190's. A 3 second burst should leave 30 lbs of lead in any target, not including the effects of AP and incendiary explosive ammo. I can fire half an ammo load into a FW and still see negative results. Granted, the FW190 was an uber plane, but its ability to absorb damage should not vastly exceed that of the P-47.


Did you try to set arcade mode on ? Probably you hit him far less than you actually believe - the FW 190 is a much harder target to hit than a huge P-47.



-
-- Lack of Diving ability: see the thread on immobility, but there is some thruth with a lot of GAME planes keeping up with the P-47 in a dive.


Dunno, in SHORT dives high powered planes should keep up with or outdive the P-47, or are you speaking of REALLY long dives and REALLY HIGH speeds ? In the brief flyings I made with the Jug, it seemed to reach higer speeds in long dives than most (99%) other planes. In fact, only the Me 262 could outdive it, and only the 109K-4 could reach similiar dive speed in a 3000m dive.



-- Engine damage: this plane should have more ability to withstand engine damage, IAW (in accordance with) historical testimony.

This area is hard to be proved or disproved. The engine DM is very complex, many parts of the engine can be destroyed/damaged. We never know what parts of it were actually hit. Some places are not so vital than others, but a hit from a large caliber cannon round on the main bearing, the crankshaft etc. is guaranteed to bring down ANY engine, while I have read that even inlines could survive sometimes the loss of a cylinder or two.


-
-- Cockpit armor: yes, later models did have armor, so why do I receive so many PKs on me when shot from behind?
-

Because the armor thickness is insufficent to stop most projectiles from fighter planes.

I`ll ry to give you a hint:

P-47 rear pilot armor, 7-9mm. It`s not espeically thick, about avarage.

Now, penetration performance of a few rounds, at 100-300m:

20mm AP : usually at 20-25mm
12.7/13mm : 15-18mm
7.92mm: about 8mm

Of course, things and equipment can get in the way of the round, but in the case of 13mm or 20mm rounds, it`s simply insuffucient to weaken them down enough before they hit the armor. In British tests, they found that 6.6 to 9mm armor was requried to stop direct hits even from non-armor piercing, 20mm HE munition ! In fact, the only reason why you dont get CONSTANT PKs is because very few rounds hit the pilot`s area, and there`s some chance that those which hit are non-AP ammunition (only about 1/4 to 1/2 were AP, sometimes there was no AP at all).

So, in brief, you shouldn`t expect that pilot armor to protect you from anything but rifle caliber, 7.62-7.92mm AP, perhaps some extent from non-AP 12.7mm rounds.

Now, think about just how many mid or late war planes had those 7.62mm pea-shooters... yeah that`s right, most had .50 calibers at least, for the simple reason it was the minimum to be effective vs. pilot`s armor.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:27 PM
i don't talk about spitfire because not seen any cokpit planed yet i ve seen the tempest one lol made by voicu if i rmenber

the strenght of american plane was the number what can do Lw pilot against 100 escort fighters lol that's why they won so many air combat.

sorry for me the P47 isn't the best fighters of WW2 lol if you speack on quality and air characteristic for example

when will see some 50P47 against some 10 Bf109 or Fw190 you will have historical feature so stop asking for an improved P47 it wasn't a fantastic plane i think the P47 is good now with 1.1b and with the roll rate that will improved in final version so what do you want ?

some have talk of german victories why not speaking of american P47 victories :ground straffing was count like air victories lol anyway stop argue for P47 he is good enough and we ll have a better roll rate.

<A HREF=http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/</A>pilotes/profils/enigmus.jpg">


NN_EnigmuS.
Normandie Niemen virtuel.
http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:46 PM
NN, are you going to even *attempt* to disprove the original claims, or are you just gonna sit there flapping your fingers posting crap that shows you to be nothing more than an American plane hater? So far, you've only done the latter.


Ise, you're right about the # of rounds hitting. *That* is the problem with the Jugs guns. I've seen tighter grouping from buckshot out of a sawed off. The spread on the Jugs guns is criminal. Even with only 4 guns firing. By way of comparison, the P-40 is accurate. And that's with 2 more guns (6 as opposed to the 4 I just mentioned) on a lighter frame. So....what gives?

The dive acceleration - either the entire range is too poorly modeled for the Jug, or, every other plane is too overly modeled. I don't have #s on this one for you guys, sorry. Too busy to spend the time needed to acquire them, fortunately many others here have done so already (and will continue to, no doubt).

It's climb, and E retention is so bad that basic ACM are near impossible as it stands. That's not right either.

The problem is, the commies disliked it. And Oleg uses only their data and opinions. Thus, it sucks in FB. And you know he won't admit to it, just look at the 190 'pit situation.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:54 PM
Good Post.
Howver, IIRC, you meant to say "13 pounds of metal" in a 3 second burst. not 30.
The was no GAU-8 on a P-47. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
But great post nonetheless!

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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:57 PM
Thx for the comments gents - I'm not trying to create an overmodelled P-47, only trying to update plane accuracy in the game.

For NN Enigmus:
1. air kills were tallied separately from aircraft destroyed on the ground (for the USAAF anyway). Only air kills were counted toward ace status.

For Vo101 Isegrim:
1. I don't want an arcade setting game; I prefer something more realistic, thus my original comments. My shots do hit (verified by visual and confirmed by wingmen) and the FW-190A series should not be a harder target to hit than a Yak or I-16.
2. You already mentioned the size of round, AP designation and armor thickness, however piercing capability for AP rounds is also a function of basic physics; F=MA, e=mc2, v=Vo + 1/2at2, etc. Take the 20mm ShVAK for example. High rate of fire from a high velocity gun. Unfortunately, the 20mm VV-S shells were much lighter in mass than comparable shells from other nations, thus giving the ShVAK a poor armor penetration capablilty.

For Chris 455:
1. No error, 30 lbs is correct, at least as my 3 independant sources lead me to believe. Actually, there is a quote of 30.93 lbs for a 3-second P-47 burst. Similarly, in this time length the Typhoon would fire 39.7 lbs, LA-7 41.66 lbs and the Me262 96 lbs.

For anyone?
Why do the prop blades never get hit?




Message Edited on 09/02/03 06:01PM by ISU-152

Message Edited on 09/02/0309:18PM by ISU-152

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:04 PM
The REAL reason the P-51 replaced the P-47 and P-38?

1944 unit cost of P-38L= $115,000.00
1944 unit cost of P-47D30= $86,000.00
1944 unit cost of P-51D= $54,000.00

Oh, and BTW enigmus, you are wrong about the P-47 not being a great fighter. It was THE U.S. fighter of WWII. Not the most glamorous (P-51) or the most long-legged (P-38) but it was the plane we HAD when we met the Luftwaffe and fought them to a standstill. And it more than enough fighter to do the job. Only the P-38 in IMO did as much to win the air war for America, but the Lightning did it in the Pacific.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:16 PM
chris455 wrote:
- Oh, and BTW enigmus, you are wrong about the P-47
- not being a great fighter. It was THE U.S. fighter
- of WWII.

Right engine, wrong airframe. You're thinking of the Grumman F6F Hellcat. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:47 PM
Actually ground kills only counted later in the war winter 44-45 for "ace" status as most of the air target's were destroyed and the LW could not put up a force od a/c regurarly. However those ground kills were still tallied as just that.I must agree you are either ignorant or just can't bring yourself to admit the Americans can indeed manufacture fine a/c. So I have some cold hard facts here for you to put in your pipe and smoke.
P-47 in the ETO
3,082 enemy a/c destroyed air to air
3,202 enemy a/c destroyed on the ground
Loss rate per sortie 0.7%(mostly to flak, ground pounding)
This suprised me
P-51 in the ETO
4,950 enemy a/c destroyed air to air
4,218 enemy a/c destroyed on the ground
Loss ratio per sortie 1.2%(mostly to flak, ground pounding)
The P-51 did this in just shy of 2 years full active service in the USAAF.
I am pretty sure the P-47 took the crown once the MTO was counted but I don't have the figures for that and can't verify it. And I am sorry but your old and tired sorry a$$ agument the LW was outnumbered is nothing but a bold-faced lie. The LW had air superiority until Spring of 44, only after the serious beating they took from both the USAAF and RAF. Not until the later months of the war did smaller groups of LW planes flown by inexperienced pilots meet hundreds of escort fighters. At first it was exactly the opposite, the only thing that killed the LW was excellent tactics by the allies and poor leadership by the LW. And just in case here's the numbers of all USAAF a/c for 1943 and 1944 that were deployed.(Not all being active neccessarily)
1943
P-38 1,168
P-40 1,327
P-47 1,910
P-51 368
Total 4,773

1944
P-38 1,866
P-40 351
P-47 3,702
P-51 2,918
Total 8,837

Keep in mind that not even half of those would be used for escort duty especially in 1944 when they were more busy supporting D-Day and the troops thereafter.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:19 AM
1-Roll rate we have whined about it since FB hit the shelves and still no fix.
2-The .50s are improved its just the UBER skin of certain planes like the FW-190s that turn them into nothing more then paint removers.
3-Fuel Leaks from .80 range all to common from a single mg round.
4-Single mg round kills engine. Waaay too common.
5-Top speed is wrong
6-Cruise speed is wrong...shouldnt take forever to reach a cruise speed.


None of us is asking for a UBER P-47 we just want it to be correct. Now for all of you who will come in here and say we are wrong about things such as the .50s becuase you killed a 190 with ease. You must remember its consistancy we are talking about. Sure I have on occasion tore up a 190 on a single pass but more often then not this doesnt happen. You can take a look at the plane and see no damage. The P-47 is the only plane I fly and as well as many others here. We want consistancy with the .50s, if are aim is true it should take no more then a half second burst to disable any plane. This would hold true as it did in real life. Read stories on what pilots had to say about the firepower of 8 .50s if you feel we are wrong.


MISSIONS FLOWN WW2: Over 500,000
ENEMY AIRCRAFT DESTROYED: 12,000 Both In The Air And On The Ground
BOMBS DROPPED: 132,482 Tons
ROCKETS FIRED: 59,567
50 CAL. AMMO FIRED: 135 Million Belts
TOTAL P-47 LOST: 5222
TOTAL P-47 LOST DUE TO COMBAT: 824
TOTAL P-47 LOSSES ON OPERATIONAL MISSONS: 0.7 % Of Those Dispatched
AIR TO AIR COMBAT VICTORIES TO LOSSES: 4.6 To 1


BELOW RECORDS FROM D DAY TO V-E DAY:
RAILWAY CARS DESTORYED: 86,000
LOCOMOTIVES DESTORYED: 9000
ARMORED VEHICLES/TANKS DESTORYED: 6000
TRUCKS DESTROYED: 68,000
AIRCRAFT DESTORYED ON THE GROUND: 3,315
AIRCRAFT DESTORYED IN THE AIR: 2,752


S!
47|FC
4U|FC
51|FC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.ultimate-gamers.com/sigs/lulubelle3.jpg


Message Edited on 09/02/03 07:20PM by VMF-214_HaVoK

Message Edited on 09/02/0307:22PM by VMF-214_HaVoK

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:47 AM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- 2-The .50s are improved its just the UBER skin of
- certain planes like the FW-190s that turn them into
- nothing more then paint removers.

Are you saying that each plane has it's own gun model code? That would be rather inefficient. I tend to suspect that the .50 cal M2 is modeled as a discrete piece of code, and called as needed for any pane that uses it.

Look at the P-40. It can rip things up good. It's not the destructive power of the weapon as modeled, it's the huge spread that the P-47 we have produces. It seems weak because you aren't hitting the enemy with more than about 1 out of ever 4 rounds or so.


- 3-Fuel Leaks from .80 range all to common from a
- single mg round.
- 4-Single mg round kills engine. Waaay too common.

Are you sure it's a "single" round? However, yes, engine kills, control destruction and fuel leaks do seem to be too easy to produce when shooting at a P-47 in this game.


- 5-Top speed is wrong
- 6-Cruise speed is wrong...shouldnt take forever to
- reach a cruise speed.

Don't forget the lack of dive acceleration, poorly modeled climb (which would be helped by improved level acceleration)

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 02:00 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-
-- 3-Fuel Leaks from .80 range all to common from a
-- single mg round.
-- 4-Single mg round kills engine. Waaay too common.
-
- Are you sure it's a "single" round? However, yes,
- engine kills, control destruction and fuel leaks do
- seem to be too easy to produce when shooting at a
- P-47 in this game.
-

Yes. I have very thoroughly proved this, with the tracks to show it, and the testing/demonstration methodology.

It is very simple: a single round, of *any* calibre into the turbocharger causes catastrophic damage to the engine. Such hits are very common in head-on attacks where the opposing pilot aims low, and is indicated by a thin trail of smoke from the low left waste gate.

To demonstrate this in Pre-FB 1.1b simply load up a quick combat against a Pz.11c, or any other aircraft, with the sole exception of the MiG-3 line (due to an AI bug in the plane* oddly enough). Simply fly a straight head-on attack against them, aiming slightly above the aircraft. One or two rounds should hit the chin air intake for the turbo-supercharger.

You should immediatly see oil on the wind screen, and feel a loss of power. From the external view, there will be a thin trail of smoke from the lower left waste gas gate, on the chin intake.

You should have enough energy at this point to disengage (trivial if you are fighting the Pz.11c). Within fifteen minutes, most likely five to ten minutes, the engine will completely cease producing power after producing a significantly reduced output for some time. This is indicated by a sudden drop in the manifold pressure to 29" of mercury, or the ambiant air pressure for you altitude. If you pull into a climb and hold it long enough, the propeller should stop rotating, verifying that the engine is not producing power.

Any time a round gets into the turbo stage of the turbo-supercharger system, the engine is fataly wounded. This is intensly frustrating, as the turbo-charger is very frequently hit by small arms fire during ground attack against defended bases. One hit and you are not making it home. Now I know that the turbo-charger stage was quite vulnerable in the real aircraft, and was frequently disabled in combat, but it does not seem that that was the primary cause of lost P-47s.

The turbo charger stage of the engine has no connection to main engine. It is powered by the exhaust gasses, and only supplies compressed air to the supercharger stage. there is no mechanical connection, and I'm fairly certain they don't even share the same oil. There is very little reason that I can see, why knocking out the turbo charger should damage the engine. All I could see happening would be a reduction in the manifold pressure at altitude, with the absolute worse case senario being the turbine breaking loose and free-wheeling through the aft superstructure. While having a buzzsaw rampaging around in your tail can be quite a problem, I have difficulting seeing how that could damage the engine, unless it happens to decide to go tearing forward through the fuselage, in which case the pilot has more things to worry about than the engine. (The turbo is mounted behind the pilot. It would practically have to go through the pilot's compartment to get to the engine.)

The aircraft has a 0.7% loss rate in combat missions, missions where they got shot at, and many of those were ground attack missions. I find it hard to swallow that such a record can be achieved with such an Achilles heel in the engine.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 02:06 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
--
--- Lack of Diving ability: see the thread on immobility, but there is some thruth with a lot of GAME planes keeping up with the P-47 in a dive.
-
-
- Dunno, in SHORT dives high powered planes should
- keep up with or outdive the P-47, or are you
- speaking of REALLY long dives and REALLY HIGH speeds
- ? In the brief flyings I made with the Jug, it
- seemed to reach higer speeds in long dives than most
- (99%) other planes. In fact, only the Me 262 could
- outdive it, and only the 109K-4 could reach similiar
- dive speed in a 3000m dive.
-

All aircraft in the game (with a few exceptions) are modelled with the same dive rate. They reach the same speeds, for the same angles, at the same altitudes, reguardelss of the aircraft. The only aircraft that are significantly different ar the Pz.11C, I-153, I-16, Il-2 (not by much, however), TB-3, and He-111 (like the Il-2 not by much).

The only significant difference in diving performance is the speeds aircraft can reach before they break up. The Pre-patch FW-190D-9 and Bf-109s seems to have a lower dive speed for high speed dives, however that it caused by problems with the engine control systems that overspeed and kill the engines, putting the aircraft into a power-off dive, when they should rightly be in power-on dives.

There is very little difference in overall dive performance between any of the high performance piston engined fighters in the game.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 01:25 PM
ISU-152 wrote:

- For Vo101 Isegrim:
- 1. I don't want an arcade setting game; I prefer
- something more realistic, thus my original comments.
- My shots do hit (verified by visual and confirmed
- by wingmen) and the FW-190A series should not be a
- harder target to hit than a Yak or I-16.


When reffering to Arcade Mode, I meant that theres a built in tool for verifying number of hits, not Unlimited Ammo, etc.. When turned on, ALL actual hits will be shown by small arrows on the plane, like you could see in development shots regarding the new DM.

To enable this, set Arcade Mode - 1 in the conf.ini file. Set it to 0 to return to normal mode again. Note: It does not effect online play.


- 2. You already mentioned the size of round, AP
- designation and armor thickness, however piercing
- capability for AP rounds is also a function of basic
- physics; F=MA, e=mc2, v=Vo + 1/2at2, etc. Take the
- 20mm ShVAK for example. High rate of fire from a
- high velocity gun. Unfortunately, the 20mm VV-S
- shells were much lighter in mass than comparable
- shells from other nations, thus giving the ShVAK a
- poor armor penetration capablilty.


Granted, but even the poorest 20mm AP will penetrate any armor on a plane, unless it hits it under EXTRME angle.

Best example is the MG FF, with LIGHTEST, SLOWEST armor piercing ammo ever. Still, I can recall penetration figures of 18mm or so at practical battle ranges (few hundred meters). Thats more than enough.

But again, try setting the Arcade Mode on, you will be definietely surprise how few rounds actually hit the cocpit area - even with a Hurri empting several thousend rounds at the target, its rare to see more than 3-4 potentionally PK hits. In fact, most PKs came when the shots comes next to the armor, and hit the pilot directly.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 02:34 PM
"Best example is the MG FF, with LIGHTEST, SLOWEST
- armor piercing ammo ever. Still, I can recall
- penetration figures of 18mm or so at practical
- battle ranges (few hundred meters)"


MG FF is surpassed by others in terms of lightest, slowest but still effective as the terms slowest and lightest would make the worst AP ammo, (dependent however on hollow charge warhead ballistics).

I presume that you mean that the MG FF is the worst AP gun out there. King is the BK 7.5 gun carried on the Henschel 177s and 219s which provides the most dramatic ratio.

See http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm for gun and aircraft effectiveness.

From this, one can witness that the FW190 A8/R8 is about 2.5 times as devestating as the P-47D. There are a lot of similar web-sites out there with identical data.



Message Edited on 09/03/0302:09PM by ISU-152

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:20 PM
ISU-152 wrote:
- "Best example is the MG FF, with LIGHTEST, SLOWEST
-- armor piercing ammo ever. Still, I can recall
-- penetration figures of 18mm or so at practical
-- battle ranges (few hundred meters)"
-
-
- MG FF is surpassed by others in terms of lightest,
- slowest but still effective as the terms slowest and
- lightest would make the worst AP ammo, (dependent
- however on hollow charge warhead ballistics).
-
- I presume that you mean that the MG FF is the worst
- AP gun out there. King is the BK 7.5 gun carried on
- the Henschel 177s and 219s which provides the most
- dramatic ratio.


Yep, I meant that the MG FF is the worst you can think of terms of armor piercing ability... yet even this thing can penetrate practically every armor on an airplane!

Since now I am at home, I can look up the exact figures for MG FF armor piercing capabilites, from German penetration curves. Here it goes:

For 2cm Pz. Gr. Patr. MG FFM, vs. armor plate of 150kg/mm2 "Festingkeit" (Tensile strenght?).

Direct hit on armor plate, 90/60 degree impact on plate:

100m : 21.5 mm / 12.5mm
300m : 17mm / 9.5mm
600m : 12mm / 7.5mm

As above, but simulated vs. structure, ie. passing through 3mm dural plate angled at 20 degrees, situation 1.5m before armor plate:

100m : 12.5mm / 9mm
300m : 11.2mm / 8mm
600m : 8mm / 5.7mm

As you can see, even the least able gun is usually to penetrate pilots armor.

BTW, you get a lot more PKs with 190s, because 3D model head of pilot is a bit too large, and it isn`t covered completely by armor plate... Many times I made PK vs. 190 in Arcade mode, I noticed he died of a Headshot because a bullet just touched the top of his head, which was above armor. I guess that`s why we got so many PKs in 190s in Il-2 already, and so much less in 109s (apart that curiously, the 109 had more armor protecting the pilot from rear).



-
- See <a
- href="http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect
- .htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2g
- uneffect.htm</a> for gun and aircraft effectiveness.
-
-
-
- From this, one can witness that the FW190 A8/R8 is
- about 2.5 times as devestating as the P-47D. There
- are a lot of similar web-sites out there with
- identical data.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 09/03/03 02:09PM by ISU-152



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:49 PM
I complained once about the .50's but I was wrong:

1. I was firing at direct six.
2. By hitting top of cockpit, or wings I would have no problems

#1 especially is not good against 190- aim more for the top of the 190 and go for a quick PK or even explode the 190.

Or wait for them to turn - can inflict more damage - my favorite shot is when they are caught at top of loop when I'm BnZ'ing.

S!
609IAP_Recon

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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 06:09 PM
Regardless of AP ammo, ballistic performance, armor protection and penetration, etc, the intended point here was that I was more prone to PK deaths flying a P-47 more so than any other plane. And its not because the P-47 is larger, less manouverable, nor because my head becomes fatter and thus a bigger target in the Jug.

That being said, from a P-47 I scored 3xPKs in a row on the same FW190 the other night, on 3 separate passes. Whether its game mechanics, lag, luck of the draw or I was a damn good shot that night, I know not.

No need in debating this issue any further.



Message Edited on 09/03/0307:14PM by ISU-152

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:20 PM
It's not the effectiveness of the round as modeled in FB. It's the spread. The spread is too scattered and most bullets don't hit.

Can anyone "hear" me? Or am I invisible here? lol

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:22 PM
Going on the hunch here but didn't they typically use a larger spread in P-47? Only some very qualified aces used something more concentrated (I think I read it from Johnnie Johnsson). An option would be nice for that feature I think.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:27 PM
I recall reading somewhere that they would stage the conversion at various ranges, but, not always. In fact, the ground crew could set up any kind of convergence they wanted to needed to.

There really is no reason, that I can see, for it to be so much less accurate than the P-40. And there is nothing wrong with the P-40s spread.

Can we get an official statement about this?

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 08:06 PM
The loadout bug is the ONE thing that really 'bugs' me!

Select 6x rockets and a 75 Gallon droptank and you're given 2x500lb bombs whether you want them or not!


S! Simon.
<center>


<font color="#000000">It's my attitude not my aptitude that determines my altitude.</font>
http://extremeone.4t.com/images/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 08:19 PM
Blitzpig DDT and Ugly Kid - I'll ask =353=MONROEQ about the spread and convergence issue. He actually flew P-47s in WW2. Hope he remembers - being in his 80's, his memory on other P-47 issues is still quite excellent.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 08:46 PM
ISU 152, you are correct, my bad.
I was getting my durations confused.
3 sec burst in a P-47 = >30 lbs. metal thrown.
Good catch.
S!
Chris

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

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 11:24 PM
Eagle_361st wrote:
- Are you serious? The P-47 destroyed more enemy a/c
- than any other allied plane in the ETO and that
- wasn't all ground attack. Infact it was almost
- 50/50, the P-51 was not fully operational until
- early 44 and most groups were not equipped with them
- until mid to late 44. Until that point they were all
- flying the Jug and quite effectively I might add.
- Sure it was not a dogfighter but the airwar was not
- fought that way sorry to inform you, it was done in
- teams doing slashing BnZ attacks. And yes the P-51
- was not a agile dogfighter(see above about
- dogfights) at low altitude or low speed's but how
- many times did they fall for that trick and go low?
- Not very often. And for the Brit's why the Tempest
- are you afraid to discuss the Spitfire? Do not think
- because the way things are in FB means that they
- were that way in real life quite the contrary in
- alot of aspects. Main one being th elow level
- fur-balls in the ETO they almost never happened.

You are absolutely right. However the thing is that many people seem to want the P47 to hold it's own against the
many more agile planes of FB in low alt dogfights...

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 01:18 AM
The P-51 destroyed more enemy planes in WW2 than any other US A/C. The numbers are found above.

It destroyed more in the air, and more on the ground. The P-47 did not destroy 12000+ enemy A/C, at least not according to official records.

Some folks want to make a case for another A/C, the Hellcat, but if PTO kills are added to the Mustang, it narrowly beats out the Hellcat.

The P-51 phased out the P-38 and P-47 because while flying the same missions, at the same time (Jan-May 1944), over the same ground, facing the same enemies, P-51 groups scored at a rate roughly 4 times that of P-38 groups, and roughly 2 times that of P-47 groups. THROW IN the fact they were cheaper, used less gas, were less maintenance intensive, AND destroyed enemy aircraft better, the decison was a no brainer.

The P-38 was NOT the longest ranged AAF fighter. The P-47N was, followed by the P-51B/C, a few miles ahead of the P-51D. Several versions of the Brewster and Corsair went farther than all but the P-47N. Nowhere in any sort of publication have I ever seen numbers that show the P-38 to be able to fly farther. Very close, yes. I'm sure there were times Lightning groups flew missions that went farther than Mustang groups. But there's no data, theoretical or otherwise, that shows the P-38 went farther.

The P-51's kill ratio in air to air combat in the ETO is over 10:1. Almost 5000 kills to under 500 losses.

Ground kills were counted by the 8th AF to encourage strafing.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 01:28 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- I recall reading somewhere that they would stage the
- conversion at various ranges, but, not always. In
- fact, the ground crew could set up any kind of
- convergence they wanted to needed to.
-
- There really is no reason, that I can see, for it to
- be so much less accurate than the P-40. And there is
- nothing wrong with the P-40s spread.
-
- Can we get an official statement about this?
-
-

The Bubble-top models had problems with yaw stability, and tended to waddle slightly, causing a very large spread. However, to my understanding, this was not such a problem on the razor back versions, or on the bubble top models with the extended tail fin. It seems that the different models of the P-47 are all modeled with essentially the same flight model. Considering, how we deployed the P-47 in similare numbers over time to the 109 (note: Similare number over time, not gross numbers. Our factories pumped out P-47's nearly as fast as the German factories pumped out 109's), it is a bit of a shame that the different models of the aircraft have not recieved anywhere near the attention to detail that their contemporaries have.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 01:32 AM
Slickun wrote:
-
- Ground kills were counted by the 8th AF to encourage
- strafing.
-

Ground kills were also counted because in order to reach those lovely little parked nonmanuving fighters you had to fly through that wall of flak the Germans put up to keep you away from them. An 88 can ruin your day real fast.

From what I understand, that is where the majorety of P-47 combat losses came from: flak hits during ground attack missions.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:17 AM
Agree 100% Harry. The Mustang jocks KNEW they were being asked to perform a job that would cost a lot of them their lives or freedom. Counting the kills sweetened the pot.

Despit this, P-51's accounted for more ground kills than any other US type in the ETO.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:14 AM
Here's how sorties broke down according to the VIII Fighter Command:

==================

April 6, 1944 - June 5, 1944

Air to air sorties:
P-51 24,000
P-47 25,000
P-38 19,000

Air to ground sorties:
P-51 6,000
P-47 25,000
P-38 unknown

====================

June 5, 1944 - September 5, 1944

Air to air sorties:
P-51 59,200
P-47 41,900
P-38 13,600
P-61 26,200

Air to ground sorties:
P-51 2,000
P-47 72,300
P-38 unknown
P-61 unknown

====================

September 6, 1944 - May 7, 1945

Air to air sorties:
P-51 152,100
P-47 140,000
P-38 9,300
P-61 38,200

Air to ground sorties
P-51 16,500
P-47 113,500
P-38 9,300
P-61 unknown



Easy to see that the P-47 was THE USAAF fighter/bomber.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:18 AM
I think the .50 cal problem is probably more in the FW190's damage model than anything else. I flew a P40 campaign for a while and I found that Stukas (although they took more shots than expected), 109's, Ju-88's and so on were almost easy kills. A short second burst usually scrapped a 109 and several seconds was enough to critical cripple or completely destroy a medium bomber.

Now, the P40 campaign never flew me against 190's and the 190's performance is quite a bit better than the P40 so I doubt I'd be having the nice shots I was getting against early model 109's.

That being said, I took a P47 for a spin in a quick match battle. There are two scenarios for damage done to a 190.

Scenario 1:

You manage to get that sweet angle where for a couple of seconds the guns are sweeping across the 190's wings, tail, and engine section. The result is almost always a wing being ripped off, the engine stopping and the plane falling apart, or some kind of other critical damage.

Scenario 2:

You come directly up the 190's six. Means your guns are hitting mostly the wings and tail section of the 190. The result, several seconds of shooting at short range produce limited damage (perhaps a fuel leak) or almost nothing at all. The 190 probably won't be able to properly fight (assuming that you've got some control systems) but he's still flying. Its rare that the plane comes apart.

The differences are far less noticeable on any other aircraft. Is there some kind of extreme armor protection from the six position on a 190? Most aircraft flying against the 190 in a typical VVS mission are going to have cannons and the explosive potential takes it past that 6 position...

I don't have any problem with the damage of the .50 cals. Its more like a couple of strange bugs in some DM's that we run into.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:32 AM
I've noticed that as well. I had one v1.0 track where I put over 100 rounds of 0.50 fire into the tail and wings of a 190A-9 from behind, before I managed to seriously damage the aircraft. Yes, I re-watched the track and actually counted the arrows. I put about ten-twenty rounds on target per burst, and hit him with about ten bursts. I emptied a full 3400 rounds at him, so it's not an unreasonable percentage, of around 3%.

That battle took over an hour (long segments of it were simply following the FW in *long* circle chases) and he had run completely out of fuel for the last quarter of it, where I scored most of my hits. In fact, 3% hits against a mostly unmanuvering target sort of indicates just how bad a shot I really am.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 06:50 AM
"The 190 probably won't be able to properly fight (assuming that you've got some control systems) but he's still flying."

At this point, our real-life counterparts will try and hit the silk. Ofcourse, we FB pilots squirm to the max.

Another thing might be the range/convergence factor, also acting up when the range is actually too close, as much as the range being too far. The yaw effects the 8x.50s produces, in the cases I've noticed, seems to reduce the hits to as much as 30% when you are too close. Almost like, when the convergence is set at about 150meters, and you are behind the Fw190 at 50m, when the left four guns hit direct 6oc of the target, the right four shoot past the right side of the fuselage, some landing at the right wing area. If the right four guns hit, the left four gun misses.

The window of 'chance' seems a lot narrower against Fw190s than Bf109s - as a short burst usually undoes something on a Bf109, but the 190 requiring a lot more. Considering the circumstances(man, I'm using this word a lot, lately..), an ideal shooting situation would be the Fw190 flying pretty much straight, and the P-47 around 100m behind it, with its guns set to 100~150m convergence, and the relative speeds of two planes almost equal. In those cases I've managed to snap off a wing on a 190 a lot of times.

However, it is most likely either when the P-47 is a lot faster than the Fw190, or the Fw190 is faster than the P-47 in many cases - in the former the problem of being "too close" with a high closure rate denies you enough time to put enough lead into it, the latter, forces you too shoot too far away from the set convergence ranges.

Couple that with the squirm factor of game pilots, and it is no wonder the Fw190 is pretty hard to shoot down. I have a bad feeling that even when the roll rate of the -47 is increased, and the DM of the 190 is tweaked a bit, it's still gonna be pretty hard to shoot down a 190.


-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:48 PM
the p47 should be a very close fight with a 190 now its not at all.

its like the b239 vs a i16 or i153 in version 1.0 extremely rare to get a kill almost impossible in a 1 vs 1


I fly the jug alot and even with an 3000 alt advantage your in trouble if you see a low level 190, any chance you have shooting down a 190 is if hes chasing someone else, or get a fluke direct convergence hit on one of his wings, or a lucky side shot on the gastank which is extremely rare the way the 190 stick yankers fly the 190s.

I have been on 190s tails alot of times firing directly at the fuel tank from the lower rear and running out of ammo after a good 6-8 seconds of 2 second bursts of direct hits seeing more flashes then i can count.


OLEG needs to slow down the movement of the 190s yaks p39 and mig3u to make this sim semi realistic right now its worse then cfs1 mods its freaking ridiculous how it is now no stick pressure for stick yanking, more sensative then a f16s fly by witre control,

the b239 climb needs to be numbed slightly and the p40 roll increased, level flight increased by 35mph, and the 303 & .50 cal strenght and p47 roll which oleg said hes fixing.

Oleg needs to play on hl and see whats going on to open up his eyes of the total unrealistic moves that would shredd an airframe apart people are doing online.





http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter




http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:10 PM
ISU-152 wrote:
-- 8x 50 cals ; improved somewhat, but still undermodelled IMO, especially when firing at Fw190's. A 3 second burst should leave 30 lbs of lead in any target, not including the effects of AP and incendiary explosive ammo. I can fire half an ammo load into a FW and still see negative results. Granted, the FW190 was an uber plane, but its ability to absorb damage should not vastly exceed that of the P-47.

Maybe the DM of the 190 is overmodelled, rather than
the .50 being undermodelled? Test against more than
one plane type?

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:22 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- the p47 should be a very close fight with a 190 now
- its not at all.


That never happened at low and medium altitudes. Don't have such unrealistic expectations.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:28 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Dunno, in SHORT dives high powered planes should
- keep up with or outdive the P-47, or are you
- speaking of REALLY long dives and REALLY HIGH speeds
- ? In the brief flyings I made with the Jug, it
- seemed to reach higer speeds in long dives than most
- (99%) other planes. In fact, only the Me 262 could
- outdive it, and only the 109K-4 could reach similiar
- dive speed in a 3000m dive.

The Tempest V could apparently outdive the P47,
and the Meteor could outdive both (probably not
outdive the 262, though).

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:39 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Ise, you're right about the # of rounds hitting.
- *That* is the problem with the Jugs guns. I've seen
- tighter grouping from buckshot out of a sawed off.
- The spread on the Jugs guns is criminal. Even with
- only 4 guns firing. By way of comparison, the P-40
- is accurate. And that's with 2 more guns (6 as
- opposed to the 4 I just mentioned) on a lighter
- frame. So....what gives?

The weight of the plane overall isn't entirely
relevant. The flexibility of the wings is going
to be more the issue. Maybe the P40 has less flexible
wings (the certainly look to be thicker) and this is modelled?

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:46 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- LeadSpitter_ wrote:
-- the p47 should be a very close fight with a 190 now
-- its not at all.
-
-
- That never happened at low and medium altitudes.
- Don't have such unrealistic expectations.
-

This is incorrect. Below 15,000ft the Fw-190 had an advantage, and above 15,000ft the P-47 had an advantage, but it was not a decisive one. 190's still shot down P-47's at altitude frequently, and P-47's still downed Fw-190s on the deck routinely.

Take a look at their top speeds on the deck and at altitude. The Fw-190s are only around 40-60km/h faster than the P-47 on the deck, and only around the same speed slower at 9000m. That's not a huge difference.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:56 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- LeadSpitter_ wrote:
--- the p47 should be a very close fight with a 190 now
--- its not at all.
--
--
-- That never happened at low and medium altitudes.
-- Don't have such unrealistic expectations.
--
-
- This is incorrect. Below 15,000ft the Fw-190 had an
- advantage, and above 15,000ft the P-47 had an
- advantage, but it was not a decisive one. 190's
- still shot down P-47's at altitude frequently, and
- P-47's still downed Fw-190s on the deck routinely.
-
- Take a look at their top speeds on the deck and at
- altitude. The Fw-190s are only around 40-60km/h
- faster than the P-47 on the deck, and only around
- the same speed slower at 9000m. That's not a huge
- difference.



Max speed alone, does not say much. P-47D late is faster than all early Bf-109G at sea level, does this mean that it could compete with them in a dogfight at tree tops? Be realistic!

P-47 is not competitive below 20000ft, and it becames dangerous above 25000ft. The reason is the improved power to weight ratio at altitude compared with other fighters. At low altitudes P-47 power loading is miserable.

<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/04/0309:59AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:02 PM
"Maybe the DM of the 190 is overmodelled, rather than the .50 being undermodelled? Test against more than one plane type?"

Indeed, it could be a little of both, even.

But like always, a problem rises when in 'testing' the DM that too many factors are at stake, which we simply do not know. The more complex a DM is, the more the probability of inconsistencies - large enough to go unnoticed unless someone is willing to make statistics through very long periods of time, and see what kind of long-term 'tendencies' are within the DM.

Also, I am highly suspicious the pilot factor lies probably the most deep in typical DM discussions - while I am by no means a good marksman(I estimate myself to have about a 5~7% average hit rate), I find in the 'ideal' conditions I have stated above, I can cause catastrophical damage to a Fw190A/D in a 3 second sustained, tracking burst. At first, when I decided to try repeated trials in a Quickmission builder, against a Fw190A/D with a P-47, I was a bit surprised because at the first try I snapped off a starboard wing of a Fw190A-5.

All in all, I guess I'd agree that the Fw190s are quite a bit too strong in damage - a good firing solution against an unmaneuvering enemy doesn't seem to present any peculiarities to me, but admitabbly landing enough 'true-shots' on a maneuvering Fw190, with the cumbersome roll rate and uninspiring low-mid alt speeds of the P-47, could prove to be troublesome in most cases.

The resistance to structural failure seems about right, a very tough bird, that 190.. but there may be a lack of failure in other internal systems - which, in the contrary case of the Bf109s, seem amazingly numerous and frequent.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:05 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:

- This is incorrect. Below 15,000ft the Fw-190 had an
- advantage, and above 15,000ft the P-47 had an
- advantage, but it was not a decisive one. 190's
- still shot down P-47's at altitude frequently, and
- P-47's still downed Fw-190s on the deck routinely.
-
- Take a look at their top speeds on the deck and at
- altitude. The Fw-190s are only around 40-60km/h
- faster than the P-47 on the deck, and only around
- the same speed slower at 9000m. That's not a huge
- difference.



Agree with you HarryV on this one, probably the most balanced post I've read today.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

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

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:08 PM
FW190fan wrote:
-
- HarryVoyager wrote:
-
-- This is incorrect. Below 15,000ft the Fw-190 had an
-- advantage, and above 15,000ft the P-47 had an
-- advantage, but it was not a decisive one. 190's
-- still shot down P-47's at altitude frequently, and
-- P-47's still downed Fw-190s on the deck routinely.
--
-- Take a look at their top speeds on the deck and at
-- altitude. The Fw-190s are only around 40-60km/h
-- faster than the P-47 on the deck, and only around
-- the same speed slower at 9000m. That's not a huge
-- difference.
-
-
-
- Agree with you HarryV on this one, probably the most
- balanced post I've read today.


This is definitely incorrect Fw190fan, see my post above.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:12 PM
i seriously suggest you watch some guncamera footage of the jug at low alt below 4000 meters, watch the dvd called gun camera of wwii its all wwii guncam footage. Theres engaugements of 47d-27s who were on ground attacking sorties, who ran into a group of 8 190s and 3 109s.


Ill tell you that the movement in fb noway resembles realguncam footage in realtime, i suggest you get the dvd and maybe you will have an aspect of flying and how stick pressure affected flight.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305136610/103-4706202-1261466?v=glance

I also collect original guncam reel footage and have over 8 hours of footage

AXIS FIGHTERS

Unique film coverage of the superb aircraft developed by Germany, Italy and Japan in WWII including rarely seen aerial combat footage. All the legendary "greats" in action on captured enemy film: the Messerschmitt 109, the Zero, the Macchis, the Komet.

60' BW 14.99

im sure after you watch the footage then play fb you will realize how unrealistic fms are

the reason is mainly becuase of no simulated stick pressure in many of the planes which oleg really needs to work on, you can have all the data and charts but its another story making them realistic in a 3d enviorment. You cannot stick yank so quickly with 50-150lbs of pressure on your alierons and elevators, you cannot get into an exceeded dive speed dive thats unrecoverable. Just your control surfaces brake off and you still have almost full control with 1 elevator? right now certain planes are more sensative then fly by wire controls on f16s. Hopefully oleg will fix this and it will get rid of the riduculous unrealistic manuvering and make this a more realistic sim. Its by far the best out and has the best graphics engine i seen in a flight sim since the early 80s, I just hope he watches more gun cam footage rather then reading pilot stories to decide about fm controls






http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter



Message Edited on 09/04/0303:18PM by LeadSpitter_

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:18 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- i seriously suggest you watch some guncamera footage
- of the jug at low alt below 4000 meters, watch the
- dvd called gun camera of wwii its all wwii guncam
- footage. Theres engaugements of 47d-27s who were on
- ground attacking sorties, who ran into a group of 8
- 190s and 3 109s.

Such footage does not demonstrates anything about those fighters relative performance. If they weren't successful in this case you would not see the gun camera film.
This is a very similar situation with veteran stories - veterans were successful pilots, successful at least because they survived the war. But there were countless other that didn't make it. Their oppinion is not recorded.



LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- im sure after you watch the footage then play fb you
- will realize how unrealistic fms are
-
- the reason is mainly becuase of no simulated stick
- pressure in many of the planes which oleg really
- needs to work on, you can have all the data and
- charts but its another story making them realistic
- in a 3d enviorment. You cannot stick yank so quickly
- with 50-150lbs of pressure on your alierons and
- elevators, you cannot get into an exceeded dive
- speed dive thats unrecoverable. Just your control
- surfaces brake off and you still have almost full
- control with 1 elevator? right now certain planes
- are more sensative then fly by wire controls on
- f16s. Hopefully oleg will fix this and it will get
- rid of the riduculous unrealistic manuvering and
- make this a more realistic sim. Its by far the best
- out and has the best graphics engine i seen in a
- flight sim since the early 80s, I just hope he
- watches more gun cam footage rather then reading
- pilot stories to decide about fm controls


Here I agree with you, in real life you never see such super AoA maneouvers for hours like you see in FB. Pilot fatigue, disorentation or sheer fear are not modelled. But also RL tactics prevent them for doing that, because such behaviour exposed them too much. In FB we can't do anything to convince people be more careful with their virtual life.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/04/0310:27AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:23 PM
you get a damn good understanding about manueverabilty and weapons effectiveness if you dont want to learn, don't. not my problem, im just trying to make fb more realistic, but seems some people are just happy thier bird is now the best a/c in the game.

Look at my sig you know what plane thats from right? Im just being completely honest rather then having my favorite plane out perform everything in all aspects


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:30 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- you get a damn good understanding about
- manueverabilty and weapons effectiveness if you dont
- want to learn, don't. not my problem, im just trying
- to make fb more realistic, but seems some people are
- just happy thier bird is now the best a/c in the
- game.
-
- Look at my sig you know what plane thats from right?
- Im just being completely honest rather then having
- my favorite plane out perform everything in all
- aspects


My answer was not very clear, I retouched it a bit.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:49 PM
People who think the P-47's guns are undermodeled - I have 2 questions.

1 - Have you made tracks in arcade mode to determin exactly how many hits are being achieved? My personal experience is that most of the ammo load goes around the target. A few hits won't do any real damage unless it's a mega cannon of some sort.

2 - What is your impression of the P-40? How do you think it stacks up against the P-47 (in terms of firepower in FB)? Do you think that the coders would write code for the weapons on each and every plane seperately?

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 10:34 PM
Hey, Skychimp, thanks for that sortie chart. That was awesome. Got anything from Jan-Mar 1944?

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 11:24 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- i seriously suggest you watch some guncamera footage
- of the jug at low alt below 4000 meters, watch the
- dvd called gun camera of wwii its all wwii guncam
- footage. Theres engaugements of 47d-27s who were on
- ground attacking sorties, who ran into a group of 8
- 190s and 3 109s.

But how was the footage selected on those DVDs?
Are we seeing a random and representative sample,
or a series of selective pieces of exciting footage
to sell the DVD? That's a problem we have in using commercial products in research - knowing how the
source material was selected.

- Ill tell you that the movement in fb noway resembles
- realguncam footage in realtime,

In terms of the damage done, or the overall look?
The damage issue might be bugs, it might be the
selectivity of the guncam material. In terms of
the look and feel there are issues with the sort
of bits that seem to fall off in original footage
and in FB. The tracers and smoke also look different,
but some of that will be due to the high speed
film stock used in WW2. I noticed that the overall
look-and-feel of the tracers and so on seemed more
true to guncam footage I've seen on TV (a very small
selection) on B17-II seemed rather good.

- I also collect original guncam reel footage and have
- over 8 hours of footage

Ah - this is the good stuff. I presume that the 8 hours
is pretty randomly selected? Is it viewable? That's
the sort of stuff, not selected for selling as an
edutainment product that we could really do with. I'm
impressed. And if you've viewed it, you are probably
in the best position of all of us to comment on
overall look-and-feel issues.

- You cannot stick yank so quickly
- with 50-150lbs of pressure on your alierons and
- elevators, you cannot get into an exceeded dive
- speed dive thats unrecoverable.

I noticed with force feedback (had the stick 2 weeks)
you get some of this.

- surfaces brake off and you still have almost full
- control with 1 elevator? right now certain planes
- are more sensative then fly by wire controls on
- f16s. Hopefully oleg will fix this and it will get
- rid of the riduculous unrealistic manuvering and
- make this a more realistic sim.

I'm not saying WW2OL is good, but I downloaded the
latest version (basically to play on the DB7/A20
as it is one of my favourite planes) and the planes
feel 'bigger' subjectively than those in FB. The
feel is different anyway.

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 01:23 AM
Slickun wrote:
- Hey, Skychimp, thanks for that sortie chart. That
- was awesome. Got anything from Jan-Mar 1944?
-
-

I'll look.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg