PDA

View Full Version : P-47D performance



Pages : [1] 2 3

Viper2005_
02-13-2007, 04:22 PM
For reference throughout this post I have used the following test report as the basis for my conclusions:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

After a rather heated discussion regarding P-47D performance on the warclouds forums ( http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=...topic&t=1915&start=0 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1915&start=0) ), I felt moved to conduct some testing, and have concluded that the P-47D's altitude performance with regard to top speed is somewhat excessive. The same may also be said of its low level speed performance.

Most glaring as regards kinematic performance however would appear to be a considerable error in its rate of climb, though I have yet to conduct tests.

In addition, the P-47D does not appear to suffer from any form of overheating at altitude, which would appear to be historically inaccurate based upon the following, taken from the Recommendations section of the report:


It is recommended that pilots using these higher powers be cautioned concerning the high cylinder head temperatures and carburetor air temperatures which may be encountered in extended climbs or level flight.

Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of actual overheating, it would appear that overheating is used in general within the sim as a device to prevent players from greatly exceeding various engine limitations (such for example as the 5 minute limitation for +25 psi operations of the Mustang III, or 67"Hg operations of the P-51B-D) despite the fact that test documentation would suggest that overheating would not in fact limit performance at high speed (see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64161.html , which cites average radiator openings of 8" corrected to give performance equivalent to a flush radiator [7" opening], and http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html which cites a radiator adjustment to 8" opening to provide adequate cooling at +25 psi, thus suggesting that normal engine temperatures should in fact be provided by the AUTOMATIC radiator setting in level flight even at high powers)

As such, the P-47 appears to be something of an anomaly, which it would be nice to see corrected.

IL2 Compare for v4.07 has been used as the source of performance graphs for convenience. However, tracks taken in v4.08 will be supplied to support the IL2C data.

Without further ado, here is the data:

Speed vs manifold pressure and altitude (in game via IL2C with R/L overlaid):

http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=download&id=485

Climb rate vs manifold pressure and altitude (in game via IL2C with R/L overlaid):

http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=download&id=488

Very long track of the P-47D being flown at 110% power with WEP until the water runs out, and then at 110% power without WEP until the fuel runs out at altitude (also demonstrates top speed capability in agreement with IL2C):

http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=download&id=469

Note when viewing the above that water injection should in fact only be available for a total of 11 minutes of continuous use, at least in those blocks of P-47D fitted with 15 U.S. Gallon water tanks. See:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-47aeroRV1056.ram

*edit* JtD has updated his work, and has therefore asked me to remove his earlier test data to avoid confusion.

Viper2005_
02-13-2007, 04:22 PM
For reference throughout this post I have used the following test report as the basis for my conclusions:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

After a rather heated discussion regarding P-47D performance on the warclouds forums ( http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=...topic&t=1915&start=0 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1915&start=0) ), I felt moved to conduct some testing, and have concluded that the P-47D's altitude performance with regard to top speed is somewhat excessive. The same may also be said of its low level speed performance.

Most glaring as regards kinematic performance however would appear to be a considerable error in its rate of climb, though I have yet to conduct tests.

In addition, the P-47D does not appear to suffer from any form of overheating at altitude, which would appear to be historically inaccurate based upon the following, taken from the Recommendations section of the report:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is recommended that pilots using these higher powers be cautioned concerning the high cylinder head temperatures and carburetor air temperatures which may be encountered in extended climbs or level flight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of actual overheating, it would appear that overheating is used in general within the sim as a device to prevent players from greatly exceeding various engine limitations (such for example as the 5 minute limitation for +25 psi operations of the Mustang III, or 67"Hg operations of the P-51B-D) despite the fact that test documentation would suggest that overheating would not in fact limit performance at high speed (see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64161.html , which cites average radiator openings of 8" corrected to give performance equivalent to a flush radiator [7" opening], and http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html which cites a radiator adjustment to 8" opening to provide adequate cooling at +25 psi, thus suggesting that normal engine temperatures should in fact be provided by the AUTOMATIC radiator setting in level flight even at high powers)

As such, the P-47 appears to be something of an anomaly, which it would be nice to see corrected.

IL2 Compare for v4.07 has been used as the source of performance graphs for convenience. However, tracks taken in v4.08 will be supplied to support the IL2C data.

Without further ado, here is the data:

Speed vs manifold pressure and altitude (in game via IL2C with R/L overlaid):

http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=download&id=485

Climb rate vs manifold pressure and altitude (in game via IL2C with R/L overlaid):

http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=download&id=488

Very long track of the P-47D being flown at 110% power with WEP until the water runs out, and then at 110% power without WEP until the fuel runs out at altitude (also demonstrates top speed capability in agreement with IL2C):

http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=download&id=469

Note when viewing the above that water injection should in fact only be available for a total of 11 minutes of continuous use, at least in those blocks of P-47D fitted with 15 U.S. Gallon water tanks. See:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-47aeroRV1056.ram

*edit* JtD has updated his work, and has therefore asked me to remove his earlier test data to avoid confusion.

JG53Frankyboy
02-13-2007, 04:26 PM
i personaly would be happy if the ingame D-22 would have the performance of the D-27!

so we would have a Razorback and Bubbletop JUG with almost the same perfomance.
and not two Razorbacks with almost the same performance like it is now, with the main difference of wingracks............. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Viper2005_
02-13-2007, 04:55 PM
Check the data posted and perhaps you'll reconsider, especially considering that the razorback should have less drag than the bubble canopy version.

IMO the "D" has excessive performance. The D-27 in game is roughly equivalent to 70" Hg with water injection, and climbs too fast into the bargain.

Since I provide data for a variety of ratings going down to 52" Hg, you can compare the D-10 and D-22 with R/L performance data if you so wish.

The R/L data was collected using a razorback P-47D, so I'm guessing its block number was somewhere between 22 and 25; since the serial number is known I'm sure that somebody with more knowledge of such minutiae can provide a concrete answer...

IMO the performance of the P-47 needs to be reconsidered, especially at extreme low and high altitudes (ironically where most of them are found, either ground pounding or skywriting...). It might be more accurate to give the current D performance somewhat closer to the D-27, whilst giving the D-27 performance somewhat closer to the D-22.

However, since I haven't examined the D-22 I can't really comment on that.

What I can say is that the current 150 grade P-47D seems to over-perform if its performance is based upon 70" Hg; and in that case I would also point out that the report quoted above only suggests that 65" Hg be approved for service. <span class="ev_code_red">Edit - Mike Williams has just contacted me to point out that in fact 70" Hg was in fact approved for operations by 22/06/44 - see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf Thanks Mike!</span>

Oh and BTW, the P-47D could also do with a very simple cockpit modification - the fuel placard needs to be updated from 100/130 grade to 150 grade. I'm sure that this simple change shouldn't take too long. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Grey_Mouser67
02-13-2007, 06:23 PM
Interesting find if it is true. I really didn't think there was a American or British plane that was "overmodelled" except for the P-39 and maybe the Spit Mk V in rate of climb.

I've often wondered about the SL speed of the Wildcat but don't have the data to say it is too fast...a few planes like the P-38J is too fast at sea level but too slow at altitude...kind of a trade off.

I wonder what data Oleg modelled the P-47D after? Also interesting about the overheating...an interesting diabolical twist since none of the radiators on P&W engined aircraft actually cool the engine. They do drag/slow the aircraft down when open though.

Viper2005_
02-13-2007, 07:03 PM
Mustang III was too fast for a while but it was fixed after a similar thread...

BPO6_PANP
02-13-2007, 08:46 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Got Spanked up high didn't you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Viper2005_
02-13-2007, 11:19 PM
Constructive...

Now, look at the evidence, and tell me that the P-47D as modelled is correct. Otherwise STFU. Thankyou. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tipo_Man
02-14-2007, 02:12 AM
Very well put, thanks for the charts and data sources.

I wish Oleg's team could model every plane according to its historical performance.

But this looks like something impossible.

I think you are concerned most for the climb rate of the Jug.
If you use IL2Compare for a source to represent in-game performance, you should notice that most of the planes do climb much better.

Take a look at La-7 for example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.. Historical climb rate at sea level was 21-24m/s (according to different sources) in game
it climbs with 27m/s.
Bf-109G2 climbs to 5000meters in less than 4 minutes in the game, while the best time I know is 4,4min.

So generally what we have now is somewhat accurate relative performance.

Concerning non-overheating engine, I can mention MiG-3 AM-38. It should overheat a lot, that's even noticed in plane's description. But it doesn't at all...

Diablo310th
02-14-2007, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BPO6_PANP:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Got Spanked up high didn't you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL that was Bubi that got spanked last night....but sounds true. LOL ~S~ PANP I do appreciate the testing and data tho Viper. It's always good to see good data on any ac.

Grey_Mouser67
02-14-2007, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Very well put, thanks for the charts and data sources.

I wish Oleg's team could model every plane according to its historical performance.

But this looks like something impossible.

I think you are concerned most for the climb rate of the Jug.
If you use IL2Compare for a source to represent in-game performance, you should notice that most of the planes do climb much better.

Take a look at La-7 for example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.. Historical climb rate at sea level was 21-24m/s (according to different sources) in game
it climbs with 27m/s.
Bf-109G2 climbs to 5000meters in less than 4 minutes in the game, while the best time I know is 4,4min.

So generally what we have now is somewhat accurate relative performance.

Concerning non-overheating engine, I can mention MiG-3 AM-38. It should overheat a lot, that's even noticed in plane's description. But it doesn't at all... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a gross generalization, I would tend to agree with this post....seems more planes than not are "overmodelled" in some aspects. A few are really dead nuts on and some are just plane not right (Hurricane IIb and IIc jump to mind). Most planes that are "correct" are actually at a disadvantage online due to this.

What I'd love to see is a FM that used both table data and a physics model in combination to insure certain key parameters were met/never exceeded. Some like Rate of roll, rate of climb, max speed at sea level and critical altitude seem like they aught to be "absolutely accurate" and then all aircraft corrected for the handful of key performance parameters....one can hope that in BoB we'll see a shift in philosophy to include absolute accuracy in performance as a top priority.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-14-2007, 11:35 AM
Can any one take the time to compare this "late D" game performace to the M?

Brain32
02-14-2007, 11:46 AM
Too slow for P47M, however with better climbrate...

Viper2005_
02-14-2007, 01:20 PM
It's 40 km/h too slow at high altitude to be an N and about 50 km/h too slow to be an M.

Deck speed is about 17 km/h too slow to be an M or N.

Climb rates are actually very close to those of the M however.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-14-2007, 01:35 PM
Oleg did say when releasing the late D that it was not a specific model and was meant to have "M-like" performance.

Sounds to me like that's just what it is.

Viper2005_
02-14-2007, 02:00 PM
Actually, Oleg said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Next new small patch that we plan to release in the end of August is v4.02 and will contains:

- Changes and tunes in new FM.
- Yak-7B, 1942 with M-105PF engine
<span class="ev_code_red">- P-47D boosted for use of 150 octan (almost P-47M performance).</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My highlight, taken from here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/837...371080943#8371080943 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943?r=8371080943#8371080943)

Whilst you take that to mean that it's a mish-mash, I take that to simply mean that a P-47D modified to run on 150 grade fuel will give performance almost as good as the P-47M. Which it does. However, since the aeroplane we have in game is a P-47D and not a P-47M, IMO it should perform like a D rather than an M.

M like climb rates and D like speeds are rather a strange combination, and imply that something is wrong with the thrust/drag curves or the modelled aircraft weight.

Whatever your views on this D-M performance question, surely you agree that these performance attributes should be tempered by a more sensible overheating model that actually prevents players from flying around at altitude with the throttle at 110% for as long as their fuel lasts in a manner quite inconsistent with the majority of piston engined aircraft in the game?

BlitzPig_DDT
02-14-2007, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Whatever your views on this D-M performance question, surely you agree that these performance attributes should be tempered by a more sensible overheating model that actually prevents players from flying around at altitude with the throttle at 110% for as long as their fuel lasts in a manner quite inconsistent with the majority of piston engined aircraft in the game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No.

Not as long as we have an F6F that is too slow at all alts and snap spins if you blink hard, when it absolutely should NOT do that. (in addition to an f4u that effectively has no drag and is actually a little on the fast side all around - nevermind the visibility issues)

Not as long as we have defective Air Speed Indicators in the 262 and 229.

Or as long as we have flak that totally obliterates frame rates (which it did *not* do in 4.071m).

There are far more important things to tackle than a plane that does exactly what Oleg told us it would do.

BTW, 17kph difference is not very much. And we have known, pretty much forever, that we would *not* get an M. This came about during the height of the campaign to get an M, and is more or less a compromise to that extent. That would be why it doesn't say D-36 or whathave you, just "D" and is known to be a "late variant". It's a kludge. But one that gets the job done, and that's all that matters.

We need a real F6F before we need to bork the 'P-47D'.

mynameisroland
02-14-2007, 02:57 PM
The issue is not the performance !!!!

The issue is that the D Late can run UNTIL IT RUNS OUT OF GAS at max power radiators shut at 7000m and above. That is the issue.

That is like the Tempest running FOREVER at 610 km/h at sea level with no engine damage, until it runs out of fuel. That is a huge advantage because it means that no other plane can match its performance for any length of time.

FritzGryphon
02-14-2007, 06:14 PM
One thing to add. The P-47 by default uses a reduced ammo load.

In the past I did a climb test on a D-27 and noticed the climb rate was notably worse with full ammunition selected. Perhaps it'd be prudent to test with that loadout, if you're not already.

---

Oh, and about the P-47's radiator flaps. Some time ago I found the overheat and breakdown time of the P-47 (and for that matter, F4U and F6F), to the be the same whether they are open or closed.

At 1000m level flight WEP was 3 minutes to 'overheat', and 13.5 minutes to breakdown. Flaps open or closed.

Compare FW-190, 3 minutes to overheat, and 10 minutes to breakdown (flaps closed) or 13 minutes to breakdown (flaps open).

Like a lot of planes in the game, the radiator flaps are broken, and cool as though in the open position, even when closed. This could be why it's not overheating at high alt.

Viper2005_
02-15-2007, 03:06 AM
The test track posted was recorded with extra ammunition.

I haven't conducted climb tests to validate the IL2C data yet, but hopefully I'll have the time to do so sooner rather than later.

Brain32
02-15-2007, 05:13 AM
BTW while we're at it, it would be really cool for that ammo load to be fixed, having reduced ammo loadout whenever one takes bombs and/or rockets is incorrect.

AS for D - M, let the aircraft be either M or D(150 octane), M is the same as D(visually), so they could just call it "P47" and give it M performance, but they didn't, they called it P47D and said it's a D running at 150 octane fuel...

ljazz
02-15-2007, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
BTW while we're at it, it would be really cool for that ammo load to be fixed, having reduced ammo loadout whenever one takes bombs and/or rockets is incorrect.

AS for D - M, let the aircraft be either M or D(150 octane), M is the same as D(visually), so they could just call it "P47" and give it M performance, but they didn't, they called it P47D and said it's a D running at 150 octane fuel... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't believe they are the same visually.... The filet off the vertical stab is missing.

Brain32
02-15-2007, 06:33 AM
With early Mustangs having wrong wings - this is really a minor problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Anyway of all the characteristics of P47D_late I would question most it's horizontal turn ability, if FW190A has to engage a P47 like it's a Spitfire than I think we have a problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
02-15-2007, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
BTW while we're at it, it would be really cool for that ammo load to be fixed, having reduced ammo loadout whenever one takes bombs and/or rockets is incorrect.

AS for D - M, let the aircraft be either M or D(150 octane), M is the same as D(visually), so they could just call it "P47" and give it M performance, but they didn't, they called it P47D and said it's a D running at 150 octane fuel... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">almost P-47M performance </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's exactly what it is. There is no problem here, and it's an old issue.

The Me-262's Air Speed Indicator has never worked properly since the aircraft was introduced. (and the 229 uses the same broken one)

And it would be nice to get an F6F that stalls like a trainer, not like a real f4u (unlike our in game f4u which stalls almost like a real F6F). To say nothing of it's missing speed.

mynameisroland
02-15-2007, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
BTW while we're at it, it would be really cool for that ammo load to be fixed, having reduced ammo loadout whenever one takes bombs and/or rockets is incorrect.

AS for D - M, let the aircraft be either M or D(150 octane), M is the same as D(visually), so they could just call it "P47" and give it M performance, but they didn't, they called it P47D and said it's a D running at 150 octane fuel... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankly I dont care what they christen the aircraft as long as it gets an engine overheat model inserted so that A its radiators work and B it can run forever at full throttle at 7000m and above.

IIJG69_Kartofe
02-15-2007, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:

The Me-262's Air Speed Indicator has never worked properly since the aircraft was introduced. (and the 229 uses the same broken one) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!

A LOT of things doesn't work properly on the real Me 262!
I think airspeed indicator was the last of the worries the real 262 pilots have in the end of the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

BigKahuna_GS
02-15-2007, 06:14 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Viper-IL2 Compare for v4.07 has been used as the source of performance graphs for convenience. However, tracks taken in v4.08 will be supplied to support the IL2C data.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


1C genrally does not accept IL2 compare data as many times it is inaccurate.


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Viper-What I can say is that the current 150 grade P-47D seems to over-perform if its performance is based upon 70" Hg; and in that case I would also point out that the report quoted above only suggests that 65" Hg be approved for service
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



Many of us were very interested in seeing a late model P47 in the sim either a P47M or P47N. I thought the P47N would of been included when PF was released. I would of rather seen a P47M in this sim than the current P47D 150grade fuel but that was the compromise that was made and I am very grateful that Oleg agreed to it via email. I am also grateful that Mike Williams had the documents for it.

Please Note that P47D 150 grade fuel tests were preliminary in nature with the climb test being performed at only <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">65" MAP </span> and some of the climb test was at only 55-57" MAP without water injection. That is quite a difference between the P47M climbing at 72" MAP with water injection during it's climb test.

The P47D clearly does not have true P47M performance by a large margin especially in speed. Before you start your cut the P47D performance campaign just remember the P47 does not have the dive advantage that it did in real life over axis aircraft. Sure it has a high terminal dive speed but the rate of dive acceleration speed is way too slow and you will be caught and shot down before you ever reach 1000kph--which is totally wrong historically. If the overheat needs fixing then fix it.

Witold Lanaski Polish RAF Pilot flying with the 56th FG
"I don't think there was any aircraft at the time that would dive so fast as the Thunderbolt. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">First time I dived after an enemy plane I came up with him so quickly it was a bit of a shock</span>. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Germans nearly always dived to escape: just flip over and down. So we could easily catch them with the superior speed of the Thunderbolt ---</span> but it gained so quickly I am sure there must have been some collisions. Later models even had dive brakes. "


http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38MTO.html (http://home.att.net/%7EC.C.Jordan/P-38MTO.html)
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/Yp-47m.jpg
Number two of three YP-47M development aircraft (P-47D-27-RE).



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html#p47-m

P47D approved for 70" MAP with 150 grade fuel
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf

Note-P47D without 150 grade fuel
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/comp-p47dmn.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-differences.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-n-speed.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-n-climb.jpg


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">- P-47D boosted for use of 150 octan (almost P-47M performance). </span>

P47D 150 grade fuel vs P47M Performance
P47M Vmax Sea Level 365mph+, 385mph at 5,000ft, 440mph at 21,000ft, 473mph at 32,000ft, ROC 3950fpm
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-republic-wepchart.jpg

P47D 150 grade fuel

Note that these tests were preliminary in nature with the climb test being performed at only 65" MAP and some of the climb test was at only 55-57" MAP without water injection. That is quite a difference between the P47M climbing at 72" MAP with water injection during it's climb test.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg



EUROPE: RAF Spitifire Pilot WITOLD LANOWSKI

"When I was flying Spitfires in the Polish Air Force in 1943 we occasionally met Thunderbolts and had friendly fights.' This was at low altitudes and we could out-climb and out-turn them"it was easy to get on their tails. We laughed about them and said, This is not a fighter, it is a flying barrel!' At the time I would not have been very happy if someone had told me I would one day be flying a Thunderbolt on operations. That such a big aircraft could be considered a fighter was silly in my opinion.

"In autumn 1943 I was assigned to a desk job---to my disgust. By then I had completed 97 operational flights. There were many other experienced Polish pilots being similarly placed and many of us had no intention of being grounded if we could possibly help it. The question was resolved when the Americans invited us some of us to fly with them and eventually permission was obtained from Air Ministry for six of us to go on short-term loan to the 56th Fighter Group. It was reciprocal gesture of friendship that had begun in 1919 when American fighter pilots (the originators of the first Kosciuszko Fighter Squadron) flew in Poland in her defense against the Bolsheviks; and later, in 1941 and 1942 American Poles trained and flew in the Polish Air Force under British Command. Francis Gabreski was one of these American Polish pilots and later as a USAAF Lieutenant Colonel commanded the 61st Fighter Squadron in the 56th Group. So in May 1944, we went to Boxted and formed a Polish flight in Gabreski's squadron. I was going to fly the Thunderbolt!
But Thunderbolt or whatever, at least I was going to fight.

"My immediate reaction was amazement at the size of this single-seater. Climbing up the enormous fuselage and getting into the wide cockpit, it was hard to believe I was in a fighter. It was just like sitting in an armchair, I had space everywhere, fantastic visibility. (The pilot fitted like a hand in a glove in the other fighters I had flown"in the French Caudron C714 the Perspex was a half-inch (12.7mm) from my shoulders and there was hardly room to turn my head.) At the same time there was satisfaction in being in such a large, powerful machine. I had laughed at it once but the Americans had shown what it could do: and in no time at all she gained my complete respect and admiration.

"There wasn't any time for a conversion course. Everyone on the aerodrome was too busy. They said here is the aircraft, explained what is what, and off I went. All six of us were experienced and had flown many types of aircraft, so the Thunderbolt was one more and was no problem to fly once you knew where everything was in the cockpit. The Spitfire was relatively simple; the amount of clocks and gauges you had were negligible; the supercharger was automatic and from a simplicity angle piloting was easy. In comparison, the Thunderbolt was complicated, but in many ways easier to fly. When you took-off or landed the Thunderbolt never really swung and you could lock the tail wheel to keep it straight down the runway. The undercarriage was set very wide and, really, you had to be a bloody awful pilot to have an accident in a Thunderbolt --- if there was nothing mechanically wrong. With the Spitfire with its narrow track undercarriage take-off and landing required a lot more skill, especially in winter in snow and on the ____ (missing word-hb) it could be held on a steady course. Another thing that was good was the cockpit heating. We didn't have this in the Spitfire which made it more difficult to be efficient if you were half frozen.

"The biggest disadvantage of the Thunderbolt was its weight and we knew that we would have to fight in a different way to that in Spitfires. On the other hand it possessed the capacity to give an extra 400 hp by means of water injection, for use in an emergency, but only for a few minutes otherwise you blew your engine to pieces. I don't think there was any aircraft at the time that would dive so fast as the Thunderbolt. First time I dived after an enemy plane I came up with him so quickly it was a bit of a shock. The Germans nearly always dived to escape: just flip over and down. So we could easily catch them with the superior speed of the Thunderbolt --- but it gained so quickly I am sure there must have been some collisions. Later models even had dive brakes. "

The Thunderbolt could turn quite well at speed but it was not safe to try to turn too far with a 190 or 109. It was best to go only a half circle, shoot, and then pull out; or three-quarters of a circle at the most. I had several engagements with German fighters at heights of between 5,000 and 10,000 ft. Dogfighting with them in a Thunderbolt needed care, it was not for the inexperienced. It was better to clear your tail, make a swift attack, then dive away. The only Thunderbolt pilot I saw hit and go down in a dogfight didn't check his tail. I shot the German off him but it was already too late. I considered the 190 a better aircraft than the Messerschmitt; it could give you a tougher fight. The problem was that in a mix-up you sometimes had difficulty at long range telling which was a P-47 and which was an Fw 190 as they both had radial engines. In fact, I once mistakenly fired on another Thunderbolt. Luckily, I didn't hit him.

"The most impressive thing about the Thunderbolt was the armament. There was no time for gunnery practices when I joined the 56th so I had no experience of what the heavy Browning machine guns would do in combat. The very first time I got on the tail of a Focke-Wulf and gave him a very short burst he absolutely exploded! It was fantastic! Nothing like this had ever happened in Spitfires due to the wide setting of the cannons (2) and machine guns (4), and small amount of rounds per cannon. Sometimes the enemy fighter would smoke but I had never seen one explode. The concentration and punch of bullets from those eight Point-Fifties' in the Thunderbolt was tremendous. You could see where you were hitting which you rarely saw with other fighters I flew. And if you saw where you were hitting all you had to do was pull your deflection, and there it was--- explosion! I have always believed the principal reason the Thunderbolt did so well in air fighting was its firepower.

"I would say that there was very little difference between the flight behavior of the various Thunderbolt models I flew. The bubble hood gave a vast improvement in visibility, and the hood, being electrically operated, was simple to ease open a few inches, enabling you to get a breath of fresh air in the cockpit. Because the engine had a big appetite the cry was always for bigger tanks to carry more fuel. The first bubble hood P-47Ds were given to the leaders and we then had a problem because these aircraft had a bigger internal fuel tank. Some leaders would be busy chasing Germans and forget that they had more fuel than the other pilots.

"I never had any real mechanical problems on my Thunderbolt; the standard of American engineering was very good and our mechanics were excellent. Another good thing was that Republic had a permanent representative on the aerodrome who was constantly interested in what we wanted improved or modified. Because the 56th was such a successful group --- and in my opinion a lot of this success was due to Hubert Zemke: he was the best leader of any nationality that I served with --- it often got new equipment to try out. We tested the rocket tubes fitted under the wings. Nobody liked them. There was a story that when some fellow fired his rockets they did a 180? turn and came back at him! We were one of the first to try napalm --- I think it was Schilling who dropped some on the field at Boxted to see what would happen.

"Near the end of the war we got the very fast P-47M which we polished up to get extra speed. It had the very good gyroscopic gunsight only I must admit that we were not really happy about the change as we had become so used to the old sight. Then there was the two-seat Thunderbolt which was fitted out with a radar set and had antenna sticking out form the wings. The idea was to try and find German aircraft in the air while we were over Germany. It wasn't successful as the radar did not function very well and the aircraft was so much slower than the rest.

"The Thunderbolt was well known for the punishment it could take. I have seen one come back to Boxted with a top cylinder and piston blown completely off with a shell. No liquid cooled engine fighter could take such punishment (I had a friend who was shot down in a Spitfire by a single rifle bullet in the cooling system --- on maneuvers in England!). Between 1935 and 1959 I flew more than forty different aircraft. The Thunderbolt wasn't the best propeller driven type I flew, but during the war I never felt safer than I did in a Thunderbolt. It could take more and give more than any other single-seat fighter of its day.

"To make comparisons between the Thunderbolt and any other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, is not really justifiable in that its capacity and ability were totally different. Therefore it is somewhat unfair to make such omparisons. The Spitfire was a short range --- per one battle, aircraft --- Paris and back. The Thunderbolt was a long range (and with later models, a very long range) aircraft --- 2 to 3, or more, battles per mission --- Berlin and back. Even so, this exceptional aircraft demanded greater experience plus additional training of its pilots to do it justice. But due to the progressive speed of the war itself and the demand so placed on the pilots, the US 8th Air Force had no option but to replace the Thunderbolts with the less demanding long range P-51 Mustang.

"However, the 56th Fighter Group, on their own request, were permitted to keep the Thunderbolt. As the top scoring American Group*(in air-to-air combat) it seemed fitting they should retain the remarkable Thunderbolt that had helped to make them one of the most famous fighter units of the war."

The historical common theme heard over and over again from P47 pilots is tremendous dive acceleration, great firepower 8- .50cals & airframe ruggedness.


Oleg:
- P-47D boosted for use of 150 octan (almost P-47M performance).

Viper2005_
02-15-2007, 08:11 PM
I thought you'd pop out from the woodwork sooner or later Kahuna. This is just like the Mustang III thread all over again isn't it?

If you took the time to read what I have posted, you would see that I have already confirmed the speed performance quoted in IL2 Compare at altitudes from 7 km to 9 km.

If you took the time to review the track that I made, you would see the level speed performance clearly demonstrated over a range of (high) altitudes. You would also see that I can literally run the tanks dry with the throttle firewalled without ill effect, and that I can quite easily exceed the tactical Mach number limitations of the aeroplane by a large margin whilst retaining plenty of pitch authority.

You would also avoid wasting time posting the speed and climb charts from the report I linked to. If you look at the graphs I produced you will see the exact same data plotted against IL2 Compare's data for the P-47 in-game, in colour at a variety of power settings.

All that P-47M and N stuff is pretty unimportant too since this is a thread about the P-47D, not the M or the N which we don't have in the game.

That's why when asked about it I didn't waste time creating graphs (which is quite a tedious process actually) but merely added a few facts.

If you want to start talking about dive performance, don't forget that the P-47 had a maximum tactical Mach number of only 0.72, which was one of the main reasons for its replacement in the fighter role by the P-51.

Most Luftwaffe fighters of the period had a tactical Mach number of about 0.75 (Bf-109, Fw-190A), whilst the Dora managed 0.77.

So the P-47 might well have out-dived the opposition, but it often did so in uncontrolled flight. (See "Wings on my Sleeve" by Eric Brown).

Needless to say, this deficiency is not simulated.

Now, please save time and space in this thread by reading before you post, in order to avoid duplicating the work that I have already done.

Combat reports are of some general interest value, but they are not testable and therefore have no place in this thread.

HellToupee
02-15-2007, 09:46 PM
Just what source are these tactical mach numbers from, seems weird a d9 would be higher than an anton having same wing as a8.

Pollack2006
02-15-2007, 09:47 PM
Gravity acceleration isn't well modelled in FB. As it stands I think the differences in terminal speeds between various aircraft are a deliberate compromise.

Hence the Jug gets a full 100kph advantage over the majority of aircraft in lieu of FB's physics engine being unable to model it's peerless dive acceleration.

mynameisroland
02-16-2007, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I thought you'd pop out from the woodwork sooner or later Kahuna. This is just like the Mustang III thread all over again isn't it?

If you took the time to read what I have posted, you would see that I have already confirmed the speed performance quoted in IL2 Compare at altitudes from 7 km to 9 km.

If you took the time to review the track that I made, you would see the level speed performance clearly demonstrated over a range of (high) altitudes. You would also see that I can literally run the tanks dry with the throttle firewalled without ill effect, and that I can quite easily exceed the tactical Mach number limitations of the aeroplane by a large margin whilst retaining plenty of pitch authority.

You would also avoid wasting time posting the speed and climb charts from the report I linked to. If you look at the graphs I produced you will see the exact same data plotted against IL2 Compare's data for the P-47 in-game, in colour at a variety of power settings.

All that P-47M and N stuff is pretty unimportant too since this is a thread about the P-47D, not the M or the N which we don't have in the game.

That's why when asked about it I didn't waste time creating graphs (which is quite a tedious process actually) but merely added a few facts.

If you want to start talking about dive performance, don't forget that the P-47 had a maximum tactical Mach number of only 0.72, which was one of the main reasons for its replacement in the fighter role by the P-51.

Most Luftwaffe fighters of the period had a tactical Mach number of about 0.75 (Bf-109, Fw-190A), whilst the Dora managed 0.77.

So the P-47 might well have out-dived the opposition, but it often did so in uncontrolled flight. (See "Wings on my Sleeve" by Eric Brown).

Needless to say, this deficiency is not simulated.

Now, please save time and space in this thread by reading before you post, in order to avoid duplicating the work that I have already done.

Combat reports are of some general interest value, but they are not testable and therefore have no place in this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can also confirm this source having read the exact part of 'Wings On My Sleeve' that Viper is talking about.

It is also unbelievable that people here refuse to adress the issue and instead cloud the facts with charts and arguing over the M or theN.

Read again : <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Issue is the P47 D Late can run FOREVER at maximum settings with no overheat above 7000m</span>. Its performance is not the issue its <STRIKE>overheat model </STRIKE> is.

BigKahuna_GS
02-16-2007, 03:42 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Viper--If you took the time to review the track that I made, you would see the level speed performance clearly demonstrated over a range of (high) altitudes. You would also see that I can literally run the tanks dry with the throttle firewalled without ill effect, and that I can quite easily exceed the tactical Mach number limitations of the aeroplane by a large margin whilst retaining plenty of pitch authority.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



Easy Viper. I guess you missed the part I said about if the overheat does not work it's needs to be fixed. Your wrong about the tactical mach number limitation as it was .85 mach. Diving away was a standard defense manuever for Jug pilots as well as an attack manuever against Me262s. You also seem to leave out that ALL WW2 aircraft suffered from compressibility. There are hundreds of allied pilot reports of 109s & 190s pancaking straight in from compressibility. IF you read P51 and P47 pilot combat reports they both could compress during steep power dives from high altitude and they both regained control at lower alt 13,000 to 8,000ft where the air was thick and warmer. Only the P38 and P47 had dive recovery flaps designed to restore lift not the same as an airbrake. How many german aircraft exceed their mach number in IL2 without suffering from full compressability ? The only plane in IL2 that experiences full compressibility is the P38 and unfortunately that happens at low altitude where it wasnt really a problem unless flying at very high speeds that exceeded it's placarded mach limits ie; over 622mph at 5,000ft for example .


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Viper-You would also avoid wasting time posting the speed and climb charts from the report I linked to. If you look at the graphs I produced you will see the exact same data plotted against IL2 Compare's data for the P-47 in-game, in colour at a variety of power settings.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


You are still missing the point here, 1C generally does not accept IL2 compare data--savvy ?
1C will accept your tracks on testing. You are also missing the point that much of the testing of the P47 with 150 grade fuel was in it's preliminary stages in that report with more perfomance to come. See the example for the P47D climb test which was only performed at 65"MAP not 70" MAP and latter portions of the climb test were at only 55"-57" MAP without water injection. That means the climb test did not show maximum ROC because there was no testing performed at 70" MAP with water injection.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Viper-All that P-47M and N stuff is pretty unimportant too since this is a thread about the P-47D, not the M or the N which we don't have in the game.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________


Only to you because you do not understand the meaning of this statement :
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Oleg: - P-47D boosted for use of 150 octane (almost P-47M performance).</span>



__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Viper-If you want to start talking about dive performance, don't forget that the P-47 had a maximum tactical Mach number of only 0.72, which was one of the main reasons for its replacement in the fighter role by the P-51.
Most Luftwaffe fighters of the period had a tactical Mach number of about 0.75 (Bf-109, Fw-190A), whilst the Dora managed 0.77. So the P-47 might well have out-dived the opposition, but it often did so in uncontrolled flight. (See "Wings on my Sleeve" by Eric Brown).[/quote]

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



Incorrect--read "The Mighty 8th" by Freeman. The P47 like the P51 had high structeral mach limits all the way up to mach .85 for emergeny dive manuevers which in combat is experienced quite frequently. The P47 was not replaced by the P51 because of mach limitations, it was replaced because the P51 had greater range/endurance. Also the P47 having a radial engine was thought to be the better ground attack aircraft not having a vulnerable radiator to expose to
groundfire. With all due respect to Eric brown he was not a P47 combat pilot and 8th AF P47 pilots strongly disagreed with his assessment.


Gunther Rall on P47 Dive Superiority

Notice what Rall says about structural strength of the 109: ("You couldn't stand that you know?" 109)

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! &lt;Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause&gt;

P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know?</span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster.</span> But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition. </span>


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Keypoint--Rall--"But in a position where you chase him (109 chasing the P47 in a dive), there was no equivalent condition". </span>


http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/56g/rsj2.jpg
Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47D 42-8461 HV-P "Lucky". Johnson seen here in front of his P-47 "Lucky" and flanked by Hub Zemke (L) and Bud Mahurin (R).

Here is Robert Johnson talking about diving his P47 :

CCJ: What about facing the Fw 190 and Messerschmitts?

RSJ: The Focke Wulf reminded me of the Corsair. It was much smaller of course, but they both had similar maneuverability. It wasn't quite as fast, but turned well. It was unusual to find Focke Wulfs above us. Generally, we held the advantage in height. The Me 109 was another story. They could often be seen up above 35,000 feet.

CCJ: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">What was the biggest mistake a German pilot could make? </span>

RSJ: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Trying to escape in a dive or split-S.</span>

CCJ: Why?

RSJ: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Because they were not going to out-run the Thunderbolt in a dive.</span>

CCJ: You could catch them without a problem.

RSJ: I could catch them in nothing flat.

CCJ: Really?

RSJ: Absolutely. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">One thing about the 190, if the pilot continued his dive below 7 or 8 thousand feet, he could not pull out before he hit the ground. I guess they had compressibility problems </span> or the elevators got too stiff. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Whatever the problem was, I watched several of them pancake in before they could level off.</span>

CCJ: What about the Thunderbolt?

RSJ: It did not have that problem down that low. Up high, above 25,000 feet, yes, I could get into compressibility and the elevators locked up like they were in concrete. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">But once you got down to thicker air, you regained control. </span>

CCJ: So, what would you do if suddenly discovered a German fighter on your tail?

RSJ: you mean in close?

CCJ: Yes.

RSJ: That depended a lot on how fast the German was going. If he was moving much faster, I'd simply side-step him by rolling. The German would whiz right on by and I would firewall the throttle and take off after him. If he was a smart German, he would climb straight ahead. If he was a dumb German, he would try to turn. If he turns, his higher speed will make for a wide turn, and I will cut across and be all over him. If he dives, I can follow and eventually catch up. Now, if the German's speed was close to mine, then I had another emergency maneuver that always worked for me.

CCJ: And, that was?

RSJ: I would pull the nose straight up into a vertical rolling spiral, usually to the left. You would stall out, but so would the guy behind you. That killed his advantage.

CCJ: So, what you are describing sounds like a rolling hammerhead stall, right?

RSJ: That's a pretty good description.

CCJ: So what happens next?

RSJ: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Well, the enemy would stall first because the Jug's mass allowed to retain its, </span>

CCJ: Energy?

RSJ: Yes, energy. The P-47's mass allowed it to retain its energy better and it stalled a few seconds after the enemy plane. The German would snap over and head down. Except, now I was right behind him and there was no getting away.

CCJ: Wouldn't he still be directly behind you?

RSJ: No. Pulling up so suddenly always caught them by surprise. The second or two that it took for them to react took care of that.

CCJ: Why did you roll?

RSJ: Because that killed my speed faster than the enemy if he didn't, which gained me the advantage of being to his rear as he zoomed up. If he rolled too, that also worked to my advantage because it killed his speed faster than mine.

CCJ: So, you would get the advantage no matter what, if the German also pulled up into a vertical climb. What if he didn't follow?

RSJ: Then he would just fly by. If he still wanted to fight, he could extend out and turn around, but I would be waiting for him. If he turned either left or right, I would be on him in a few seconds.

CCJ: The smart Germans just kept on going when you pulled up.

RSJ: I never ran across one smart enough to keep going. They all tried to follow.

CCJ: How many got away after falling for your trap?

RSJ: I really can't say for sure. Some got away because he had friends to cover his tail. Besides, that maneuver was not so much to get him, but to prevent him from getting me. In that respect, it always worked.


From Shaw's book :

Here is Robert S. Johnson again from Shaw's Fighter Combat Manuevering :


This actual combat example of the spiral-zoom technique is found in

Thunderbolt! by Major Robert S. Johnson.

Habit brought my head swiveling around to look behind me. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I was just in time to see a Focke-Wulf bouncing, nose twinkling from the .30-calibers. </span> My left hand slammed forward on the throttle, my right hand hauled back and left on the stick, my heart went to the top of my head and the Thunderbolt leaped upward. I racked the Jug into a tight left climbing turn, staying just above and in front of the pursuing Focke-Wulf. . . . To get any strikes on me the [German] first had to turn inside me, and then haul his nose up steeply to place his bullets ahead of me. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Focke-Wulf just didn't have it. At 8,000 feet he stalled out </span> while the Thunderbolt roared smoothly; I kicked over into a roll and locked onto his tail.1

Shaw's Fighter Combat Manuevering p.121



Official USAAF flight test P47 vs 190
Part of the dive test:

"However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver."



__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Viper-I thought you'd pop out from the woodwork sooner or later Kahuna. This is just like the Mustang III thread all over again isn't it?
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________


Are you talking about reporting an already known problem and acting like you personally discovered it ?

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2007, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Like a lot of planes in the game, the radiator flaps are broken, and cool as though in the open position, even when closed. This could be why it's not overheating at high alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the broken part is that you see word closed but it is working as automatic.
A lot of the planes have had that and yes I know in the cycle there is both closed and
automatic but not for all. Maybe it is a miscode, easy to do in large projects.

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2007, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of actual overheating, it would appear that overheating is used in general within the sim as a device to prevent players from greatly exceeding various engine limitations (such for example as the 5 minute limitation for +25 psi operations of the Mustang III, or 67"Hg operations of the P-51B-D) despite the fact that test documentation would suggest that overheating would not in fact limit performance at high speed (see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64161.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you get overheat or time to overheat on that document?

You do know what IRL overheat means? What happens at overheat? It is not engine melting.

Oil and cooling capacity only makes performance degradation a matter of time. They had no
way to filter the broken oil and AFAIK no plane was able to dump and replace oil in flight.
So how IRL can it be that overheat makes no difference except with limited time in overheat?

Viper2005_
02-16-2007, 11:51 AM
WWMaxGunz read the reports to which I linked; overheating would not limit performance at high speed in the quoted examples because there would be no overheating. If you read the document you will find that it states:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The average of the scoop positions for all flight conditions was approximately 8 inches </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, read http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In order to obtain adequate cooling, level speeds were done with the radiator duct flap set to a gap of 8 inches, as coolant temperatures were excessively high with the normal setting of 7" gap. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>. The "normal setting" is actually the closed position AFAIK. So, very slight opening of the shutters was sufficient to maintain coolant temperatures within limits.

***

Kahuna, again out comes the misdirection. I didn't respond to your statement about the overheat needing to be fixed if it is broken since that's only stating the obvious. I would hope that you want to see any performance error fixed.

Compressibility in IL2 isn't modelled. The P-38 is a classic example of this. It suffers from elevator heaviness just like that of the 109, probably based on the same code. In the game, this behaviour is IAS dependent rather than Mach number depended, and for reasons best known to Oleg and Co. it bites at low level where it shouldn't and fails to bite at high altitude where it should!

The P-38 and P-47 ended up with mods to incorporate dive recovery flaps (not dive brakes as you correctly point out) because of their anaemic tactical Mach numbers. This work was not required on the P-51 because it had a much more sensible tactical Mach number of almost 0.80 (superior to most Luftwaffe fighters and almost as good as the Spitfire).

Note that the tactical Mach number is the maximum Mach number at which the test pilot considered the aircraft to be able to engage in tactical manoeuvres (ie guns tracking tasks). Structural Mach numbers are an altogether different animal. But uncontrolled dives are useless in combat for anything other than running away, and therefore the only real purpose of building an aeroplane with a large margin between its tactical and structural Mach numbers is to instil pilots with confidence that their aeroplane will not fall apart.

I realise that Oleg & Co. don't accept IL2C data as the basis for mods. That isn't what those graphs are for.

The purpose of the graphs is to provide an easy way of comparing expected IL2 performance with R/L performance so that:

1) You can all get a nice overview of what's going on.

2) I can work out where best to spend my limited testing time.

Obviously, any submission to 1C will be based upon tracks recorded.

As for the climb graph, you are misinterpreting.

At low level, the turbocharger is capable of delivering a far higher manifold pressure than the engine can handle. Therefore the waste gate must be opened to control manifold pressure to the selected value of 70" Hg or 65" Hg or whatever.

At some high altitude a point is reached where the manifold pressure being asked for is the maximum that the turbocharger is capable of supplying (probably because limiting turbocharger rpm has been reached, though it could also be because the waste-gate is fully closed). This is the Full Throttle Height for that manifold pressure.

(FTHs are higher in level speed runs due to ram effect.)

Now look at the climb chart. Consider only the lines without water-injection. You will see that initially they remain a constant distance apart. At about 20,000 feet the FTH for 65" Hg is reached in the climb, and the 65" Hg line starts to bend to the left. At about 27,000 feet it meets the 56" Hg line, because this is the FTH for 56" Hg. Continue on up and the line now merges with the 52" Hg line at the 52" Hg FTH.

The climb graphs are complete as far as they go (up to 65" Hg), except that the water injection line stops at 32,000 feet, presumably because the water ran out.

Note that whilst the water provides a power boost it has no impact upon full throttle height (you can think of the boost as being caused by the extra mass flow of the water through the engine, though in fact it also has an impact upon the thermodynamics which is beyond the scope of this discussion).

As for that last 5" Hg, it would make no difference at altitude as already explained. At low level, "eyeballing" from the other lines on the graph you might expect about 400 fpm extra (ie 3600 fpm). I would caution however that a law of diminishing returns applies to this sort of thing because adding power ups the disk loading of the prop and therefore hurts its propulsive efficiency.

This increase would still leave the in-game version with excessive performance at low level, but far more importantly IMO it would have no effect whatsoever upon the high altitude performance of the aircraft, which is the area of flight in which the errors are perhaps most dramatic.

Von_Rat
02-16-2007, 11:57 AM
so if the p47 doesnt overheat irl at alt, whats the problem?

because in the d9 at any altitude i can run boost till tank runs dry to.

all you have to do is drop throttle to 104% for a few seconds when overheat message comes on, then its back up to 110%. you can do this on a d9 this till tanks run dry to. without blowing the engine

Viper2005_
02-16-2007, 12:02 PM
1) Not with the radiators closed.

2) Anyway in the P-47D you just leave the throttle at 110% which is rather different.

Von_Rat
02-16-2007, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
1) Not with the radiators closed.

2) Anyway in the P-47D you just leave the throttle at 110% which is rather different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1.does that doc say how long to overheat with rads closed?

those links you posted relating to overheat are for mustang so they are worthless for this disscussion.


2.its only slighty differant, big deal you gotta play with throttle a little. if they change p47 the same trick better apply. im getting sick of american planes being held to a hi standard, but all the other planes can slide.

Viper2005_
02-16-2007, 12:25 PM
Overheat shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be the 5 minute limit for the use of WEP. But since the game uses overheat to enforce that type of limitation as well as to simulate actual overheating we have a problem.

Don't forget that with open radiators (or auto radiators and a hot engine, the D9 loses quite a lot of speed).

Von_Rat
02-16-2007, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Overheat shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be the 5 minute limit for the use of WEP. But since the game uses overheat to enforce that type of limitation as well as to simulate actual overheating we have a problem.

Don't forget that with open radiators (or auto radiators and a hot engine, the D9 loses quite a lot of speed). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there is no 5 minute time limit on wep for d9 as i explained before. you never have to drop out of wep with d9, you just slighty reduce throttle for a few seconds. this trick works at any alt. not just up hi like the p47.


as for d9 rads and losing speed, as far as i know for irl that was correct.
how far did 47s rads have to be open at alt to keep from overheating and what was its speed loss? also how long could it go with rads closed till overheat at alt?

JG4_Helofly
02-16-2007, 01:29 PM
Nice stuff Kahuna.

If you try such dive and zoom tactics in il2 you are dead after the first zoom climb lol.

Viper2005_
02-16-2007, 01:32 PM
*sigh*

The P-47 should be limited to 5 minutes of operation in WEP.

The game uses "overheat" to enforce engine operating limits as well as to model actual overheating. So in other words, if you're flying a P-51 at WEP in a level speed run, IRL you won't overheat the engine with the radiator in AUTO, but if you exceed the time limit for operations at WEP you greatly increase the risk of engine failure and/or crew-chief induced injuries.

The game doesn't model this kind of failure mode, so instead it uses "overheat". Almost all the radiators in the game are deliberately undermodelled. Once a certain overheat temperature is reached a timer starts and after a specified time period the engine is damaged. Subsequent failure is then inevitable.

This is supposed to prevent pilots from operating their engines beyond their limits.

However, it relies upon the engines actually overheating when WEP is used.

Since the P-47 does not overheat at WEP when flown at high altitudes, even with its cowl flaps closed, its pilots are free to use WEP for totally unrealistic lengths of time.

You make a comparison with the Dora, which I happen to fly in the game quite a lot. The Dora has automatic radiators with a manual override. In the AUTO setting the radiators start to open before the engine overheats, but even when fully opened (imposing a large drag penalty) they are unable to prevent the engine from overheating at WEP. However, as you say, with the radiators open you can remove the overheat message by throttling back slightly for a while.

You can't do that with the radiators closed. But with the radiators open you can't reach your top speed, so if you're engaging a P-47 at altitude, the P-47 pilot can just leave his throttle open, whilst you have to juggle throttle and radiator at the behest of the overheat message. This bears no relationship whatever to reality, wherein the P-47 pilot would be more likely to be limited by the 5 minute WEP time limit (doubtless there is a similar time limit for the Dora, but my German isn't that great).

Overheating is a far more important issue in the game than it was IRL because of the way in which the overheat model is (or at least appears to be) used to enforce engine operating limits.

arrow80
02-16-2007, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
*sigh*

The P-47 should be limited to 5 minutes of operation in WEP.

The game uses "overheat" to enforce engine operating limits as well as to model actual overheating. So in other words, if you're flying a P-51 at WEP in a level speed run, IRL you won't overheat the engine with the radiator in AUTO, but if you exceed the time limit for operations at WEP you greatly increase the risk of engine failure and/or crew-chief induced injuries.

The game doesn't model this kind of failure mode, so instead it uses "overheat". Almost all the radiators in the game are deliberately undermodelled. Once a certain overheat temperature is reached a timer starts and after a specified time period the engine is damaged. Subsequent failure is then inevitable.

This is supposed to prevent pilots from operating their engines beyond their limits.

However, it relies upon the engines actually overheating when WEP is used.

Since the P-47 does not overheat at WEP when flown at high altitudes, even with its cowl flaps closed, its pilots are free to use WEP for totally unrealistic lengths of time.

You make a comparison with the Dora, which I happen to fly in the game quite a lot. The Dora has automatic radiators with a manual override. In the AUTO setting the radiators start to open before the engine overheats, but even when fully opened (imposing a large drag penalty) they are unable to prevent the engine from overheating at WEP. However, as you say, with the radiators open you can remove the overheat message by throttling back slightly for a while.

You can't do that with the radiators closed. But with the radiators open you can't reach your top speed, so if you're engaging a P-47 at altitude, the P-47 pilot can just leave his throttle open, whilst you have to juggle throttle and radiator at the behest of the overheat message. This bears no relationship whatever to reality, wherein the P-47 pilot would be more likely to be limited by the 5 minute WEP time limit (doubtless there is a similar time limit for the Dora, but my German isn't that great).

Overheating is a far more important issue in the game than it was IRL because of the way in which the overheat model is (or at least appears to be) used to enforce engine operating limits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

ljazz
02-16-2007, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
*sigh*

The P-47 should be limited to 5 minutes of operation in WEP.

The game uses "overheat" to enforce engine operating limits as well as to model actual overheating. So in other words, if you're flying a P-51 at WEP in a level speed run, IRL you won't overheat the engine with the radiator in AUTO, but if you exceed the time limit for operations at WEP you greatly increase the risk of engine failure and/or crew-chief induced injuries.

The game doesn't model this kind of failure mode, so instead it uses "overheat". Almost all the radiators in the game are deliberately undermodelled. Once a certain overheat temperature is reached a timer starts and after a specified time period the engine is damaged. Subsequent failure is then inevitable.

This is supposed to prevent pilots from operating their engines beyond their limits.

However, it relies upon the engines actually overheating when WEP is used.

Since the P-47 does not overheat at WEP when flown at high altitudes, even with its cowl flaps closed, its pilots are free to use WEP for totally unrealistic lengths of time.

You make a comparison with the Dora, which I happen to fly in the game quite a lot. The Dora has automatic radiators with a manual override. In the AUTO setting the radiators start to open before the engine overheats, but even when fully opened (imposing a large drag penalty) they are unable to prevent the engine from overheating at WEP. However, as you say, with the radiators open you can remove the overheat message by throttling back slightly for a while.

You can't do that with the radiators closed. But with the radiators open you can't reach your top speed, so if you're engaging a P-47 at altitude, the P-47 pilot can just leave his throttle open, whilst you have to juggle throttle and radiator at the behest of the overheat message. This bears no relationship whatever to reality, wherein the P-47 pilot would be more likely to be limited by the 5 minute WEP time limit (doubtless there is a similar time limit for the Dora, but my German isn't that great).

Overheating is a far more important issue in the game than it was IRL because of the way in which the overheat model is (or at least appears to be) used to enforce engine operating limits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

5 minutes?... doesn't the training video shown over at zenos say 11 minutes?

And how important is this overheat anyway? 25k and above (and maybe even lower) wep does nothing. Little to no rpm increase, and zero speed increase (compared 110% x 100 pp, and 99% x 100pp).

ljazz

Von_Rat
02-17-2007, 01:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
*sigh*

The P-47 should be limited to 5 minutes of operation in WEP.

The game uses "overheat" to enforce engine operating limits as well as to model actual overheating. So in other words, if you're flying a P-51 at WEP in a level speed run, IRL you won't overheat the engine with the radiator in AUTO, but if you exceed the time limit for operations at WEP you greatly increase the risk of engine failure and/or crew-chief induced injuries.

The game doesn't model this kind of failure mode, so instead it uses "overheat". Almost all the radiators in the game are deliberately undermodelled. Once a certain overheat temperature is reached a timer starts and after a specified time period the engine is damaged. Subsequent failure is then inevitable.

This is supposed to prevent pilots from operating their engines beyond their limits.

However, it relies upon the engines actually overheating when WEP is used.

Since the P-47 does not overheat at WEP when flown at high altitudes, even with its cowl flaps closed, its pilots are free to use WEP for totally unrealistic lengths of time.

You make a comparison with the Dora, which I happen to fly in the game quite a lot. The Dora has automatic radiators with a manual override. In the AUTO setting the radiators start to open before the engine overheats, but even when fully opened (imposing a large drag penalty) they are unable to prevent the engine from overheating at WEP. However, as you say, with the radiators open you can remove the overheat message by throttling back slightly for a while.

You can't do that with the radiators closed. But with the radiators open you can't reach your top speed, so if you're engaging a P-47 at altitude, the P-47 pilot can just leave his throttle open, whilst you have to juggle throttle and radiator at the behest of the overheat message. This bears no relationship whatever to reality, wherein the P-47 pilot would be more likely to be limited by the 5 minute WEP time limit (doubtless there is a similar time limit for the Dora, but my German isn't that great).

Overheating is a far more important issue in the game than it was IRL because of the way in which the overheat model is (or at least appears to be) used to enforce engine operating limits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

5 minutes?... doesn't the training video shown over at zenos say 11 minutes?

And how important is this overheat anyway? 25k and above (and maybe even lower) wep does nothing. Little to no rpm increase, and zero speed increase (compared 110% x 100 pp, and 99% x 100pp).

ljazz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*groan*

wait a second, let me get this straight.

irl p47 didnt overheat at alt with rads closed or nearly closed and it could use wep for 11 minutes. ingame at 8k (according to ljazz) its wep is useless, also according to those *****ing about it, the p47 doesn't overheat above 7k even with wep.

to summarize, below 7k it overheats using wep, above 8k according to ljazz it doesn't need wep. so it shouldnt overheat even with rads closed at 8k.

so in effect this whine is only about the p47 being able to use wep, beteewn the alts of 7k and 8k ONLY, for more than 11 minutes without overheating. it only has 20 mins of wep anyway if i remember correctly. chances are he already used 5 mins of that climbing to 7k.

yep this is a real show stopper,,,im sure oleg will get right on it.

actually i think his time would be better spent fixing d9s ability to use wep at any alt all day long, by just dropping throttle to 103 for a few seconds.

note.. any decent p47 pilot is going to take the fight from 7k to 8k in less than 11 mins.

ljazz
02-17-2007, 04:25 AM
~S~! VonRat....

My point exactly!!!

I'm getting the impression Viper is trying to mislead everyone here with some false info. First, he's called out on the critical mach number, and now he's pulled this 5mins out of his.... nevermind.

And be glad this sim doesn't incorporate all the mods done by the Republic reps out in the field. I know I'm glad, because I like to fly the Antons too, and couldn't imagine going against Razorbacks able to manage 70+" of MP.

ljazz

Marcel_Albert
02-17-2007, 05:14 AM
To say that the Thunderbolt had inferior limiting mach number than FW and Bf is very wrong not to say illogical if you look at how a P-47 is built and its wings .

The British tested the P-47 , P-51 and Spitfire on this , and it was found that both P-51 and P-47 had a Mach number superior to M 0.8 which is sensibly superior to any Axis fighter mach number .

The Spitfire had the best figures for Mach limits , it was below 0.90 , all these tests were performed at Farnborough in 1944 , anyone can verify it .
I know this from an aviation magazine i have under my hand , i will try to find a link online or scan the article , or just search through google and type farnoborough tests 1944 , John Charnley , Ron Smelt , you might find something , otherwise i'll try to find a net source .

P-47 was the best diver of the war by a country mile , every single account of 47 veterans i've read confirm it quite clearly , it's not like they don't know what they are talking about , they fought with it and survived the war also thanks to this .


For the overheat , it's funny that some come for the P-47 , it overheats like crazy at low alts , the only altitude it doesn't , and it's perfectly normal , is above 7000m where the WEP is useless ... but above 8000m , it does overheat , i flew it last night , and for sure it overheated .
Some planes like Dora (best propelled plane in game overall ) can run with boost indefintely ... which gives them another big advantage added to their historically correct superior performances over 47's at low to medium alts ....

Really , actually , the R-2800 overheating is exagerated compared to other engines in game that should overheat at least as much or perhaps slightly less , for example the BMW801 had overheating problems , but in game , not really (i mean not more than any other engine ) .... Same for the MiG engine , it should overheat more , many pilots accounted that this was a serious issue with that plane .

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2007, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
WWMaxGunz read the reports to which I linked; overheating would not limit performance at high speed in the quoted examples because there would be no overheating. If you read the document you will find that it states:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The average of the scoop positions for all flight conditions was approximately 8 inches </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, read http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In order to obtain adequate cooling, level speeds were done with the radiator duct flap set to a gap of 8 inches, as coolant temperatures were excessively high with the normal setting of 7" gap. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>. The "normal setting" is actually the closed position AFAIK. So, very slight opening of the shutters was sufficient to maintain coolant temperatures within limits.

*** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay. I note from the first linked document that "The average of the scoop positions for all
flight conditions was approximately 8 inches, or open to the flush position, therefore, all
performance was corrected to the flush position.".
Now I see a document saying that 8 1/2" (appx 8 inches?) was done since 7 1/4 was not enough.

Maybe it's just me but I get this idea that 8 1/2" might just be full open. No biggie since
by the same text it was adequate to prevent overheat! I also note that this deems to be
true for all test conditions which I see covers sea level up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Hey, I'm just trying to keep up to where I don't lose total sight!

With that in mind, what is wrong with the overheat since I obviously must be missing something
between arguments, facts, whatever? Only on the highspeed should there be no overheat but
on sustained lower speed climbs there is not enough airflow?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Compressibility in IL2 isn't modelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please just trust this or email Oleg, there is some compression effects modelled but due to
hardware limits they are shortcuts and not so close to real as desired --- or at least that is
the strong impression I have gotten between posts and the rare and short email reply.
There is something definitely done but it is partial and that's as much as they can get away
with in this series. Yeah I am sure they *could* do more by sacrificing some other things
but that is a call only MG can make. What does it take to run FM calcs in both TAS and mach?

Brain32
02-17-2007, 06:10 AM
First of all about M and D(150 octane), the plane can either be D_late or M, or a fantasy plane like BF109Z for example http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif. You choose http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> to summarize, below 7k it overheats using wep </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not quite, it does overheat at low levels but the treshold is much lower than 7000m

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> above 8k according to ljazz it doesn't need wep </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He is however WRONG, wep stops being usefull above 9200m, that's almost to the top where alt stops being modelled(10 000m)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> actually i think his time would be better spent fixing d9s ability to use wep at any alt all day long, by just dropping throttle to 103 for a few seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny you mention it, I'm all for it, let's fix all planes that can do that(like P38,P51 Tempest,ME109, and nearly any plane in the game that has WEP). However please note that ALL THOSE PLANES NEED RADS OPEN TO RUN LIKE THAT AND RECIEVE SPEED PENALTY FOR THIS!!!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> To say that the Thunderbolt had inferior limiting mach number than FW and Bf is very wrong not to say illogical if you look at how a P-47 is built and its wings . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ofcourse YOU know best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> For the overheat , it's funny that some come for the P-47 , it overheats like crazy at low alts... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like crazy, come on it's average at best, you can run it at 100% without wep ofcourse all day long...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> is above 7000m where the WEP is useless </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
NO, it's above 9200m

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Some planes like Dora(...) can run with boost indefintely </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but not only FW190D9 and NOT AT FULL BOOST AND NOT WITH RADS CLOSED!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> for example the BMW801 had overheating problems </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes on the prototype FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif and BMW is one of the more overheating engines, after v408 it is not cooler than SabreIIa on a Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ljazz
02-17-2007, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:

[
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> above 8k according to ljazz it doesn't need wep </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He is however WRONG, wep stops being usefull above 9200m, that's almost to the top where alt stops being modelled(10 000m)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Brain, but please go in and give it a try. You'll see the rpm needle go up ever so slightly, and no speed increase..... maybe after leveling off and flying for about 30-40 seconds you'll see this usefulness you mention? The best I saw was 10mph on the speed bar, but even less (3mph maybe?) on the speedometer (because of how it rounds off)... not sure how useful that is.

ljazz

Edit: just messing a bit in QMB, and at 25,000 to 25,500 ft, I stay right in the 250mph and 260mph area, with no clear advantage between 70x70 up to 110x100 (%throttle x % PP). BTW, if you find a way for me to get it faster, please let me know! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Marcel_Albert
02-17-2007, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Ofcourse YOU know best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No , but the RAF pilots , the magazine i have and the veterans account i've read surely convince me more than someone who wants to pork the plane while other plane have worse issues , especially when this person says P-47 have max mach number below German planes which is totally wrong and surprising since this person often says very interesting things and make good posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have found a source , it's worth what it is , but that is the only one i could find quickly :

http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Supermarine_Spitfire

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">During the spring of 1944 high speed diving trials were being performed at Farnborough to investigate the handling of aircraft at near the sound barrier. Because it had the highest limiting Mach number of any aircraft at that time, a Spitfire XI was chosen to take part in these trials. It was during these trials that EN 409, flown by Squadron Leader Martindale, reached 606 mph (Mach 0.89) in a 45 degree dive. Unfortunately the aircraft could not cope with this speed and the propeller and reduction gear broke off. Martindale successfully glided the twenty miles back to the airfield and landed safely.


From: Spitfire - A Test Pilot's Story - Arrow Books

"Until the arrival of jet-propelled fighters with swept-back wings, such as the North American F-86 Sabre the highest recorded subsonic Mach number to be achieved by any fighter aircraft was the M 0.9 achieved in a dive by a specially modified and instrumented PR Mk XI Spitfire at the RAE Farnborough. This was achieved in 1944 by the late Squadron Leader Martindale, AFC (and Bar) in the course of some dives carried out with the object of obtaining full-scale data of the drag co-efficient of the Spitfire wing in flight at high Mach numbers. The aeroplane had been fitted with a fully feathering Rotol propeller in order to prevent overspeeding of the engine at the high altitudes at which these dives would necessarily have to be made.

Martindale had two forced landings in the course of these tests due to engine failure, in the second of which he injured his back.

An earlier series of tests, carried out by the late Squadron Leader Tobin, AFC under the technical supervision of John Charnley and Ron Smelt , was designed to compare the high Mach number characteristics of the Spitfire, the Mustang Mk I and the P-47 Thunderbolt. These tests resulted in the Spitfire achieving a corrected Mach number of a shade under M 0.9 against the Mustang Mk I which achieved just over M 0.8 with the Thunderbolt in the 'also ran' category.

Technical opinions vary as to the reason for the Spitfire's extraordinary high Mach number capabilities but certainly Mitchell's decision to go for a wing of very low thickness/chord ratio (13 per cent at the root and 6 per cent at the tip) had much to do with it. Ron Smelt (who went on to a distinguished post-war career as Technical Vice-President of Lockheed in California) has recently expressed the view to me that Mitchell's choice of wing section also had much to do with it.

Even more remarkable than the achievements of a modified aeroplane under special test conditions at Farnborough was the fact that in the pilot's notes of the standard Spitfire F. Mk IX in 1942 'never exceed' figures were quoted at heights which represented a Mach number of M 0.85 (there were no Machmeters available for production aircraft then). That any operational aircraft off the production line, cannons sprouting from its wings and warts and all, could readily be controlled at this speed when the early jet aircraft such as Meteors, Vampires, P-80s, etc could not, was certainly extraordinary" - Jeffrey Quill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Anyhow i respect your opinion and i'm entitled to mine , i don't agree with you on BMW engine , it doesn't overheat more than any other engine ingame or just barely IMHO , and IRL they still had problems of overheating even after the FW prototype even if they found a way to cool it better afterwards , and when you see R-2800's overheating ingame , it's quite exagerated TBH , especially if you compare it to pilots accounts , honestly it shouldn't overheat more than a BMW that is running with boost continously like 99% of 190's pilots online do , but ok nevermind , your opinion is fair enough and i respect it , no problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
02-17-2007, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> than a BMW that is running with full boost continously like 99% of 190's pilots online do , but ok nevermind </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
NOT FULL BOOST AND WITH RADS OPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What part of that do you fail to understand?????
***cing unbelievable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

And read your little report more carefully, what part of "specially modified and instrumented PR Mk XI Spitfire" do you fail to understand? EDIT *bah* why bother...

Marcel_Albert
02-17-2007, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
And read your little report more carefully, what part of "specially modified and instrumented PR Mk XI Spitfire" do you fail to understand? EDIT *bah* why bother... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has no influence on the purpose i posted this excerpt .. it was to show the Mach number of the P-51 and P-47 that is above 0.80 ....

Shpitfeuer is OT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Hmm , well , you can run full boost with Fw-190 for a long time mate , and as soon as you overheat , you open radiator and put 103% throttle WITH boost and it all cools down very easily and quickly , thus we can say that in a Fw-190 , you can run continously with boost without having to bother overheating which is far from realistic if you ask me .

Now take a P-47 at 2000m and try the same , you 'll kill your engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif try it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
02-17-2007, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hmm , well , you can run full boost with Fw-190 for a long time mate , and as soon as you overheat , you open radiator and put 103% throttle WITH boost and it all cools down very easily and quickly , thus we can say that in a Fw-190 , you can run continously with boost without having to bother overheating which is far from realistic if you ask me . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fw190D9 will cool down relatively quickly, Antons are a bit more reluctant(A8,A9) to impossible to do that(A6 and older), however P51,P38,Tempest(since v408) can all do the same, run it hard and long...it overheats...throtthle down to 103 and it's OK again, however the point you still need to grasp is that all those planes run with rads OPEN, try testing planes with open rads and with closed rads you will notice HUGE difference, so these planes atleast get some penalty and even if they can run at high power settings longer than what the real ones could they can't run as fast this is the big difference, 103+WEP with rads at 6-8 is much better than 110+wep+rads fully closed no problem

Marcel_Albert
02-17-2007, 08:44 AM
Yes you have a point Brain , it's true that the Thunderbolt should overheat after some time with radiator closed at 7-8000m at emergency power , it seems it only affects the 150 octane version though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But what i would Really want to be fixed too , is the number of ammo for the P-47 , currently we have half the historical amount , and when we take " extra ammunition" to have the correct amount , the FM , mainly the climbrate is affected . I really hoped they'd fix that in 4.08 but they didn't .

Brain32
02-17-2007, 08:54 AM
Yes and not only that, but when you take bombs or/and rockets you are stuck with the incorrect default ammo loadout http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 10:45 AM
Marcel_Albert, what part of <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">with the Thunderbolt in the 'also ran' category </div></BLOCKQUOTE> from Quill's book don't you understand?

Let me help you.

also-ran
A noun
1 loser, also-ran
a contestant who loses the contest
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/also-ran

The P-47 had a tactical Mach number of about 0.72, the Mustang had a tactical Mach number of about 0.78 and the Spitfire IX was good to about 0.83 when tested by Eric Brown if you read his various books (especially "Wings on my Sleeve" and both volumes of "Wings of the Weird and Wonderful"). If memory serves (I am at university and my WWII books are at home), all three types mentioned suffered from Mach tuck (certainly the Spitfire did, and it's a fair bet the P-47 did too from the dive recovery flaps). As such, the limiting Mach number was that at which either:

1) the nose could not be held up with the stick on the back stop

Or

2) the nose could not be held up with the pilot applying his full strength to the elevator

Squadron Leader Martindale was able to take the Spitfire XI to Mach 0.9 or so because he was a very strong man rather than because the PR.XI was especially different from the Mk IX. IIRC the PR variant was chosen for the tests because it was simple to add the instrumentation in the former camera bays.

***The limiting Mach number and tactical Mach number are different things BTW. The tactical Mach number is that at which the aeroplane can still fight (ie perform a guns tracking task) whilst the limiting Mach number is that at which the aeroplane may just be controlled (usually this means that the dive angle can be held constant against Mach tuck).***

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
5 minutes?... doesn't the training video shown over at zenos say 11 minutes?

And how important is this overheat anyway? 25k and above (and maybe even lower) wep does nothing. Little to no rpm increase, and zero speed increase (compared 110% x 100 pp, and 99% x 100pp).

ljazz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, 5 minutes. You can go and look at the P-47B tests and see a 5 minute limit. And then you can go and look at the P-47N tests and see the same 5 minute limit. It therefore strikes me as quite reasonable to assume that the 5 minute limit was a constant across the board.

P-47B
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Time to climb to 15,000 feet with engine operating at military rated power at 2000 b.h.p. was 6.03 minutes but only five minutes operation at this power is permissible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47b-5902.html

P-47N
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg

Overheat is very important. WEP is all about manifold pressure, not RPM which should remain constant thanks to the wonderful constant speed propeller fitted to the P-47.

If you look at the graphs I posted in my first post, you will see that IRL, water injection provides a useful speed increase up to about 35,000 feet.

You will also see that the critical altitude for 56" Hg is about 29,000 feet and that therefore above this altitude it is impossible to attain even 56" Hg. Thus WEP at these heights actually constitutes the use of limiting turbo rpm rather than limiting manifold pressure.

In the game, as Brain states, WEP has no effect above about 9200 m. However, full throttle operations at such altitudes imply the use of limiting turbo rpm, which probably has a time limit associated with it...

*** The 11 minutes quoted in the video at Zeno's is simply the amount of time you can get in WEP before your water runs out. It doesn't say that you're allowed to use it up all at once does it? It might interest you to watch my track and note that you get rather more than 11 minutes of water in the game...***

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Okay. I note from the first linked document that "The average of the scoop positions for all
flight conditions was approximately 8 inches, or open to the flush position, therefore, all
performance was corrected to the flush position.".
Now I see a document saying that 8 1/2" (appx 8 inches?) was done since 7 1/4 was not enough.

Maybe it's just me but I get this idea that 8 1/2" might just be full open. No biggie since
by the same text it was adequate to prevent overheat! I also note that this deems to be
true for all test conditions which I see covers sea level up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> The flush position is the point at which the radiator flap lines up with the outside of the aeroplane and is therefore quite close to the minimum drag position.

My understanding is that the 7" opening is actually the closed position, since most American test reports seem to measure cooling flap position in "inches open from flush". eg:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

Wide open would therefore imply a gap of over a foot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Hey, I'm just trying to keep up to where I don't lose total sight!

With that in mind, what is wrong with the overheat since I obviously must be missing something
between arguments, facts, whatever? Only on the highspeed should there be no overheat but
on sustained lower speed climbs there is not enough airflow?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that in the game, we don't have engine failures due to excessive use of WEP except via overheating. Most of the aircraft in the game seem to have deliberately undermodelled radiators. Once a certain temperature is reached, the overheat warning comes up. This starts the overheat timer. Each aircraft has its own overheat time limit. Once the overheat time limit is reached, the engine is damaged. If you once get rid of the overheat warning, the timer is reset, a "feature" which is regularly exploited by the online crowd.

Since the P-47 does not overheat at altitude, its overheat timer never starts ticking, and therefore the P-47 pilot is free to use full power at all times...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Compressibility in IL2 isn't modelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please just trust this or email Oleg, there is some compression effects modelled but due to
hardware limits they are shortcuts and not so close to real as desired --- or at least that is
the strong impression I have gotten between posts and the rare and short email reply.
There is something definitely done but it is partial and that's as much as they can get away
with in this series. Yeah I am sure they *could* do more by sacrificing some other things
but that is a call only MG can make. What does it take to run FM calcs in both TAS and mach? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have tested this. There are some hard coded behaviours (eg P-38, some of the Russian rocket planes). However, these behaviours are IAS dependent rather than Mach number dependent...

It is actually possible to attain supersonic speeds in many of the aircraft in the game from high altitude dives, but since the game doesn't model Mach number effects, the only way to work out if you've done this or not is by reference to standard atmosphere tables...

BigKahuna_GS
02-17-2007, 11:34 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Viper-Kahuna, again out comes the misdirection. I didn't respond to your statement about the overheat needing to be fixed if it is broken since that's only stating the obvious. I would hope that you want to see any performance error fixed.

Compressibility in IL2 isn't modelled. The P-38 is a classic example of this. It suffers from elevator heaviness just like that of the 109, probably based on the same code. In the game, this behaviour is IAS dependent rather than Mach number depended, and for reasons best known to Oleg and Co. it bites at low level where it shouldn't and fails to bite at high altitude where it should!

Note that the tactical Mach number is the maximum Mach number at which the test pilot considered the aircraft to be able to engage in tactical manoeuvres (ie guns tracking tasks). Structural Mach numbers are an altogether different animal. But uncontrolled dives are useless in combat for anything other than running away, and therefore the only real purpose of building an aeroplane with a large margin between its tactical and structural Mach numbers is to instil pilots with confidence that their aeroplane will not fall apart.

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



Are you seriously calling the P38 elevator "heaviness" ? Are you completely clueless ?
P38 drivers "wish" they only had heavy elevators similar to a 109 instead of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">complete and total</span> lock up at low altitudes and at relatively low speeds that DID NOT exceed the placarded mach limitations. That has been the fatal flaw for years with the P38 being able to be a true BnZ fighter.

There is also complete and total elevator lock when deploying dive recovery flaps--which the inventer of the dive recovery flap NACA scientist John Stack said immediately restored "elevator effectiveness when deployed by redirecting the downwash angle" Not in this sim.

And if the dive of the P47 was so uncontrollable during high speed dives why did P47 kills over 190s soar while 190s tried to evade by split-S/diving away from P47s? In many books Luft pilots talk about the superior dive performance of both the P47 and P51 over their aircraft.

NACA showes a much higher tactical mach number than.72, NACA's number is closer to .79 mach. Look it up.

Let me get this right.
The P47D overheats like hell on the deck even when using cowl flaps--the Dora does not.
The P47D training video states 11 minutes on WEP. At the altitudes you are speaking of WEP is of little benifit. Utilizing 150 grade fuel has engine cooling benifits. There are also new technical directives of utilizing WEP with 150 grade fuel.
German radial engines have enjoyed for years better damage modeling over the small caliber magic
kill of the R-2800 radial engines. How about some parity here ? There is absoulutely NO REASON why- given the legendary ruggedness of the R-2800- that the damage modeling should not be the same.

Wouldn't you like to see all these corrections made ? They have been there for years.

What are you *****ing about again ?



__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Viper-At low level, the turbocharger is capable of delivering a far higher manifold pressure than the engine can handle. Therefore the waste gate must be opened to control manifold pressure to the selected value of 70" Hg or 65" Hg or whatever.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________


You are failing to see again that there was <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">NO MAX ROC climb performed in this early P47D 150 grade fuel test</span>. They were experiementing utilizing several different power modes. Do you get it now ? They even turned the water injection OFF to see how the aircraft would do.

WHAT part of PRELIMINARY TESTING don't you understand ?

The P47M climb test was a max ROC with water injection.



Ahh who is misdirecting who Viper? See below :

Von Rat--actually i think his time would be better spent fixing d9s ability to use wep at any alt <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">all day long</span>, by just dropping throttle to 103 for a few seconds.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Von_Rat Posted Sat February 17 2007 00:20 Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ljazz:

quote:
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
*sigh*

The P-47 should be limited to 5 minutes of operation in WEP.

The game uses "overheat" to enforce engine operating limits as well as to model actual overheating. So in other words, if you're flying a P-51 at WEP in a level speed run, IRL you won't overheat the engine with the radiator in AUTO, but if you exceed the time limit for operations at WEP you greatly increase the risk of engine failure and/or crew-chief induced injuries.

The game doesn't model this kind of failure mode, so instead it uses "overheat". Almost all the radiators in the game are deliberately undermodelled. Once a certain overheat temperature is reached a timer starts and after a specified time period the engine is damaged. Subsequent failure is then inevitable.

This is supposed to prevent pilots from operating their engines beyond their limits.

However, it relies upon the engines actually overheating when WEP is used.

Since the P-47 does not overheat at WEP when flown at high altitudes, even with its cowl flaps closed, its pilots are free to use WEP for totally unrealistic lengths of time.

You make a comparison with the Dora, which I happen to fly in the game quite a lot. The Dora has automatic radiators with a manual override. In the AUTO setting the radiators start to open before the engine overheats, but even when fully opened (imposing a large drag penalty) they are unable to prevent the engine from overheating at WEP. However, as you say, with the radiators open you can remove the overheat message by throttling back slightly for a while.

You can't do that with the radiators closed. But with the radiators open you can't reach your top speed, so if you're engaging a P-47 at altitude, the P-47 pilot can just leave his throttle open, whilst you have to juggle throttle and radiator at the behest of the overheat message. This bears no relationship whatever to reality, wherein the P-47 pilot would be more likely to be limited by the 5 minute WEP time limit (doubtless there is a similar time limit for the Dora, but my German isn't that great).

Overheating is a far more important issue in the game than it was IRL because of the way in which the overheat model is (or at least appears to be) used to enforce engine operating limits.


5 minutes?... doesn't the training video shown over at zenos say 11 minutes?

And how important is this overheat anyway? 25k and above (and maybe even lower) wep does nothing. Little to no rpm increase, and zero speed increase (compared 110% x 100 pp, and 99% x 100pp).

ljazz


*groan*

wait a second, let me get this straight.

irl p47 didnt overheat at alt with rads closed or nearly closed and it could use wep for 11 minutes. ingame at 8k (according to ljazz) its wep is useless, also according to those *****ing about it, the p47 doesn't overheat above 7k even with wep.

to summarize, below 7k it overheats using wep, above 8k according to ljazz it doesn't need wep. so it shouldnt overheat even with rads closed at 8k.

so in effect this whine is only about the p47 being able to use wep, beteewn the alts of 7k and 8k ONLY, for more than 11 minutes without overheating. it only has 20 mins of wep anyway if i remember correctly. chances are he already used 5 mins of that climbing to 7k.

yep this is a real show stopper,,,im sure oleg will get right on it.

actually i think his time would be better spent fixing d9s ability to use wep at any alt all day long, by just dropping throttle to 103 for a few seconds.

note.. any decent p47 pilot is going to take the fight from 7k to 8k in less than 11 mins.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Von_Rat, Sat February 17 2007 03:34 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 11:55 AM
Yet again, you post first and read later (and then with extremely limited comprehension). Had you bothered to read what I have written you will see the vast majority of the points that you quote have already been refuted.

The point that I was making about the P-38 is that its elevator behaviour in-game is IAS dependent not Mach number dependent. Of course I want to see this fixed. As I said in the passage you quoted, as a result of it being an IAS effect rather than a Mach number effect in the game it bites at low level where it shouldn't and fails to bite at high altitude where it should!

If you want to throw NACA tests at me, post links, don't tell me to "look it up". I do enough "looking up" as it is refuting the nonsense claims bandied about in this thread. I would point out that the RAE were quite a way ahead of NACA in transonic research during this period, which is why the RAE were placed in charge of testing the transonic performance of the main fighters in early 1944, (their recommendations resulting in the relegation of the P-47 and P-38 to ground attack, along with the Typhoon which suffered from similar transonic problems) and the use of the P-51 as the standard long range escort fighter.

Go and buy yourself a copy of Wings on My Sleeve by Eric Brown and look it up. Here's a link for you:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wings-My-Sleeve-Eric-Brown/dp/0297845659

I have already explained the misunderstanding associated with the 11 minute claim above. Since I now have a number for the duration of the water supply I can now add excessive water duration to the list of problems to be sent in the bug report, so I guess I should perhaps be thankful for that little mistake...

As for the Dora not overheating on the deck, where the heck did that come from? Please take the time to test these things before posting rubbish. Likewise, reducing power to allow the use of WEP all day as you put it relies upon the use of open radiators, imposing a rather large drag penalty. This is very different from running a P-47 around the sky with the throttle firewalled with closed cowl flaps with no ill effects until the fuel runs out.

Anyway, enough of this misdirection, this is a thread about the P-47D.

Brain32
02-17-2007, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Ahh who is misdirecting who Viper? See below :

Von Rat--actually i think his time would be better spent fixing d9s ability to use wep at any alt all day long, by just dropping throttle to 103 for a few seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Now that's some selective reading http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Marcel_Albert
02-17-2007, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Marcel_Albert, what part of <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">with the Thunderbolt in the 'also ran' category </div></BLOCKQUOTE> from Quill's book don't you understand?

Let me help you.

also-ran
A noun
1 loser, also-ran
a contestant who loses the contest
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/also-ran
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Viper , the "also ran" part of the sentence meant that the specially modified Spitfire XI won the contest over the P-47 in tactical mach limit , nothing else , but you didn't quote the whole sentence , it says

"An earlier series of tests, carried out by the late Squadron Leader Tobin, AFC under the technical supervision of John Charnley and Ron Smelt , was designed to compare the high Mach number characteristics of the Spitfire, the Mustang Mk I and the P-47 Thunderbolt.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The P-47 had a tactical Mach number of about 0.72, the Mustang had a tactical Mach number of about 0.78 and the Spitfire IX was good to about 0.83 when tested by Eric Brown </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Again , in my aviation magazine , and in the link i provided it says that the Thunderbolt had more than 0.8 M for critical mach limit :

"These tests resulted in the Spitfire achieving a corrected Mach number of a shade under M 0.9 against the Mustang Mk I which achieved just over M 0.8 with the Thunderbolt "

Moreover , most testimonies of USAAF veteran pilots praise the dive ability of the Thunderbolt and how they often caught Focke Wulf and Messers in a dive , some American Veterans even saw with their own eyes , some Focke Wulf crash on the ground after having tried to outdive a Thunderbolt . These men are no liar , and Eric Brown isn't the only person able to speak about P47 performances , i bet many pilots would disagree with him , especially the Brits that tested the P-47 at Farnborough , the figures 0.80 are from a specific test carried by the RAF pilots , and confirms the huge majority of P-47 veteran accounts honestly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This said i respect your opinion and appreciate the links you post and your clear explanations , you are a very interesting poster and perhaps i'm mistaken , i apologize in advance if so , but i doubt mate that 47's has less stability and control in a dive than a Bf or 190 ,very unlikely frommy point of view , the plane was built for high speed and used dive extensively , it accelerate in a dive like nothing else , resistant like hell and could hold very high speed when Bf and 190 got their elevator too stiff to manoeuvre .

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 12:35 PM
The critical Mach limit is the Mach number beyond which the aeroplane cannot be held at a constant dive angle.

It is somewhat higher than the tactical Mach number which is the maximum Mach number at which the aircraft can be used to perform a tactical function, which really means guns tracking tasks.

Most WWII fighters exhibit a gap of a little under 0.1 M between their tactical Mach number and their critical Mach number.

Usually the limit in the POH will be closer to the tactical Mach number than to the critical Mach number.

In reality, critical Mach number (and to a lesser extent tactical Mach number) was also a function of pilot strength.

Note that its low tactical Mach number does not imply anything about its dive acceleration, but merely implies that its control characteristics at high Mach number left much to be desired.

My understanding is that the Fw190 had quite a light elevator up to about 400 mph IAS.

BTW, for your reference, Eric Brown happened to be one of "the Brits that tested the P-47 at Farnborough". He became CO of the Aero Flight in 1943. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Marcel_Albert
02-17-2007, 12:49 PM
Ok good post Viper , i appreciate your explanation and understood the nuance between tactical and critical mach number, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But do you think that the tactical mach number of the 190 was higher than P-47's ?

Thunderbolt could reach its tactical mach number faster in a dive , but to say that the 190 has a higher tactical mach number when so many P-47 veterans saw 190 to crash when trying to out-dive the Jugs because they lost control , or had no problem following them and shooting them at high speed during a dive , it's kind of surprising to me , but i don't say you are wrong , i'm just curious , something tells me that can't be right , but if your figures are correct , i have to admit you are right , would be cool to have another comparative element though , another authority on the subject that produced figures that could interest us about these a/c.

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 12:59 PM
Yes, I'm quite certain that the tactical Mach number of the Fw190 was higher than that of the P-47.

The chances are that the Fw190 pilots split-Sing into the ground did so as a result of the elevator becoming heavy at high IAS rather than as a result of transonic effects, which would not have been an issue at low level.

This elevator heaviness at very high IAS is mentioned in connection with the Fw190A by Eric Brown in "Wings of the Luftwaffe".

BigKahuna_GS
02-17-2007, 01:10 PM
Viper-If you want to throw NACA tests at me, post links, don't tell me to "look it up". I do enough "looking up" as it is refuting the nonsense claims bandied about in this thread. I would point out that the RAE were quite a way ahead of NACA in transonic research during this period, which is why the RAE were placed in charge of testing the transonic performance of the main fighters in early 1944, (their recommendations resulting in the relegation of the P-47 and P-38 to ground attack, along with the Typhoon which suffered from similar transonic problems) and the use of the P-51 as the standard long range escort fighter.

Go and buy yourself a copy of Wings on My Sleeve by Eric Brown and look it up. Here's a link for you:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wings-My-Sleeve-Eric-Brown/dp/0297845659
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



NACA has a more conclusive set of dive tests. They list a much higher tactical than .72, closer to .79. Also Freeman's History of the 8th AF list mach numbers much higher than .72mach. Combat reports from both sides state the P47 had better dive abilites. P47 kill records indicate many high speed kills during dives. This is much more conclusive evidence from a variety of sources indicating that you are wrong.

There are more historical/research documents than just the book you list. I would think that several tests & sources that refute Brown's findings would be good enough for you as the evidence overwhelms your position. Try buying more books and reading more material on the subject than sticking to just one book and a slippery position.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Viper-As for the Dora not overheating on the deck, where the heck did that come from? Please take the time to test these things before posting rubbish. Likewise, reducing power to allow the use of WEP all day as you put it relies upon the use of open radiators, imposing a rather large drag penalty. This is very different from running a P-47 around the sky with the throttle firewalled with closed cowl flaps with no ill effects until the fuel runs out.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



You don't see the difference here ?
You do not see this as a 190D-9 WEP Bug affording a greater tactical advantage at almost all altitudes rather than just the limited area you are reffering too with the P47D above 7-8k ?

Von Rat--actually i think his time would be better spent fixing d9s ability to use wep at any alt all day long, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">by just dropping throttle to 103 for a few seconds</span>.

Below the altiudes you are concerned with, the P47D will overheat with WEP and with cowl flaps open rather rapidly. According to Von Rat dropping the D9 throttle to 103% for a few seconds allows the use of WEP without overheat with cowl flaps open.

Do you see the differnce ?

The P47D will overheat at most altitudes <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">WITH cowl flaps open</span>. You have to back off WEP or lose the engine.

The D-9 will not over heat with cowl flaps open and a small throttle reduction to 103% and has the ability to maintain engine operation with WEP on. The P47D cannot do this at the majority of altiudes. The D-9 can.



Which plane has the larger tactical advantage here in most altitude ranges ?
Which plane has the larger envelope of WEP usage above 100% until the tank runs dry ?



__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Brain--ROTFLMAO
Now that's some selective reading
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________


Really ? you don't see this as a problem. Hmm who is being selective now?



__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Viper--Yes, I'm quite certain that the tactical Mach number of the Fw190 was higher than that of the P-47.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________


Is this just your gut feeling ?
Please show you sources as NACA conducted many P47 dive test that concluded much higher mach values that what you have posted.

Von_Rat
02-17-2007, 01:15 PM
here we go again.

viper you now claim p47d 150 octane has only 11 mins of wep. please post link to docs.

you claim p47d 150 octane has 5 mins wep use before engine damage. please post links to docs for the p47d on 150 octane, not the p47b and not the p47n. those are differant airplanes.

you claim p47d 150 octane the wep is effective up to 9200m, please post track.

your not going to get anything changed without this information, so if you don't have it stop wasting our time.

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
more B/S
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already linked you to my source. Buy the book and read it if you don't believe me.

When will you quit posting about the D9 in a P-47 thread. Can't you read? The title of the thread is "P-47D performance".

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
here we go again.

viper you now claim p47d 150 octane has only 11 mins of wep. please post link to docs.

you claim p47d 150 octane has 5 mins wep use before engine damage. please post links to docs for the p47d on 150 octane, not the p47b and not the p47n. those are differant airplanes.

you claim p47d 150 octane the wep is effective up to 9200m, please post track.

your not going to get anything changed without this information, so if you don't have it stop wasting our time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 11 minute limitation is quoted in the training video "P-47 Thunderbolt, high altitude flight and aerobatics", which is or was available on Zeno's. I can't find the link now - earlier in the day I was able to watch a preview, but now it's gone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif . But you can buy it from these nice people

http://www.zenosflightshop.com/P_47_DVD_p/p47dvd.htm
http://www.ihffilm.com/186.html

As for all the other stuff, when will you people get around to actually reading what I have posted? I have already answered your questions.

I pointed out the 5 minute limit and posted documents, but at no time did I suggest that using WEP for 5 minutes 1 second would cause instant engine damage.

*edit* found it! 11 minutes of water is shown in this video

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-47aeroRV1056.ram

Von_Rat
02-17-2007, 01:35 PM
Kahuna wrote
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Which plane has the larger tactical advantage here in most altitude ranges ?
Which plane has the larger envelope of WEP usage above 100% until the tank runs dry ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



my point exactly,,, to them its the end of the world that p47 can, according to them, run wep with rads closed beteewn 7k and 9.2k.

but its just fine that d9 along with other planes can ignore wep limit all day long at any alt. they cry booh hoo i gotta leave my rads open to use this exploit. well the p47 didnt need open rads at alt, but ok, go ahead make p47 open rads and fiddle with throttle beteewn 7 and 9k. its not going to change anything, they still are get pwned once p47 gets to 9k.

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 01:40 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Note that the P-47's over-performance at altitudes above 7 km has already been demonstrated back in post #1 with regards to speed. I will be posting climb tracks shortly.

Von_Rat
02-17-2007, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
here we go again.

viper you now claim p47d 150 octane has only 11 mins of wep. please post link to docs.

you claim p47d 150 octane has 5 mins wep use before engine damage. please post links to docs for the p47d on 150 octane, not the p47b and not the p47n. those are differant airplanes.

you claim p47d 150 octane the wep is effective up to 9200m, please post track.

your not going to get anything changed without this information, so if you don't have it stop wasting our time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 11 minute limitation is quoted in the training video "P-47 Thunderbolt, high altitude flight and aerobatics", which is or was available on Zeno's. I can't find the link now - earlier in the day I was able to watch a preview, but now it's gone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif . But you can buy it from these nice people

http://www.zenosflightshop.com/P_47_DVD_p/p47dvd.htm
http://www.ihffilm.com/186.html

As for all the other stuff, when will you people get around to actually reading what I have posted? I have already answered your questions.

I pointed out the 5 minute limit and posted documents, but at no time did I suggest that using WEP for 5 minutes 1 second would cause instant engine damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you dont have a doc saying the p47 only has 11 mins of total wep use, how can you prove 20 isnt correct.

i read your links and didnt see no doc stating theres a 5 min time limit on use of wep for the plane p47d running on 150 octane. could you please direct me.

nobodys posted track showing p47s wep being effective over 8k.

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 01:42 PM
Watch the video:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-47aeroRV1056.ram

Von_Rat
02-17-2007, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Watch the video:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-47aeroRV1056.ram </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think your screwed viper.

that video says water injection is CONTINOUSLY avialable for 11 minutes.

so the p47 should have 11 mins at wep with rads closed before overheat,, hmmm i'll have to time it at low alt. maybe oleg needs to fix it.

so i assume oleg right about it having 20 mins total too.

now all we need is a track showing p47s wep actually works in game above 8k. even if it does work, i think i can mamage to take the fight from 7k to 9k in 11 minutes.

as a said before, im sure oleg will get right on it.

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 02:12 PM
No, the video says <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Save water injection for emergencies. Think of it just the way you do your guns. &lt;on scree text&gt; Water injection continuously available for only 11 minutes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, it's quite common to quote firing times for guns eg "14 seconds of continuous fire". That doesn't mean you have to fire all your rounds at once, or that doing so is a good idea (high barrel temperatures will kill all accuracy after only a couple of seconds, and the temperature may then cause the guns to continue firing after the trigger is released, so it's generally a BAD idea).

Likewise, just because you have a total of 11 minutes of water that doesn't mean that it is advisable to use it all in one go.

You will note that I have already posted performance charts which strongly imply that a 5 minute limit was observed for the use of WEP from P-47B all the way through to the N.

Think of it as 2x5 minute applications plus a minute for luck.

Oh and if you actually bother to watch the rather long track that I posted at the start of this thread you will see that I operate the P-47 with the throttle firewalled up to well over 8 km.

Von_Rat
02-17-2007, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
No, the video says <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Save water injection for emergencies. Think of it just the way you do your guns. &lt;on scree text&gt; Water injection continuously available for only 11 minutes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, it's quite common to quote firing times for guns eg "14 seconds of continuous fire". That doesn't mean you have to fire all your rounds at once, or that doing so is a good idea (high barrel temperatures will kill all accuracy after only a couple of seconds, and the temperature may then cause the guns to continue firing after the trigger is released, so it's generally a BAD idea.

Likewise, just because you have a total of 11 minutes of water that doesn't mean that it is advisable to use it all in one go.

You will note that I have already posted performance charts which strongly imply that a 5 minute limit was observed for the use of WEP from P-47B all the way through to the N.

Think of it as 2x5 minute applications plus a minute for luck.

Oh and if you actually bother to watch the rather long track that I posted at the start of this thread you will see that I operate the P-47 with the throttle firewalled up to well over 8 km. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


continuously means just that,,,CONTINUOUSLY.
stop playing word games.

and it doesnt say it has only 11 mins total either. it says it has, Water injection continuously available for only 11 minutes. that means you can use it continously for 11 minutes.

as for your rather long track, no i didnt watch it. so tell me does that track prove that theres a ingame performance boost over 8k while using water injection.

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 02:23 PM
11 minutes of continuous use and the water tank is empty. You're the one playing word games. If you can't be bothered to watch the track, I can't be bothered to debate it with you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Von_Rat
02-17-2007, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
11 minutes of continuous use and the water tank is empty. You're the one playing word games. If you can't be bothered to watch the track, I can't be bothered to debate it with you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i watched the video, no where does it say,,11 minutes of continuous use and the water tank is empty

you gotta prove it to oleg if you want somthing done. i don't need to debate with you because oleg is just going to ignore you if you have no docs.

as for track, whats the matter. i asked you a simple question and would take your word on it.

so tell me does that track prove that theres a ingame performance boost over 8k while using water injection?

BigKahuna_GS
02-17-2007, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Viper-I already linked you to my source. Buy the book and read it if you don't believe me.". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think we are having a communication problem here..............
I respect Capt Eric Brown and I own several books that he either wrote or heavily contributed too. I am not refuting that Capt.Brown made those comments. There are many test pilots out there with many varied opinons. My father was a test pilot for a time during his 30 year aviation career with the Marines. If he tested an aircraft and reported a performance parameter that differed from the experiences of combat pilots that routinely flew the aircraft under combat conditions, I would tend to side with the opinons of combat pilots that had more flying hours in the aircraft under the harshest of conditions.

Wouldn't you agree that in order to make an imformed opinon it would be wise to look at all the refrence material you can on a subject not just "1" book ?

I think you are making a large error by clinging to only "1" book when there is a plethora of NACA reports and historical information written by respected authors on the subject.



__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Viper--When will you quit posting about the D9 in a P-47 thread. Can't you read? The title of the thread is "P-47D performance".
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________


Wouldn't you agree that in order to understand how WEP is modeled in IL2 that it would be wise to look at the WEP modeling of comtempary aircraft to the P47D ?

Now if you compare the WEP modeling of the 190D-9 to that of the P47D, there is even more question marks as how the 190D-9 can run WEP until dry at any altitude at 103% throttle with cowling flaps open <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">WITHOUT OVERHEATING</span>. The P47 sure can't do that.

Can we count on you Vipor to be objective here and make tracks of the D-9 and report this problem to 1C ?

Or does this not bother you enough and you feel the P47D is the bigger problem because your ego got bruised by being shot down by Soulman in a P47D and now your on a mission. Maybe there is a reason behind the JFC rating the P47D the best US fighter above 25,000ft.


Once again lets look at the relative performance of WEP modeling between the Dora & P47D


You don't see the difference here ?
You do not see this as a 190D-9 WEP Bug affording a greater tactical advantage at almost all altitudes rather than just the limited area you are reffering too with the P47D above 7-8k ?

Von Rat--actually i think his time would be better spent fixing d9s ability to use wep at any alt all day long, by just dropping throttle to 103 for a few seconds.

Below the altiudes you are concerned with, the P47D will overheat with WEP and with cowl flaps open rather rapidly. According to Von Rat dropping the D9 throttle to 103% for a few seconds allows the use of WEP without overheat with cowl flaps open.

Do you see the differnce ?

The P47D will overheat at most altitudes WITH cowl flaps open. You have to back off WEP or lose the engine.

The D-9 will not over heat with cowl flaps open and a small throttle reduction to 103% and has the ability to maintain engine operation with WEP on. The P47D cannot do this at the majority of altiudes. The D-9 can.


Which plane has the larger tactical advantage here in most altitude ranges ?
Which plane has the larger envelope of WEP usage above 100% throttle until the tank runs dry ?

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 03:13 PM
Kahuna, the reason I use Eric Brown's data is simply that he flew the whole spectrum of aeroplanes from P-38, P-47, P-51, Spitfire, and a plethora of Bf-109s and Fw-190s.

Since tactical Mach number for most of these aeroplanes was a function of pilot strength, different pilots would obviously report different findings. By using Eric Brown's data, we can take pilot strength out of the equation and simply see differences in aircraft performance.

I don't doubt that some stronger P-47 pilots were able to fly and fight at Mach 0.80, but the same sort of arguments could be used to suggest that some Fw190A pilots exceeded Mach 0.75 without trouble.

In Oleg's world, pilot strength isn't meant to be a factor, since we're all limited to 25 kgf stick force or whatever standard he's using.

As such, I think that it is better to use Eric Brown's data than to search around for the strongest pilot you can find in whatever your favourite aircraft type is.

Now as for the Dora, if you really want, I'll test the P-47 at 103% power on the deck, but I'm only going to take 25% fuel because I don't have 2 hours to spare!

I don't think that this is of particular relevance in combat since in my experience the drag penalty associated with open radiators is greater than the gain from the extra 3% throttle setting plus whatever the ADI (which in the case of the D9'44 is extra fuel) buys you. It might be useful in a climb I suppose, but not at the altitudes I'm concentrating on in this discussion if there are P-47s around - your best option in that case is to extend!

As for egos etc, really that isn't a factor in my decision to start this thread. As with the Mustang III earlier I have seen a performance error and want to have it fixed. Since I actually fly the Mustang III online from time to time this hasn't really done my ego a lot of good, as it has taken a big bite out of its previously available performance.

One of the next aeroplanes I'm interested in examining is the +25 psi Spitfire since its model seems to be based upon that of JL.165 which had a sub-standard supercharger, and as such it lacks performance at altitude. Yes, that's right, it's undermodelled AFAIK. Now, I don't fly it very much, and I hate flying against it as it is, but if it's wrong then it should be fixed. Since there is data available thanks to Mr. Williams, let's fix it!

Another thing I'm interested in is that the D9 seems to be too fast at altitude, but since my German isn't that good it will take me rather a long time to amass sufficient evidence to proceed. The little wheels in my head have however been turning on it for a while.

Really it all comes down to the data and my knowledge of the type. I fly blue but I know rather more about Allied aircraft, especially British and American types, and I can of course read the test reports!

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 03:24 PM
VonRat, I just found a rather interesting pdf:

http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2005/Presentations/LawPete/ADI.pdf

Now, it doesn't relate to the P-47 directly, but it does have figures relating to the use of water injection for ADI in the R-2800.

My next task will be to work out the size of the water tank used in the P-47. I know that the late model had a 30 gallon tank*, in which case I'd expect 17-18 minutes of ADI at 1.7 gallons/minute.

However, the video relates to the D-5, which may have had a smaller tank.

If the D-5 had a 30 gallon tank too then either I've mis-understood the video or else the figures in the above *.pdf aren't accurate for the earlier versions of the R-2800 used in the P-47.

Ideally, I'll find that the D-5 had an 18-20 gallon water tank, because then everything would tie up nicely.

NB - the 17-18 minute figure of course assumes that all the water in the tank is usable which likely would not have been the case. Realistically, 15-16 minutes would have been available, and likewise, realistically 11 minutes of WEP would require about 20 US gallons of water-methanol.

* http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

Due to the bubble canopy and date of the report, this relates to a D-25 or later IMO.

BigKahuna_GS
02-17-2007, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vipor- the reason I use Eric Brown's data is simply that he flew the whole spectrum of aeroplanes from P-38, P-47, P-51, Spitfire, and a plethora of Bf-109s and Fw-190s.

Since tactical Mach number for most of these aeroplanes was a function of pilot strength, different pilots would obviously report different findings. By using Eric Brown's data, we can take pilot strength out of the equation and simply see differences in aircraft performance.

I don't doubt that some stronger P-47 pilots were able to fly and fight at Mach 0.80, but the same sort of arguments could be used to suggest that some Fw190A pilots exceeded Mach 0.75 without trouble. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are making another large error here. You are confusing pilot strength when pulling G's and compressibility. They are both totally different animals.

NO pilot no matter how strong he is can muscle his way out of compressibility, he is literally just along for the ride until the aircraft reaches lower altitudes and thicker air to regain control again. Compressibility is a matter of aircraft design and the pilot realizing he is exceeding the mach limits at a given altitude.

While it is good to read pilot opinons they are just that opinons. Gunther Rall a 275 kill ace has a totally different opinon about the P47s dive capability than Brown. Rall was commadant of the Luftwaffe Fighter Pilot Training school and personally flew the P47 in dives. Rall also flew all the major US fighters, Brit fighters and German fighters. Rall also tried to Split-S and high speed dive away from several P47s which caught him during the dive and shot him up badly.
Rall had to bail out and he lost part of his left hand/thumb.

So Rall has experienced the P47 in dives both ways --being chased and caught by P47s while in a high speed dive in his 109 and by flying P47s in dives at the Luft Fighter School.

So which pilot is right then ?

There is way more evidence supporting both scientifically (NACA & Official USAAF P47 Dive Tests) along with combat reports from both sides that disagree with Capt.Browns assessment.


My point is-- more information gives you better insight and you are limiting yourself by clinging to just one opinon/book.



__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Viper-Now as for the Dora, if you really want, I'll test the P-47 at 103% power on the deck, but I'm only going to take 25% fuel because I don't have 2 hours to spare!
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


There is no need to test the Jug at 103% throttle & WEP with cowl flaps open. That has already been done by every Jug driver at War Clouds and it certianly wont take 2 hours to get it to overheat more like a matter of minutes. The Jug does not like flying low and overheats often down there.

Now if you want to test the D-9, Spit 25 and others using the same parameters that would be interesting to see your results.


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Viper-As for egos etc, really that isn't a factor in my decision to start this thread. As with the Mustang III earlier I have seen a performance error and want to have it fixed. Since I actually fly the Mustang III online from time to time this hasn't really done my ego a lot of good, as it has taken a big bite out of its previously available performance.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________


I hope ego was not a factor. Many times pilots lose a fight and they think it's not me!- the other plane is over modeled. Maybe when the prop pitch cheat was in full bloom or other hacks were being utilised that was true. For the most part we just make an error and lose or the other guy gets a clean bounce.

There is errors in performance both plus and minus in many of the most popular planes in the sim.
As often happens when an aircraft is trimmed here- unfortunatley many times it gets trimmed too much and it may take awhile if ever to get a little bit of that performance back.

That is the history of all models of the Mustang including the Mark III. Fortunatley it got a little bit back in this in this last patch.

Viper2005_
02-17-2007, 04:24 PM
Nope. Sorry. Read "Wings On My Sleeve".

Stronger pilots could retain control at higher Mach numbers since in most cases pilot strength ran out long before full control deflection was reached. This was certainly the case in the Spitfire, which Eric Brown writes about extensively in the above text.

As for the rest of your post, I have already stated that ego is not a factor here. Data is.

As for the Mustang III, I have some doubts about its current performance at certain altitudes, but at least it isn't as crazy as it was when I started my first thread on the subject.

As I pointed out in my first thread there may well be issues with the other P-51s, and as should be obvious from my first graph, the P-47 may be about 10 km/h too slow at medium level.

This isn't about saying that my aircraft should be better than yours, but merely that all of the aeroplanes in the game should be as close as practical to their R/L performance.

Unfortunately, I only have so much time...

ljazz
02-17-2007, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
VonRat, I just found a rather interesting pdf:

http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2005/Presentations/LawPete/ADI.pdf

Now, it doesn't relate to the P-47 directly, but it does have figures relating to the use of water injection for ADI in the R-2800.

My next task will be to work out the size of the water tank used in the P-47. I know that the late model had a 30 gallon tank*, in which case I'd expect 17-18 minutes of ADI at 1.7 gallons/minute.

However, the video relates to the D-5, which may have had a smaller tank.

If the D-5 had a 30 gallon tank too then either I've mis-understood the video or else the figures in the above *.pdf aren't accurate for the earlier versions of the R-2800 used in the P-47.

Ideally, I'll find that the D-5 had an 18-20 gallon water tank, because then everything would tie up nicely.

NB - the 17-18 minute figure of course assumes that all the water in the tank is usable which likely would not have been the case. Realistically, 15-16 minutes would have been available, and likewise, realistically 11 minutes of WEP would require about 20 US gallons of water-methanol.

* http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

Due to the bubble canopy and date of the report, this relates to a D-25 or later IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which basically means you don't know for sure. You're spouting off about the 5 minutes like you know what you're talking about, and it all comes down to this:

Viper - "However, the video relates to the D-5, which may have had a smaller tank."

You retort on the 11 mins, and you don't know for sure. Nice.

I would like to see your source on the 5 mins.

ljazz

Von_Rat
02-17-2007, 11:45 PM
i did some testing at 8500m with p47, wep and no wep. 75 fuel, rads closed, 100 pp, crimea.

i couldnt seem to get any extra speed at 8.5k with wep on. but i had a heck of a time holding steady alt, so someone with a steadier hand might want to try it and post a track please.

JtD
02-18-2007, 01:40 AM
All models of the P-47 are modeled quite generously. The early model actually reach the performance typical for 1944 P-47 service models. In one of my climb tests, I compared our D-10 at 50" boost with water injection with a real D-10 at 56" boost with water injection. The real bird was only armed with 6 guns and 300 rpg, so our ships carries an additional weight penalty. To compensate for the excessive range of the in game model, I only used 75% fuel - which still is enough to exceed real life range figures. Anyway, here is the chart:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/p47d10climb.jpg

The in game variant outperforms the real thing by about 20%, carries extra guns and extra fuel. And does so with a wrong boost gauge indication or less boost.

It has to be said that other, somewhat later versions did reach these figures with no extra boost but different propellers. Eventually, as far as climb is concerned, the D-10 is a good representative for a 1944 model.

Viper2005_
02-18-2007, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:

I would like to see your source on the 5 mins.

ljazz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not repeating myself. Look on page 3.

Viper2005_
02-18-2007, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
All models of the P-47 are modeled quite generously. The early model actually reach the performance typical for 1944 P-47 service models. In one of my climb tests, I compared our D-10 at 50" boost with water injection with a real D-10 at 56" boost with water injection. The real bird was only armed with 6 guns and 300 rpg, so our ships carries an additional weight penalty. To compensate for the excessive range of the in game model, I only used 75% fuel - which still is enough to exceed real life range figures. Anyway, here is the chart:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/p47d10climb.jpg

The in game variant outperforms the real thing by about 20%, carries extra guns and extra fuel. And does so with a wrong boost gauge indication or less boost.

It has to be said that other, somewhat later versions did reach these figures with no extra boost but different propellers. Eventually, as far as climb is concerned, the D-10 is a good representative for a 1944 model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Thanks JtD. Very much as I expected. Do you mind if I add your post to the main data-set in post #1?

Viper2005_
02-18-2007, 12:43 PM
Further information on the water duration question:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035.html

This D-10 carried 15 gallons of water, which appears to have been the initial standard:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_4.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p47_4.html)
(the above link also contains some interesting information regarding armament)

Using 15 gallons over 11 minutes equates to a flow rate of 1.36 US gallons/minute. Given that the powers involved are rather lower than the racing example I quoted earlier, this would seem to add up quite nicely.

In fact I just did the sums. If 3200 bhp requires 1.7 gallons/minute of ADI flow, then 2600 bhp should require 1.7*2600/3200 = 1.38 gallons/minute. I'd say that's close enough!

*Edit* more careful inspection of the power chart in the above suggests that water injection actually gave 2400 hp rather than 2600. Redoing the sums:

1.7*2400/3200 = 1.275 gallons/minute

1.275*11 ~ 14 gallons. Still pretty reasonable, since I've yet to see a tank with 100% usable volume, especially given the high pressures required for atomisation.

So, if the P-47D in game is supposed to have a 15 gallon tank it should get about 11 minutes of water injection. If it is supposed to have the later 30 gallon tank then it should get up to 22 minutes of water (remember that consumption would be higher at 70" Hg than at 56" Hg, perhaps reducing water duration to as little as 18 minutes - I'll search out a power chart and check this).

Viper2005_
02-18-2007, 01:06 PM
And finally, after all that, look what I found!

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035-11oct43.html


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To report results of flight tests on P-47D-10 airplane, AAF No. 43-75035 run at the manufacturer's plant. Airplane equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine with water injection; standard Curtiss 714-1C2-12 propeller; type A-17 turbo regulator. Airplane ballasted to simulate the following conditions: Six .50 caliber guns; 300 rounds per gun; 305 gallons gasoline; 15 gallons water; 14 pounds pyrotechnics. In this condition the gross weight was 13,234 pounds with a C.G. wheels up, of 29.63 percent M.A.C. Mixture auto-rich; throttle wide open on all tests. Horsepower data obtained with torquemeter.

...

The total water supply was sufficient for only ten minutes flying allowing continuous war emergency power climbs from sea level to 24,000 feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, I did interpret the training video correctly. Perhaps those of you who accused me of playing word games might consider thinking more carefully before making such accusations in future?

Marcel_Albert
02-18-2007, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Thanks JtD. Very much as I expected. Do you mind if I add your post to the main data-set in post #1? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just want to say 3 things calmly before thanking Jtd for his work , because it takes time and energy and it's very kind of him to share his analysis with the community http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif :

- Most planes in IL-2 are modelled out of the best datas as Oleg stated : what is interesting is to know which data Jtd used and why they are different to the datas that Oleg used to model the Jug . It would be interesting to know which tests Oleg used , and which test Jtd used , that might explain the difference .

- Most planes in IL-2 have superior climb rate compared to real life datas (especially at very low speed climbing ) , there is the case of the 109 which can climb in 4 minutes , what his real life counterparts can do in 4.4 minutes accroding to one test , many people posted about it before and there might be other cases .

- Another thing that could be useful is to compare to which extent the P-47 exceeds or not the best datas compared to all other aircrafts of the sim , because you can't just pork an aircraft because you had high requirements about its performances , and then don't investigate the other aircaft with the same rigor .


In this regards , you didn't answer for some reason i respect to Kahuna and Von Rat , (probably because it is a P-47 thread of course ) , but they have a point and show you that you can run indefintely the Boost on the Dora which is completely unrealistic , and in my opinion , a much more important issue since it gives him total superiority tactically at any alt , and this is not related to the nature of the tests used or anything like that , but a clear exploit that is related to the way 1/C modelled engine management which was great at the time , but can be tricked by the 103% idea . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Now this is said , i agree with you , that the Republic Thurnderbolt should indeed overheat above 7000m when running at war emergency power and radiator closed after some time , in this i agree with you , but TBH , the continous boost exploit is a much more serious issue , and porking the 47 and leaving the boost exploit on Dora will just have a simple consequence : further increase the injustice that this 103%+boost exploit create IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
02-18-2007, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In this regards , you didn't answer for a good reasons to Kahuna and Von Rat , (probably because it is a P-47 of course ) who show you that you can run indefintely the Boost on the Dora which is completely unrealistic and nonsense , and in my opinion , a much more important issue since it gives him total superiority tactically at any alt , and this is not related to the nature of the tests used or anything like that , but a clear exploit that is related to the way 1/C modelled engine management which was great at the time , but can be tricked by the 103% idea . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I replyed to this bullsh1t more than once http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif it's your choice as is the choice of Von Rat(that in his time was singing a very different song http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and Kahuna to COMPLETELY disregard what I wrote...

Viper2005_
02-18-2007, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">further increase the injustice that this 103%+boost exploit create </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not really about injustice, since you can do the same thing with red aeroplanes too (the Mustang springs to mind).

The chances are that if the P-47's overheat model were fixed you'd also be able to do it with the P-47.

Marcel_Albert
02-18-2007, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">further increase the injustice that this 103%+boost exploit create </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not really about injustice, since you can do the same thing with red aeroplanes too (the Mustang springs to mind).

The chances are that if the P-47's overheat model were fixed you'd also be able to do it with the P-47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are right , my choice of word was poor sorry, i use it regularly in the 38 and 51 , i just meant comparatively to the 47 who cannot do that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
02-18-2007, 02:12 PM
As I have said, if the P-47's overheat model were to be fixed, the chances are that it would be able to use exactly the same 103% exploit, though I would point out that it is actually rather less effective than some people think due to the drag penalty of open radiators...

JtD
02-18-2007, 11:37 PM
I don't really know what all this WEP-water thing is about, but this one (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg) covers about all 2300hp (= 56" boost + Water @ WEP) P-47 models and says 15 minutes WEP available.

ljazz
02-19-2007, 03:17 AM
In light of JtD's post, I would say no, you didn't have the 11 mins right..... and I would say you pulled 5 mins out of your tailside. But either way, my original thoughts on this remain...... I see little, if any, benefit of using WEP above 25k, and to be honest, I see no great benefit in it much above 20k... certainly not enough to justify using it up. I'm also stuck on how overheat should be a problem on the R2800 in -20deg F or less temps. Especially on the jug, with the large open frontal area.

And while you're at it, why don't get us the available duration of war emergency power on the 190's? Maybe Oleg has this wrong across the board?

ljazz

hop2002
02-19-2007, 04:22 AM
A couple of points about the dive tests.

Firstly, I have never seen a refernce that says what speed Martindale got the Spitfire up to before the prop broke away.

The mach 0.89 figure was achieved some months earlier by Tobin, and the aircraft landed successfully. it was the same aircraft that Martindale had his later accident in, so there's no telling how many high speed divs it had undertaken before it finally broke.

Secondly, regarding strength. The RAE report notes that the Spitfire, Mustang and Thudnerbolt all experienced mach tuck. They give some rough figures for control forces:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At present, rough estimates by the pilot suggest that a pull of 50 - 60 lbs is required to hold a Spitfire at M=0.89 at 30,000ft. (Similar figures for the Thunderbolt suggest that a pull of over 200 lbs is inadequate, presumably in the region of 20,000 ft) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOLFMondo
02-19-2007, 05:54 AM
This thread was an interesting read until it started on a red vs blue online bu11sh1t.

If the Dora is wrong, please start another thread stating, with evidence that its wrong.

zunzun
02-19-2007, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
This thread was an interesting read until it started on a red vs blue online bu11sh1t.

If the Dora is wrong, please start another thread stating, with evidence that its wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said,
ww2 planes diving behavior is very interesting and a really complex matter.
Tactical usefullnes of diving in any plane is the sum of so many variables (acceleration, match critical number, match tactical number, stick forces in three axis, terminal speed.....)

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2007, 06:33 AM
GOOD POST MONDO!

Brain32
02-19-2007, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
This thread was an interesting read until it started on a red vs blue online bu11sh1t.

If the Dora is wrong, please start another thread stating, with evidence that its wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JtD
02-19-2007, 11:47 AM
To give you a better picture I put my data collection into two graphs. As you can see, the P-47D10 is at the lower end of the speed range but at the top edge of the roc range. Speedwise it is closest to a (lighter) B variant with just 2000hp, but then totally dominates it in a climb. The paddle prop was introduced with the D-22 (prop not modeled in game). Climb is pretty close to the best paddle prop version, but the in game variant is slower overall. Amazingly, the D-10 in game beats all of them in sea level speed. Too fast at sea level, ok at low alt, too slow at medium alts, ok at high alt.

The D-27 (supposedly 65" boost?) speedwise matches 65" + water figures (except for sea level speed) but outclimbs even 70"+water figures. Obviously, it is faster and climbs better than the historical 56" + water variants.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/p47dclimbs.JPG

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/p47dspeeds.JPG

Von_Rat
02-19-2007, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In this regards , you didn't answer for a good reasons to Kahuna and Von Rat , (probably because it is a P-47 of course ) who show you that you can run indefintely the Boost on the Dora which is completely unrealistic and nonsense , and in my opinion , a much more important issue since it gives him total superiority tactically at any alt , and this is not related to the nature of the tests used or anything like that , but a clear exploit that is related to the way 1/C modelled engine management which was great at the time , but can be tricked by the 103% idea . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I replyed to this bullsh1t more than once http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif it's your choice as is the choice of Von Rat(that in his time was singing a very different song http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and Kahuna to COMPLETELY disregard what I wrote... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i take enough bs on chat because im flying red for awhile, i dont need that crapp here to.

just because you repiled dont mean that we have to except it and that makes it all ok.

Von_Rat
02-19-2007, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
This thread was an interesting read until it started on a red vs blue online bu11sh1t.

If the Dora is wrong, please start another thread stating, with evidence that its wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it has to do with nerfing one plane while keeping your advantage with others.

if one planes overheat is wrong, fix them all. not just the plane you hate, while the plane you like gets a free ride.

Von_Rat
02-19-2007, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
And finally, after all that, look what I found!

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035-11oct43.html


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To report results of flight tests on P-47D-10 airplane, AAF No. 43-75035 run at the manufacturer's plant. Airplane equipped with Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine with water injection; standard Curtiss 714-1C2-12 propeller; type A-17 turbo regulator. Airplane ballasted to simulate the following conditions: Six .50 caliber guns; 300 rounds per gun; 305 gallons gasoline; 15 gallons water; 14 pounds pyrotechnics. In this condition the gross weight was 13,234 pounds with a C.G. wheels up, of 29.63 percent M.A.C. Mixture auto-rich; throttle wide open on all tests. Horsepower data obtained with torquemeter.

...

The total water supply was sufficient for only ten minutes flying allowing continuous war emergency power climbs from sea level to 24,000 feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, I did interpret the training video correctly. Perhaps those of you who accused me of playing word games might consider thinking more carefully before making such accusations in future? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you were playing words games and still are. where does it say it cant run it for the full ten minutes at a time. that was my agurment from the beginning. your the one trying to side track into total water aviable. and both the vidoe and doc are for the WRONG PLANE.

Viper2005_
02-19-2007, 02:25 PM
It doesn't say you can't but there is a strong implication that 5 minutes was the standard WEP time limit as it pops up here for the P-47B:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47b-5902.html

And then again here for the P-47N:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg

I hope to clear this up in a month or so by obtaining a P-47D flight manual.

Brain32
02-19-2007, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
This thread was an interesting read until it started on a red vs blue online bu11sh1t.

If the Dora is wrong, please start another thread stating, with evidence that its wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it has to do with nerfing one plane while keeping your advantage with others.

if one planes overheat is wrong, fix them all. not just the plane you hate, while the plane you like gets a free ride. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Currently they all behave same except P47 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif what Viper wants I believe and what I support is simply to bring P47 to the standard of other planes...

ljazz
02-19-2007, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
It doesn't say you can't but there is a strong implication that 5 minutes was the standard WEP time limit as it pops up here for the P-47B:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47b-5902.html

And then again here for the P-47N:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg

I hope to clear this up in a month or so by obtaining a P-47D flight manual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Help me out here..... the Jug didn't get WEP until the D model.

Call me a numbskull but the only thing I see in the first report about "5 minutes" is this:
"Time to climb to 15,000 feet with engine operating at military rated power at 2000 b.h.p. was 6.03 minutes but only five minutes operation at this power is permissible."

Instead of 5 minutes being max WEP duration, it would appear, at least from the p47N graph, that it is more of a test standard. It doesn't say anything about running it dry.

Sorry Viper, but I think you're taking a bit of liberty with these reports. JtD's early post says 15 mins. I'm not sure what we have in sim, as I've only run out once, and that was a long time ago. Typically, I never use the wep, especially above 20K.... it just seems like a waste to use it above that, and I never have too much problem separating without it.

ljazz

WOLFMondo
02-20-2007, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
This thread was an interesting read until it started on a red vs blue online bu11sh1t.

If the Dora is wrong, please start another thread stating, with evidence that its wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it has to do with nerfing one plane while keeping your advantage with others.

if one planes overheat is wrong, fix them all. not just the plane you hate, while the plane you like gets a free ride. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von rat, with respect, no it doesn't. Its about making each and every plane historically accurate. If one is wrong and can be proved as such then it can be fixed. As yet no one has proved the Dora 44 or 45 is wrong but people do/don't want it fixed to maintain some sort of onwhine balance.

If one plane has a real advantage that it did in real life and its 'unbalancing' then people need to grow up and deal with it. If the P47D is inaccurate i.e. it should overheat at a certain altitude and its water methanol lasts too long it should be fixed. So f***ing what if it means that another plane now has an advantage over it. It may well have had a real life advantage over it in the same manner.

This sort of balance **** has literally killed my interest in playing this sim online or flying on WC. No wonder Oleg doesn't even look at his own forum any more.

bazzaah2
02-20-2007, 07:20 AM
roughly speaking, we are overweight on quantity in this sim and a bit underweight on detailed modelling.

WWMaxGunz
02-20-2007, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
Help me out here..... the Jug didn't get WEP until the D model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if any C models were retrofitted with WEP?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
"Time to climb to 15,000 feet with engine operating at military rated power at 2000 b.h.p. was 6.03 minutes but only five minutes operation at this power is permissible." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So at climb speeds there is less airflow through the radiators than can cool WEP generated
heat. So there is a time limit. The last 1.03 minutes were probably run without WEP.

Why is that so difficult to accept? That cooling depends on air flow and that over 2000HP
produced in a heat engine might overwhelm the radiator capacity in the number of minutes
that is specified in the pilot's manuals? So there is a safety factor, it is not like a
structural safety factor since in the plane is a pilot that is supposed to be able to read
guages and clocks and adjust loads accordingly. After that oil begins to break down and
performance suffers by small to larger degrees.

I can see why fantasy RPG's are so popular, everything is simplified to just a few numbers
and simple math. Cast summoning for a squad of FW+3's to meet the Spit+2 intruders.

WWMaxGunz
02-20-2007, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if one planes overheat is wrong, fix them all. not just the plane you hate, while the plane you like gets a free ride. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like a thread. Anybody would want to participate?

Viper points something out he finds with P-47's, that's all. Call it game data.
Then he calls for a change which...

awww, how about a thread identifying exploits but it's WAY to late to ask for almost every if
not every plane to be reworked or gone over.

Hoarmurath
02-20-2007, 09:59 AM
I think it would be lots of fun to have each of the people participating in this thread to give what he think is the definition of military power, and war emergency power, both irl and ingame.

Just a thought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Viper2005_
02-20-2007, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
It doesn't say you can't but there is a strong implication that 5 minutes was the standard WEP time limit as it pops up here for the P-47B:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47b-5902.html

And then again here for the P-47N:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg

I hope to clear this up in a month or so by obtaining a P-47D flight manual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Help me out here..... the Jug didn't get WEP until the D model.

Call me a numbskull but the only thing I see in the first report about "5 minutes" is this:
"Time to climb to 15,000 feet with engine operating at military rated power at 2000 b.h.p. was 6.03 minutes but only five minutes operation at this power is permissible."

Instead of 5 minutes being max WEP duration, it would appear, at least from the p47N graph, that it is more of a test standard. It doesn't say anything about running it dry.

Sorry Viper, but I think you're taking a bit of liberty with these reports. JtD's early post says 15 mins. I'm not sure what we have in sim, as I've only run out once, and that was a long time ago. Typically, I never use the wep, especially above 20K.... it just seems like a waste to use it above that, and I never have too much problem separating without it.

ljazz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WEP = War Emergency Power.

Unfortunately in casual usage, amongst certain members of the community WEP, has come to be taken to mean that something inherently time limited such as water injection is taking place. This is not the case.

It has nothing to do with water injection. War Emergency Power is simply a power rating beyond the rated continuous power of the engine, and as such it is usually time limited, much like for example climb power or takeoff power.

This is done for several reasons

- Imposing a time limit upon WEP use helps to control engine wear, allowing for a reasonable TBO.

- Imposing a time limit upon WEP use helps to reduce the chances of engine failure within the stated TBO, thereby helping to keep the accident rate reasonable.

The 5 minute time limit doesn't imply that the engine would fail in the 301st second. Engine failures are best thought of as statistical phenomena, whose probability is affected by pilot (and ground crew) behaviour.

Running the engine at a time limited power rating beyond the time limit doesn't mean that the engine will fail instantly - it merely makes failure increasingly more likely as time goes by.

The chances are that a new (or newly overhauled) engine will tolerate quite a lot of abuse early in its life. Later in life it might fail suddenly just outside, or indeed even within the time limit imposed upon the use of a time limited rating.

Most aircraft in the game seem to be modelled in such a way that the use of WEP (ie powers over 100%, irrespective of the pretty glowing letters on the screen) is limited by overheat, which if abused will punish the player with engine failure.

Note that this does not necessarily bear any relationship to real overheating. It's just a device used by the sim to prevent the player from abusing his engine(s) too much. Without it, many if not most pilots would spend much if not all of their time beyond 100% power.

The key point here is that the P-47 does not overheat at altitude, and therefore its engine may be abused in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the aeroplanes in the game.

A secondary point is that its performance appears to be very optimistic in climb rate at all altitudes, very optimistic (&gt;20 km/h) in speed above critical altitude and somewhat optimistic in speed at low level, whilst also being slightly (~10 km/h) pessimistic at medium level.

A tertiary point is that it may carry too much water, giving too much duration with the pretty glowing WEP letters on the screen, and further boosting its performance at all altitudes below about 9 km.

I am expecting to receive a P-47 manual by the middle of next month against which certain of these issues may be tested.

In the meantime, I feel that the evidence regarding overheating at least is pretty conclusive.

ljazz
02-20-2007, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
Help me out here..... the Jug didn't get WEP until the D model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if any C models were retrofitted with WEP?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
"Time to climb to 15,000 feet with engine operating at military rated power at 2000 b.h.p. was 6.03 minutes but only five minutes operation at this power is permissible." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So at climb speeds there is less airflow through the radiators than can cool WEP generated
heat. So there is a time limit. The last 1.03 minutes were probably run without WEP.

Why is that so difficult to accept? That cooling depends on air flow and that over 2000HP
produced in a heat engine might overwhelm the radiator capacity in the number of minutes
that is specified in the pilot's manuals? So there is a safety factor, it is not like a
structural safety factor since in the plane is a pilot that is supposed to be able to read
guages and clocks and adjust loads accordingly. After that oil begins to break down and
performance suffers by small to larger degrees.

I can see why fantasy RPG's are so popular, everything is simplified to just a few numbers
and simple math. Cast summoning for a squad of FW+3's to meet the Spit+2 intruders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe anyone is saying it is difficult to accept. The point here was that Viper has noted it as 5 mins of water injection, yet I don't see that listed ('course I was drunk when i last looked at it), and that was the only place I saw 5 mins mentioned. Just trying to clear up whether or not the ac in the report had it, as my understanding is that the b model (as tested) did not.

ljazz

ljazz
02-20-2007, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
It doesn't say you can't but there is a strong implication that 5 minutes was the standard WEP time limit as it pops up here for the P-47B:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47b-5902.html

And then again here for the P-47N:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg

I hope to clear this up in a month or so by obtaining a P-47D flight manual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Help me out here..... the Jug didn't get WEP until the D model.

Call me a numbskull but the only thing I see in the first report about "5 minutes" is this:
"Time to climb to 15,000 feet with engine operating at military rated power at 2000 b.h.p. was 6.03 minutes but only five minutes operation at this power is permissible."

Instead of 5 minutes being max WEP duration, it would appear, at least from the p47N graph, that it is more of a test standard. It doesn't say anything about running it dry.

Sorry Viper, but I think you're taking a bit of liberty with these reports. JtD's early post says 15 mins. I'm not sure what we have in sim, as I've only run out once, and that was a long time ago. Typically, I never use the wep, especially above 20K.... it just seems like a waste to use it above that, and I never have too much problem separating without it.

ljazz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WEP = War Emergency Power.

Unfortunately in casual usage, amongst certain members of the community WEP, has come to be taken to mean that something inherently time limited such as water injection is taking place. This is not the case.

It has nothing to do with water injection. War Emergency Power is simply a power rating beyond the rated continuous power of the engine, and as such it is usually time limited, much like for example climb power or takeoff power.

This is done for several reasons

- Imposing a time limit upon WEP use helps to control engine wear, allowing for a reasonable TBO.

- Imposing a time limit upon WEP use helps to reduce the chances of engine failure within the stated TBO, thereby helping to keep the accident rate reasonable.

The 5 minute time limit doesn't imply that the engine would fail in the 301st second. Engine failures are best thought of as statistical phenomena, whose probability is affected by pilot (and ground crew) behaviour.

Running the engine at a time limited power rating beyond the time limit doesn't mean that the engine will fail instantly - it merely makes failure increasingly more likely as time goes by.

The chances are that a new (or newly overhauled) engine will tolerate quite a lot of abuse early in its life. Later in life it might fail suddenly just outside, or indeed even within the time limit imposed upon the use of a time limited rating.

Most aircraft in the game seem to be modelled in such a way that the use of WEP (ie powers over 100%, irrespective of the pretty glowing letters on the screen) is limited by overheat, which if abused will punish the player with engine failure.

Note that this does not necessarily bear any relationship to real overheating. It's just a device used by the sim to prevent the player from abusing his engine(s) too much. Without it, many if not most pilots would spend much if not all of their time beyond 100% power.

The key point here is that the P-47 does not overheat at altitude, and therefore its engine may be abused in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the aeroplanes in the game.

A secondary point is that its performance appears to be very optimistic in climb rate at all altitudes, very optimistic (&gt;20 km/h) in speed above critical altitude and somewhat optimistic in speed at low level, whilst also being slightly (~10 km/h) pessimistic at medium level.

A tertiary point is that it may carry too much water, giving too much duration with the pretty glowing WEP letters on the screen, and further boosting its performance at all altitudes below about 9 km.

I am expecting to receive a P-47 manual by the middle of next month against which certain of these issues may be tested.

In the meantime, I feel that the evidence regarding overheating at least is pretty conclusive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must have become quite well versed in the subject since you first started this thread:

Viper - "Very long track of the P-47D being flown at 110% power with WEP until the water runs out, and then at 110% power without WEP until the fuel runs out at altitud....."

In light of your last post, please explain how it could run at 110% without WEP.

ljazz

(i copied the first page of this thread, just in case you decide to go back and correct it.... I just want everyone to know what we're talking about here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

JtD
02-20-2007, 11:29 AM
If you cross check various sources for the P-47 common sense dictates that the limits for the various R-2800's on the various P-47D's are about as shown below. Most numbers actually are printed out in black at white on official documents that can be found on the web.

Limits for the R-2800 as used in the early P-47D up to the -27 series with various props and 130 octane fuel are limited to

WEP: 5 minutes 56" @ 2700 rpm wth water
Military: 15 minutes 52" @ 2700 rpm no water

The limits for the B series R-2800 as used in the P-47D-25 to 35 with a Hamilton paddle prop and 130 octane are limited to

WEP: 5 minutes 64" @ 2700 rpm with water
Military: 15 minutes 52" @ 2700 rpm no water

The P-47 initially carried 15 gallons of water, later 30. Total WEP available initially was about 10 minutes, later 15.

JtD
02-20-2007, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:

In light of your last post, please explain how it could run at 110% without WEP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, our game isn't the be all end all truth when it comes to engine management. The boost is limited to 52" according to the gauge without water. The boost stays the same no matter if you have 100% or 110%. Surprisingly, 52" is the military boost rating and happens to be max. boost allowed without water. Military is not WEP.

Viper2005_
02-20-2007, 11:44 AM
ljazz, I've used that terminology because that's what the game uses.

Surprisingly enough I didn't expect to get into this particular argument regarding power settings when I wrote my first post.

I shan't be "correcting" it because in the context in which it was written there was nothing incorrect about it. If you want to be pedantic about it you will also note that power settings aren't generally expressed in percentage terms outside of computer games, but rather in terms of "Hg and rpm, or similar measurable quantities. In jets you'll see things like N1 and EGT used to set power. Percentages just don't get much of a look in.

You will also note that it is impossible to fly at 110% power. It is possible to fly at 110% of rated power under certain conditions, but the concept of 110% power without such qualification is a bit like saying "I ate 11 out of 10 apples".

Surely then it must be obvious to you that the intention of that post was not rigorous technical accuracy but rather consistency with the terminology generally used within the game?

On a similar note, the game uses "prop pitch" in a bizarre way. But rather than explain that the pitch of an airscrew is in fact the distance it would advance in one turn through a solid medium, and that therefore "100 % prop pitch" implies the largest (ie coarsest) pitch available, which in turn implies low rpm, rather than the high rpm seen in game, when talking about what I am doing in the game to others I will generally just say "I used 100% prop pitch" or whatever figure is appropriate.

Exactly the same sort of thing applies to mixture settings. Do you really think that one flies around setting mixture in % terms? As a pilot I don't care what the mixture is set to in % terms. All I care about is that it's rich for high power operations, that I can lean it off in the cruise (usually by the simple expedient of pulling mixture off until the rpm starts to drop, which often happens very suddenly due to the dead travel near the rich stop), and that I can cut it entirely to shut the engine down.

In more advanced aeroplanes, I'll just shove the mixture in auto rich, or auto lean or idle cutoff as required, and hope that the hydro or electro-mechanical wizardry does the rest with a little more finesse than I can manage in a clapped out 152 or Robin. But either way, there's not a percentage point in sight.

Likewise, superchargers. The game incorrectly suggests that you switch supercharger "stages". IRL one switches super charger gear ratios.

But again, if I said to a virtual Tempest pilot that he needed to switch into FS gear passing through 10,000 feet or so, do you really think that they'd know what I was talking about?

I write for my audience and for the context, and I make no apologies for doing so. If you lack the wit to engage in meaningful debate beyond attempts to "play word games" as VonRat so eloquently puts it, perhaps you might kindly do so elsewhere?

JtD, thankyou for your input - constructive as ever. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

*edited several times for spelling, punctuation, grammar and indignation*

HayateAce
02-20-2007, 12:19 PM
Same old story here. Viper, up ur skills M8!

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

Oleg:
- P-47D boosted for use of 150 octane (almost P-47M performance).

Viper2005_
02-20-2007, 01:12 PM
Same old story HayateAce. You have nothing worthwhile to say, but as ever you just can't resist saying it anyway.

Please waste time/bandwidth/oxygen elsewhere.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 03:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
This thread was an interesting read until it started on a red vs blue online bu11sh1t.

If the Dora is wrong, please start another thread stating, with evidence that its wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it has to do with nerfing one plane while keeping your advantage with others.

if one planes overheat is wrong, fix them all. not just the plane you hate, while the plane you like gets a free ride. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von rat, with respect, no it doesn't. Its about making each and every plane historically accurate. If one is wrong and can be proved as such then it can be fixed. As yet no one has proved the Dora 44 or 45 is wrong but people do/don't want it fixed to maintain some sort of onwhine balance.

If one plane has a real advantage that it did in real life and its 'unbalancing' then people need to grow up and deal with it. If the P47D is inaccurate i.e. it should overheat at a certain altitude and its water methanol lasts too long it should be fixed. So f***ing what if it means that another plane now has an advantage over it. It may well have had a real life advantage over it in the same manner.

This sort of balance **** has literally killed my interest in playing this sim online or flying on WC. No wonder Oleg doesn't even look at his own forum any more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i don't think you quite understand.

the p47 in real life didnt overheat at alt running wep. viper has posted docs to this effect

viper argues that overheat is used ingame to limit wep, and since p47 doesnt overheat at alt, it has a unrealistic advantage at alt. now this is all well and good.

the problem is that the d9 among others,(but not the p47) can use a unhistorical gamey exploit and use unlimited wep at any alt by just dropping to 103 percent with open rads.

brain pointed out that if p47 is made to overheat at alt, this will bring it in line other planes ingame. in other words overheat limiting wep. also well and good.

what they both conviently ignore is the fact that ingame at low alt the p47 can't use the 103 percent unhistorical gamey trick like the d9, it must turn off wep completely by dropping to 99 percent and also have rads open.

so its pretty obvious whats going to happen if they get their way. oleg will simply make the p47 overheat at hi alt the same way it overheats at low alt. in other words the d9 among others will keep their gamey exploit and get to run wep forever at any alt by dropping to 103 with rads open. but the p47 will have to drop completely out of wep with rads open to cool off, even at hi alt, where, as i said in rl it didnt overheat.

in summary

the d9 has a unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt right now over p47, it can run wep forever just by dropping to 103 to cool off, where as p47 can't.

the p47 has a unhistorical gamey advantage in that it can run wep forever beteewn 7k and 9k with rads closed.

to me these gamey advantages balance out.

what viper wants, or at least what he's going to end up getting imo, is that the p47s hi alt gamey advantage will be taken away. but the d9 will get to keep its unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt, indeed it will now have its unhistorical gamey advantage at all alts over p47.

my beef isnt against historical accuracy, its against players who want historical accuracy only to planes they have trouble fighting against, and not have the same historical accuracy applied to their own favorite planes.

JtD
02-21-2007, 04:18 AM
In game you can run the P-47 at 110% + Water rads closed for 10 minutes without any damage to the engine. That's a feature unique to US radials.

Also, the rad setting on the P-47 have no cooling effect, meaning they only add drag. This is a bug, it's know for ages and has never been changed. If it was fixed, the 103% thingy would work here just as well. So if you really feel like making noise, get this bug fixed.

I feel sorry for you Von_Rat. The day I start to argue for more bugs in a flight sim game, feel free shoot me.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 04:22 AM
i feel even sorrier for you.

cause your arguing for one bug to replaced by another, yeah your so much better than me. at least im saying leave it alone, not trade one bug for another.

where btw did i agrue for more bugs, im on the side of leaving the game as is.

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 04:44 AM
At this stage it is not a question of "one bug replacing another" it is a question of consistency.

There is no logical reason for the P-47 to be different from all the other piston engined aeroplanes in the game.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
At this stage it is not a question of "one bug replacing another" it is a question of consistency.

There is no logical reason for the P-47 to be different from all the other piston engined aeroplanes in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

viper you know dam well given the history of this game, that oleg will give the p47 its low alt overheat model all the way up to hi alt if he changes it.

i doubt very much he'll make p47 have the same BUG that d9 and others have.

i also very much doubt he'll fix d9s and others with wep bug.

so yeah, i guess the p47 will be somewhat more historical, if you call overheating at alts they didnt in rl, more historical, but no more unlimited wep from 7k to 9k for p47.

but the planes you fly will still be able to use unlimited wep at any alt.

what a happy coincidence for you.



this is the cr*p that makes me sick.

mynameisroland
02-21-2007, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i feel even sorrier for you.

cause your arguing for one bug to replaced by another, yeah your so much better than me. at least im saying leave it alone, not trade one bug for another.

where btw did i agrue for more bugs, im on the side of leaving the game as is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want it left alone because it gives you an advantage.

Everyone here asking for it to be corrected wants a level playing field. If you cant fly without a BS bug helping you survive then thats your problem. Its like me wanting the Tempest to run at 110% WEP 100% Pitch on the deck with no overheat because that bug would be the 'same' as having the 103% Rad open settings. Well I know which one Id prefer ....

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 05:16 AM
Von_Rat, that's really rich given that the <span class="ev_code_red">only</span> aeroplane you have flown on warclouds since the last reset is the P-47. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with your present opposition to the correction of its excessive performance at the high altitudes where you spend most of your time, could it?

I fly a variety of types for both sides, both a2a and a2g. Your accusations of bias merely serve to highlight exactly how biased your viewpoint has become.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i feel even sorrier for you.

cause your arguing for one bug to replaced by another, yeah your so much better than me. at least im saying leave it alone, not trade one bug for another.

where btw did i agrue for more bugs, im on the side of leaving the game as is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want it left alone because it gives you an advantage.

Everyone here asking for it to be corrected wants a level playing field. If you cant fly without a BS bug helping you survive then thats your problem. Its like me wanting the Tempest to run at 110% WEP 100% Pitch on the deck with no overheat because that bug would be the 'same' as having the 103% Rad open settings. Well I know which one Id prefer .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its a p47 bug that only works beteewn 7k to 9k,,,wow big advantage.

their bug advantage works AT ALL ALTS.

instead of dealing with the p47s hi alt bug, like i had to deal with d9s low alt bug. he come in here whining, not to get them both fixed, just the ones he don't fly fixed. so he can keep his gamey advantage.

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 05:28 AM
Of course you are conveniently forgetting that the P-47's climb rate is chronically optimistic at all altitudes, and that its airspeed is optimistic by 20 km/h+ at all altitudes above 7 km... And that I was flying a P-47 with you on Sunday.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Von_Rat, that's really rich given that the <span class="ev_code_red">only</span> aeroplane you have flown on warclouds since the last reset is the P-47. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with your present opposition to the correction of its excessive performance at the high altitudes where you spend most of your time, could it?

I fly a variety of types for both sides, both a2a and a2g. Your accusations of bias merely serve to highlight exactly how biased your viewpoint has become. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why shouldnt i fly it, we;re fricking discussing it arent we. at least i have some real 4.08 experiance in it. unlike other experts here.

pretty hard to call me biased, i have thousands of sorities in blue planes mostly fws, with better success than you i might add.

i probaly have less than a hundred p47 sorties ever.

you didnt exactly impress hell outta me when we were winging in p47s the other nite. it didnt seem so uber to you up hi did it?


the only bias i have is against players who under the guise of historical accurracy, want to nerf the other side planes, but not have that same historical accuracy applied to their favorite planes.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Of course you are conveniently forgetting that the P-47's climb rate is chronically optimistic at all altitudes, and that its airspeed is optimistic by 20 km/h+ at all altitudes above 7 km... And that I was flying a P-47 with you on Sunday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

many planes have chronically optimistic climb rates. oh wait you fly those planes so don't mention them please.

don't change subject, lets get historical wep/overheat use for ALL planes 1st, then worry about fixing ALL planes chronically optimistic climb rates.

not just the ones you don't like getting pwned by.

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 05:47 AM
Ah the magic "I'm a better pilot than you" card has been played.

I wondered when that would happen.

Interesting how certain really successful pilots stay away from ground attack isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And where did ber come from all of a sudden? This is a thread about aircraft performance, not about gameplay and "balance issues".

It is enlightening to compare your posts in the Mustang III performance issues thread I started back in the days when you flew blue, with your posts in this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2061013404/p/1

mynameisroland
02-21-2007, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i feel even sorrier for you.

cause your arguing for one bug to replaced by another, yeah your so much better than me. at least im saying leave it alone, not trade one bug for another.

where btw did i agrue for more bugs, im on the side of leaving the game as is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want it left alone because it gives you an advantage.

Everyone here asking for it to be corrected wants a level playing field. If you cant fly without a BS bug helping you survive then thats your problem. Its like me wanting the Tempest to run at 110% WEP 100% Pitch on the deck with no overheat because that bug would be the 'same' as having the 103% Rad open settings. Well I know which one Id prefer .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its a p47 bug that only works beteewn 7k to 9k,,,wow big advantage.

their bug advantage works AT ALL ALTS.

instead of dealing with the p47s hi alt bug, like i had to deal with d9s low alt bug. he come in here whining, not to get them both fixed, just the ones he don't fly fixed. so he can keep his gamey advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von_Rat your argument is laughable.

The P47 dominates at altitude, this bug allows it to become untouchable. The WEP bug you keep refering too with the D9 affects dozens of planes all P51s too iirc! I would be over the moon if the P47 was given this 'bug' as you call it.

Can I ask you a straight question ? What is better for a player:

Being able to run Radiators open, 103% Throttle with WEP and no overheat at any height?(as most planes can)

or

Being able to run 110% Throttle with WEP and radiators CLOSED at your best altitude FOREVER


Even a player with basic testing skills will let you know there is a 40/60 km difference between the two settings. I can cruise faster at lower power and pitch settings with the radiator closed and no overheat than the 103% WEP Rad open supposed 'bug' - its called engine managment.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Ah the magic "I'm a better pilot than you" card has been played.

I wondered when that would happen.

Interesting how certain really successful pilots stay away from ground attack isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And where did ber come from all of a sudden? This is a thread about aircraft performance, not about gameplay and "balance issues".

It is enlightening to compare your posts in the Mustang III performance issues thread I started back in the days when you flew blue, with your posts in this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2061013404/p/1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

back in the days i flew blue,,,,,,,geeeeeez, you mean 2 weeks ago.

your the one who brought up the p47 and implied that because i have 41 missions in it im somhow biased.
all those thousands of missions i flew against it while flying blue are meaningless i guess.

the crack about better pilot was ment that i know enough about flying them so i dont have to go to forums to get my opposition nerfed. while keeping my own exploits. which you do all the time.

for once how about trying to get your favorite plane nerfed &lt;cough&gt; i mean more historically accurate. and leave the planes the pwn you alone.

i view ground attacks as cheap kills, one car doenst equal a fighter or bomber in my book.

ljazz
02-21-2007, 06:03 AM
No time to really dig into this now (gotta get going to work), but, if there is little to no advantage of WEP in the jug up high (see earlier posts in this thread), and viper's report says the engine stayed cooler running at military power up high (this is what I need to dig into), then what is the problem? It seems to me a pilot cruising along at 110% is only wasting his water. Viper, you should come fly one evening with me so I can show you what I mean. PM me if you would like to take me up on that.

ljazz

(ps... all climb rate should be fixed at the same time)

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i feel even sorrier for you.

cause your arguing for one bug to replaced by another, yeah your so much better than me. at least im saying leave it alone, not trade one bug for another.

where btw did i agrue for more bugs, im on the side of leaving the game as is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want it left alone because it gives you an advantage.

Everyone here asking for it to be corrected wants a level playing field. If you cant fly without a BS bug helping you survive then thats your problem. Its like me wanting the Tempest to run at 110% WEP 100% Pitch on the deck with no overheat because that bug would be the 'same' as having the 103% Rad open settings. Well I know which one Id prefer .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its a p47 bug that only works beteewn 7k to 9k,,,wow big advantage.

their bug advantage works AT ALL ALTS.

instead of dealing with the p47s hi alt bug, like i had to deal with d9s low alt bug. he come in here whining, not to get them both fixed, just the ones he don't fly fixed. so he can keep his gamey advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von_Rat your argument is laughable.

The P47 dominates at altitude, this bug allows it to become untouchable. The WEP bug you keep refering too with the D9 affects dozens of planes all P51s too iirc! I would be over the moon if the P47 was given this 'bug' as you call it.

Can I ask you a straight question ? What is better for a player:

Being able to run Radiators open, 103% Throttle with WEP and no overheat at any height?(as most planes can)

or

Being able to run 110% Throttle with WEP and radiators CLOSED at your best altitude FOREVER


Even a player with basic testing skills will let you know there is a 40/60 km difference between the two settings. I can cruise faster at lower power and pitch settings with the radiator closed and no overheat than the 103% WEP Rad open supposed 'bug' - its called engine managment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i guess you didnt read closely

what they both conviently ignore is the fact that ingame at low alt the p47 can't use the 110 to 103 percent for a few secs unhistorical gamey trick like the d9, it must turn off wep completely by dropping to 99 percent and also have rads open.

so its pretty obvious whats going to happen if they get their way. oleg will simply make the p47 overheat at hi alt the same way it overheats at low alt. in other words the d9 among others will keep their gamey exploit and get to run wep forever at 110 percent at any alt by dropping to 103 for a few secs with rads open. but the p47 will have to drop completely out of wep with rads open to cool off, even at hi alt, where, as i said in rl it didnt overheat.

in summary

the d9 has a unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt right now over p47, it can run wep at 110 forever just by dropping to 103 to cool off, where as p47 can't, it has to completely drop out of wep to cool.

the p47 has a unhistorical gamey advantage in that it can run wep forever beteewn 7k and 9k with rads closed.

to me these gamey advantages balance out.

what viper wants, or at least what he's going to end up getting imo, is that the p47s hi alt gamey advantage will be taken away. but the d9 will get to keep its unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt, indeed it will now have its unhistorical gamey advantage at all alts over p47.

note the d9 among other can run at 110 rads open, they only have to drop to 103 for a few secs. then back to 110. they can do it all day long at all alts. thats a bug, not engine managment.

HellToupee
02-21-2007, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Of course you are conveniently forgetting that the P-47's climb rate is chronically optimistic at all altitudes, and that its airspeed is optimistic by 20 km/h+ at all altitudes above 7 km... And that I was flying a P-47 with you on Sunday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yet you are forgetting many planes are chronically optimistic at various alts, d9 doing 450mph at 6k or g2 outclimbing a k4 or the overall 190 mega strong dm envy of any p47 for example. Should those be fixed?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
There is no logical reason for the P-47 to be different from all the other piston engined aeroplanes in the game.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its not differnt, many radial engined planes will not overheat at alt, b25 hellcat corsair a20.

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 06:27 AM
Von_Rat, if you think ground targets are cheap kills on warclouds, all I can say is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Your statements are not "somehow" biased. They ARE biased, and the only reason I can see for this is that the P-47 is your new ride.

I never heard you complain about the 103% "exploit" until this thread.

As I have said countless times, this has nothing to do with "nerfing" the P-47. I actually want it to be ~10 km/h faster at medium level because that's what the historical performance data says. All I want to do is get the performance of <span class="ev_code_red">all</span> the aeroplanes in the game as close to the available historical data as possible.

But I can only do one aeroplane at a time.

I have been meaning to test the P-47 since I finished the Mustang thread, but surprisingly enough I happen to have a life, and it has taken me a long time to even get around to testing another aeroplane. And now that I've posted the thread, most of the time I can devote to it is spent dealing with frankly pathetic whines from those whose online performance might be impacted by the changes required to attain historical performance accuracy. I had hoped that instead of this nonsense the thread would be used for legitimate debate regarding the test methods and results.

What really irks me is that after filling this thread with B/S, certain people have the impudence to request that I start another thread to deal with Fw-190D9 performance, requiring a whole new raft of research work, when they know quite well enough that such a thread would meet an identical reception.

People complain that I'm only dealing with one aeroplane at a time, without the slightest idea of the work required to do even that. Why can't you see that one at a time is better than nothing?

If you've got a problem with the Dora's performance, find some data, do some test flying and start a thread about it. Then maybe I'll show up and trash it with red vs blue B/S for you, just to make my point...

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
what viper wants, or at least what he's going to end up getting imo, is that the p47s hi alt gamey advantage will be taken away. but the d9 will get to keep its unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt, indeed it will now have its unhistorical gamey advantage at all alts over p47.

note the d9 among other can run at 110 rads open, they only have to drop to 103 for a few secs. then back to 110. they can do it all day long at all alts. thats a bug, not engine managment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you're also conveniently forgetting that the P-47 is too fast at low level too...

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
what viper wants, or at least what he's going to end up getting imo, is that the p47s hi alt gamey advantage will be taken away. but the d9 will get to keep its unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt, indeed it will now have its unhistorical gamey advantage at all alts over p47.

note the d9 among other can run at 110 rads open, they only have to drop to 103 for a few secs. then back to 110. they can do it all day long at all alts. thats a bug, not engine managment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you're also conveniently forgetting that the P-47 is too fast at low level too... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

prove it to oleg, then we'll talk.

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
yet you are forgetting many planes are chronically optimistic at various alts, d9 doing 450mph at 6k or g2 outclimbing a k4 or the overall 190 mega strong dm envy of any p47 for example. Should those be fixed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes - if this is the case, get the data, do the testing and get them fixed. There are only so many hours in the day and I can't do all of the aeroplanes at once. For obvious reasons, aeroplanes designed built and tested in countries where English isn't the language of choice are rather harder work due to the need for translation.

My knowledge of German flight test procedure is somewhat limited, and I don't even know if they used the same standard atmosphere assumptions as the RAE and NACA did. This obviously has the potential to add further complication to the whole process of data reduction.

mynameisroland
02-21-2007, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i guess you didnt read closely

what they both conviently ignore is the fact that ingame at low alt the p47 can't use the 110 to 103 percent for a few secs unhistorical gamey trick like the d9, it must turn off wep completely by dropping to 99 percent and also have rads open.

so its pretty obvious whats going to happen if they get their way. oleg will simply make the p47 overheat at hi alt the same way it overheats at low alt. in other words the d9 among others will keep their gamey exploit and get to run wep forever at 110 percent at any alt by dropping to 103 for a few secs with rads open. but the p47 will have to drop completely out of wep with rads open to cool off, even at hi alt, where, as i said in rl it didnt overheat.

in summary

the d9 has a unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt right now over p47, it can run wep at 110 forever just by dropping to 103 to cool off, where as p47 can't, it has to completely drop out of wep to cool.

the p47 has a unhistorical gamey advantage in that it can run wep forever beteewn 7k and 9k with rads closed.

to me these gamey advantages balance out.

what viper wants, or at least what he's going to end up getting imo, is that the p47s hi alt gamey advantage will be taken away. but the d9 will get to keep its unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt, indeed it will now have its unhistorical gamey advantage at all alts over p47.

note the d9 among other can run at 110 rads open, they only have to drop to 103 for a few secs. then back to 110. they can do it all day long at all alts. thats a bug, not engine managment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I have read closely enough. You acknowledge the fact that the P47 has an unfair advantage - End of story.

This is a P47 performance thread start your own thread about the Fw 190 D9 and please post test tracks. Viper has done enough for you to admit that the P47 has a bug, that was all he was trying to do. It is not his or my job to change your opinion on game balance.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 06:45 AM
how the fark can the p47 be my new ride, when i have only 41 sorties compared to thousands in fw.

didn;t you maybe think im flying it so i might, unlike you, actually know somthing about how it flys ingame.

i didnt start furoms thread about the 103 trick, because it was already well documented. there were plenty of threads *****ing about it. futhermore i don't have your talent for piling on the b.s.


i agree its unfair for people to ask you to research more than one plane at a time.

its just funny that the planes you decide to research so they can get nerfed,,, oh im sorry made more historically accurate,,,, always are the planes you ***** about pwning you on ts.

how about instead of researhing whole fm etc, for one plane, you campaign for all planes having one small feature fixed. overheat for example.

that would certainly stop bias charges.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i guess you didnt read closely

what they both conviently ignore is the fact that ingame at low alt the p47 can't use the 110 to 103 percent for a few secs unhistorical gamey trick like the d9, it must turn off wep completely by dropping to 99 percent and also have rads open.

so its pretty obvious whats going to happen if they get their way. oleg will simply make the p47 overheat at hi alt the same way it overheats at low alt. in other words the d9 among others will keep their gamey exploit and get to run wep forever at 110 percent at any alt by dropping to 103 for a few secs with rads open. but the p47 will have to drop completely out of wep with rads open to cool off, even at hi alt, where, as i said in rl it didnt overheat.

in summary

the d9 has a unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt right now over p47, it can run wep at 110 forever just by dropping to 103 to cool off, where as p47 can't, it has to completely drop out of wep to cool.

the p47 has a unhistorical gamey advantage in that it can run wep forever beteewn 7k and 9k with rads closed.

to me these gamey advantages balance out.

what viper wants, or at least what he's going to end up getting imo, is that the p47s hi alt gamey advantage will be taken away. but the d9 will get to keep its unhistorical gamey advantage at low alt, indeed it will now have its unhistorical gamey advantage at all alts over p47.

note the d9 among other can run at 110 rads open, they only have to drop to 103 for a few secs. then back to 110. they can do it all day long at all alts. thats a bug, not engine managment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I have read closely enough. You acknowledge the fact that the P47 has an unfair advantage - End of story.

This is a P47 performance thread start your own thread about the Fw 190 D9 and please post test tracks. Viper has done enough for you to admit that the P47 has a bug, that was all he was trying to do. It is not his or my job to change your opinion on game balance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

he's also admitting d9 among others has wep bug.

end of story lol, he has to convince oleg, not me,,lol.


now whos trying to not only keep, but increase his gamey advantage.

Brain32
02-21-2007, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> he's also admitting d9 among others has wep bug.

end of story lol, he has to convince oleg, not me,,lol.


now whos trying to not only keep, but increase his gamey advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG what a complete and utter bullsh1t http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif It's very funny that first plane you remembered was the 190D9, the last German plane that is not porked beyond belief, you however failed to notice that with D9, there are also P51,P38L_Late,Tempest,BF109,FW190A,Ki84,La5,La7 and pretty much EVERY plane with some kind of WEP has the "magic" power setting <span class="ev_code_RED">EXCEPT</span> the P47, not to mention that not only can they not run at 110% but also the rad setting required results in a HUGE speed penalty with some planes even to such extent that lower power setting with rads closed can be a much better idea. P47 however can just climb over 4000m, firewall it to 110% and run for as long as it has WEP. Who has gamey advantage here all this other planes +many more I did not name here, or P47 which is the only one different? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> yet you are forgetting many planes are chronically optimistic at various alts, d9 doing 450mph at 6k or g2 outclimbing a k4 or the overall 190 mega strong dm envy of any p47 for example. Should those be fixed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How about complete and utter BS turn capatibilities of 6 ton allied planes, for feck's sake in this game planes like Tempest and P47 are low altitude turn fighters, while FW's can't even match captured Russian data and 109's stiff up at take off speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
And as for DM P47 makes Anton pilot feel like he flies Mustang3 when it comes to wepons so back to feck up with ridiculous remarks like that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 07:42 AM
they can run at 110, they just need to drop to 103 for a few secs and still stay in wep.

if p47 is changed then at all alts, nots just low like now, the p47 will have to fly rads open and drop outta wep to cool.

so the other planes gamey exploit wont be good just at low alts against p47. it will be a good gamey advantage at all alts against the 47.

at least now the p47s exploit is limited beteewn 7k to 9k.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
At this stage it is not a question of "one bug replacing another" it is a question of consistency.

There is no logical reason for the P-47 to be different from all the other piston engined aeroplanes in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


heres the answer to those who say the disscussion of d9s and others wep/heat issues doesnt belong here.

if the p47 is going to be consistant with all other piston engine planes then we have to anaylasis those other planes.

if there is no logical reason for the p47 to be different from all the other piston engined aeroplanes in the game, then the p47 should be able to exploit the same wep bug d9 and others do.

JtD
02-21-2007, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
...cause your arguing for one bug to replaced by another... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I? Your perception seems to be clouded by prejudice. Pathetic.

WOLFMondo
02-21-2007, 09:04 AM
How about leaving all this online **** at home and just bringing the facts here and fix what needs to be fixed regardless if it screws up the balance on one server online.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
then the p47 should be able to exploit the same wep bug d9 and others do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? To make it fairer on warclouds? If its a bug and can be proved as such and fixed thats excellent. It means one more plane thats closer to its real life counter part. I'd rather see that than keeping bugs in planes for the sake of a few online pilots who fly one plane sethttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 10:19 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Seriously, if you have something to say about the performance of the D9, or indeed any aeroplane other than the P-47, do some research, find some data, do some test flying and start a thread about it.

Please leave my P-47 thread for sensible discussion about the P-47.

mynameisroland
02-21-2007, 10:27 AM
Anychance of a Mod coming in to this thread and deleting all the trash ? It was actually a good thread until people deliberately tried to derail it.

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 10:40 AM
Yes, that would be nice!

In the meantime, I intend to consolidate all the key test results etc into post #1.

<span class="ev_code_red">JtD, would you mind if I copied your data into post #1 as well as my own?</span>

JtD
02-21-2007, 10:44 AM
No, I wouldn't. Feel free to grab what you want.

p.s. It is a public forum anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Diablo310th
02-21-2007, 10:53 AM
I say we have a Mod cut all pages that talk about and show the bug in the D9 and start a thread titled FW-D9 performance then paste them into it. I'm with Von_Rat in this. If the Jug has an error in it's FM in relation to WEP then fine fix it...while Oleg is at it fix the radiator cowling cooling problem too. That's been around forever. At the same time fix the 103 WEP problem with any and all otehr planes as well. Geeez all this talk about how one plane is porked but don't mention any others in this thread. It's not like this is something new in a thread. Discussion about how one plane is porked and that leading to side discussion obout others too. Come on folks...geeez. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 11:00 AM
Well, IMO to discuss the performance of any aircraft type meaningfully you need test data and test tracks - otherwise it's just hot air.

If I can gather data and perform tests, and if JtD can gather data and perform tests, so can everybody else for whatever aeroplane they choose.

But since this is a thread about the P-47, I'd much rather that discussions of other aeroplanes took place in other threads better suited for the purpose.

ljazz
02-21-2007, 11:56 AM
Viper:

I think you're still taking too much liberty with the reports. I go back to everything you've quoted from the reports, and I see nothing implying these issues were at altitude. On the contrary, going back to the B model report you posted, it would imply at higher speeds, at altitude, the engine remains sufficiently cool.

"Above speeds are speeds for maximum rate of climb but the engine does not meet Army Air Force cooling requirements at these speeds. One normal rated power climb was made at 20 m.p.h. higher indicated air speed at which the engine would cool satisfactorily and the resulting loss in rate of climb was 30 feet per minute at altitudes up to 30,000 feet" (I assume the loss of altitude was due to a more shallow rate of climb to keep speed up)


My guess is that modelling of airflow into the engine is not modelled for any aircraft in the detailed manner needed to persuade me(for the purposes of cooling). If that is the case, then not only is the jug nerfed in this regard, then I'm willing to bet every a/c in the sim is. (Note, perhaps I'm wrong here, but I don't notice a time to overheat difference whether i'm climbing or flying level.... no matter which a/c i'm flying)

Can we agree that flying around at 100% throttle at 25,000+ feet should not cause an overheat (level flight)?

Can we agree that flying around at 110% throttle at 25,000+ feet has little to no affect on airspeed?

ljazz

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 12:22 PM
How many times do I have to repeat that the game uses overheat to enforce engine operating limitations rather than to model actual overheating in the vast majority of cases?

ljazz
02-21-2007, 12:30 PM
calm down cowgirl.

If it is a modelling limitation, then this becomes an arguement of which side you err on.

The limitation in the jug appears to be in a climb, as I'm willing to bet all of the a/c.

How would you suggest it be fixed?

and btw, you still haven't answered my questions.

Viper2005_
02-21-2007, 12:45 PM
IRL overheating shouldn't be an issue in high speed level flight for most aircraft (especially those which are liquid cooled). It was mainly only an issue in ground running, climbs or (in the case of aircraft with wing mounted radiators) operations with the gear down.

OTOH IRL if you run an engine flat out for significantly longer than the manufacturer suggests you're asking for trouble.

Since the vast majority of aeroplanes in the game use overheating to prevent certain types of really flagrant engine abuse, it would seem much more sensible, given the limited time available to bring the exceptions into line with the rule than to campaign for a whole new class of failure mode and a total re-design of the overheat model for almost every piston engined aeroplane in the game.

As such, I think that the P-47 should overheat in the same way as the other a/c in game, right down to the 103% exploit, with an overheat time based upon the available documentation (ie 5 a 5 minute limit) in order that we get representative relative performance.

I also think that its speed and climb performance should be changed to match the available test data.

As for in-game aircraft performance, we can't agree. Why don't you fly at 25,000 feet over crimea in WW view in a P-47D with 100% fuel and extra ammunition and compare speeds at 100% and 110% both with and without water? Personally I can't be bothered right now.

JtD
02-21-2007, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:

(Note, perhaps I'm wrong here, but I don't notice a time to overheat difference whether i'm climbing or flying level.... no matter which a/c i'm flying) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check again. Planes do overheat faster when going slow. That's one of the few points FB models correctly wrt overheating.

FTH of the turbocharged R-2800 on the P-47 is about 30000 feet. Up to that alt, 110% power settings will have a considerable effect on performance.

Bull_dog_
02-21-2007, 09:15 PM
I actually believe all aircraft should not overheat like each other, but rather like they did in real life.

I really don't know how the P-47 should overheat but to sit here in a 9 page post about how the P-47 (or any other plane for that matter) should overheat like each other is totally ridiculous.

I believe, based on what I read, that a whole lot of aircraft could run on WEP settings without overheating for extended periods of time and its just a matter of programming how they act...some aircraft like the early P-38's overheated above 27,000 ft when running the engines above some hp (1100 I think) but didn't have a problem below that...other aircraft, like the Mustang could run WEP settings indefinitely with the radiator in auto in flight....I really don't know how the P-47 acted except that most overheat issues with radial engines occured during periods of low airflow like when on the ground and taxiing. I know the Fw (especially early models) had issues with overheat as did the Spit MkV's in prolonged periods of climbing....how about presenting some real facts about overheat characteristics of various aircraft...not just and isolated quote...and go from there. The goal of modelling is not to make all aircraft behave the same, but rather as the individual aircraft that they are.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
...cause your arguing for one bug to replaced by another... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I? Your perception seems to be clouded by prejudice. Pathetic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

talk about pathetic, you start the name calling without even relizeing i mostly fly the d9 and not the p47. so much for prejudice.

Von_Rat
02-21-2007, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
How about leaving all this online **** at home and just bringing the facts here and fix what needs to be fixed regardless if it screws up the balance on one server online.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
then the p47 should be able to exploit the same wep bug d9 and others do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? To make it fairer on warclouds? If its a bug and can be proved as such and fixed thats excellent. It means one more plane thats closer to its real life counter part. I'd rather see that than keeping bugs in planes for the sake of a few online pilots who fly one plane sethttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you still dont get it do you.



wep usage at alt causeing overheat is unhistorical for p47, but viper says its needed because thats how the game limits wep usage. so if its unhistorical how do we implement it? we do that by looking at how other planes implement it and model the p47s wep usage accordingly. that means that if other planes can run wep all the time by just dropping to 103, the p47 should be modeled the same way to.

Von_Rat
02-22-2007, 12:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Seriously, if you have something to say about the performance of the D9, or indeed any aeroplane other than the P-47, do some research, find some data, do some test flying and start a thread about it.

Please leave my P-47 thread for sensible discussion about the P-47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im not disscussing other planes performance, im discussing how wep is implemented in other planes.

you yourself said the p47 use of wep needs to be brought into line with other planes.

how the fark are we going to discuss this, if we can't discuss how other planes implement wep, including bugs, tricks, exploits, if any.

Von_Rat
02-22-2007, 12:15 AM
viper wrote
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As such, I think that the P-47 should overheat in the same way as the other a/c in game, right down to the 103% exploit, with an overheat time based upon the available documentation (ie 5 a 5 minute limit) in order that we get representative relative performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i said the same thing on the previous page, and i got lynched for it by everyone including you.

what happened to your comments about leaving other planes, which includes their bugs in how they use wep, out of the discussion. also see above

leaving that aside, i agree with what you said above.

the only problem i have with it, is what i said serveral posts ago.

i imagine that if oleg changes anything, he'll not change it as you suggest. imo its far more likely he'll just have the p47 overheat hi up, without the 103 trick.

im just guessing of course.

WOLFMondo
02-22-2007, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
How about leaving all this online **** at home and just bringing the facts here and fix what needs to be fixed regardless if it screws up the balance on one server online.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
then the p47 should be able to exploit the same wep bug d9 and others do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? To make it fairer on warclouds? If its a bug and can be proved as such and fixed thats excellent. It means one more plane thats closer to its real life counter part. I'd rather see that than keeping bugs in planes for the sake of a few online pilots who fly one plane sethttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you still dont get it do you.



wep usage at alt causeing overheat is unhistorical for p47, but viper says its needed because thats how the game limits wep usage. so if its unhistorical how do we implement it? we do that by looking at how other planes implement it and model the p47s wep usage accordingly. that means that if other planes can run wep all the time by just dropping to 103, the p47 should be modeled the same way to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WEP usage limitations should be done as they were IRL. The engine will fail after a given period of time either through wear, overheating or other negative effects of putting too much pressure on it or simply the resevoir running dry. For the most part real life limits on some engines were there so the engine had a longer life span and give pilots and ground crews some sort of yard stick to judge when it needed overhauls or throwing in a bin.

I stand by what I say though. If one plane is wrong, fix it. If this means another plane thats incorrect and now has some advantage over the corrected plane, so what, this isn't Quake or BF1942, balance and simulation shouldn't be used in the same sentence. It adds a little more credibility to this sim when one more plane is correct to its real life counter part.

BTW i've still seen nothing to say a real FW190D 9 '44' can't run at 103% power until its juice runs dry.

WWMaxGunz
02-22-2007, 04:05 AM
There comes a time in the life of most big code when you've reached some limits.
Some limits, not just a limit. You hit one, you find another when you need to 'add this please'.

Then comes the time when it takes longer to fix bugs than it took to change or add the code.
And then you know that to push it more is a total mistake, and you tell just that and yet the
customers demand their wants.

On the way to filling the space of hardware and resources, decisions have to be made about how
much space everything gets. And then modeling and simulation become art because there are
judgment calls to make that go beyond technical specs.

Limited effects can be coded so there are limited means of expressing in the model factors of
the real planes as seen by the makers of the code.

So either it's a matter of perhaps data mixup or it's a matter of a balanced decision that it
is the best they did and leave the worm can closed please. The balance probably involves more
factors than anyone not head in the code begins to know and that includes 'adding bits'.

Maybe there would be an answer just at least accept that either case may be true and ready to
accept either? Izzat possible?

ljazz
02-22-2007, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
There comes a time in the life of most big code when you've reached some limits.
Some limits, not just a limit. You hit one, you find another when you need to 'add this please'.

Then comes the time when it takes longer to fix bugs than it took to change or add the code.
And then you know that to push it more is a total mistake, and you tell just that and yet the
customers demand their wants.

On the way to filling the space of hardware and resources, decisions have to be made about how
much space everything gets. And then modeling and simulation become art because there are
judgment calls to make that go beyond technical specs.

Limited effects can be coded so there are limited means of expressing in the model factors of
the real planes as seen by the makers of the code.

So either it's a matter of perhaps data mixup or it's a matter of a balanced decision that it
is the best they did and leave the worm can closed please. The balance probably involves more
factors than anyone not head in the code begins to know and that includes 'adding bits'.

Maybe there would be an answer just at least accept that either case may be true and ready to
accept either? Izzat possible? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen!

That is really the whole point of the overheat thing here. I'm not sure you can fix it without nerfing it. However, if it is fixed to overheat with WEP (including water.... just for you viper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), then so be it. I see no great difference with WEP on or off above 25k. I'm able to hold 260 IAS with it on... all the way down to 70 x 70. If guys want to run out their water when not needed, that is their problem.

My problem with this whole thread has been what I perceive as games (others may disagree, but that is fine).....
Some of the claims made by the thread starter included:
-5 mins of water. We've discovered that is false. (the report he posted was on a b model that didn't even have water)... and btw, if there was only 15mins water available (thanks JtD), then by all means fix it. He even tried to push that the 11 mins mentioned in the training vid was all it had. He stated as if it was fact, when in fact he didn't know.
-Low Tactical mach?.... successfully refuted by Kahuna I believe.
-Overheat issues ..... he didn't bother to mention it was only in the climb... we had to discover that ourselves.

So, now it is time to dig into his charts to see if there is anything else he has assumed, misread or realized while looking through rose tinted glasses.

ljazz

(if it is messed up, then fix it.... but with facts, not what you think it should be)

JtD
02-22-2007, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
...cause your arguing for one bug to replaced by another... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I? Your perception seems to be clouded by prejudice. Pathetic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

talk about pathetic, you start the name calling without even relizeing i mostly fly the d9 and not the p47. so much for prejudice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might hurt your ego, but I don't give a **** about how many hours you spent in whichever plane, as this has zero effect on the flight models in this sim.

What I find pathetic is that you argue for more bugs in a sim game just to keep your online server plane setup balanced. Just sick. But you just don't get it. Actually you didn't seem to get anything I wrote. I bet you still open the rads on the P-47. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Well, like I said. Pathetic.

Viper2005_
02-22-2007, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
Amen!

That is really the whole point of the overheat thing here. I'm not sure you can fix it without nerfing it. However, if it is fixed to overheat with WEP (including water.... just for you viper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), then so be it. I see no great difference with WEP on or off above 25k. I'm able to hold 260 IAS with it on... all the way down to 70 x 70. If guys want to run out their water when not needed, that is their problem.

My problem with this whole thread has been what I perceive as games (others may disagree, but that is fine).....
Some of the claims made by the thread starter included:
-5 mins of water. We've discovered that is false. (the report he posted was on a b model that didn't even have water)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I pointed out that the use of War Emergency Power/Military Power was limited to 5 minutes, not that the water supply was limited to 5 minutes. I was quite clear on that point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
and btw, if there was only 15mins water available (thanks JtD), then by all means fix it. He even tried to push that the 11 mins mentioned in the training vid was all it had. He stated as if it was fact, when in fact he didn't know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 11 minutes in the training video was correct or indeed optimistic for the D-10, and indeed all blocks fitted with the 15 gallon water tank. Until you can show me what size of water tank each of our P-47s in game had IRL you can hardly call B/S on that can you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
-Low Tactical mach?.... successfully refuted by Kahuna I believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. If Kahuna can show me a pilot that can take a P-47 say 0.1M faster than Eric Brown, then that same pilot should be able to take any other aircraft to similarly higher Mach numbers. For example, whilst Brown was limited to about M0.83 when flying the Spitfire due to the stick forces required, the late Squadron Leader Martindale was capable of taking the aircraft safely to M0.89. By the same token, he might have been able to take a P-47 to say M0.77 instead of M0.72. Dispute the numbers based upon the size of your champion's biceps all you want - the relative performance of the aeroplanes won't change. In fact, given that Oleg limits us to a 1 handed 25 kgf pull, or there abouts, our tactical and limiting Mach numbers might well be lower than those quoted by Brown. But the relative order is unlikely to change.

As I pointed out to Kahuna, the most important feature of Brown's results is that because they were all collected by one man, pilot strength and skill is to a large degree taken out of the equation, allowing us to see the relative performance of the aeroplanes tested more clearly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-Overheat issues ..... he didn't bother to mention it was only in the climb... we had to discover that ourselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, actually as early as post #1 I pointed out that overheating was not an historical issue for most WWII aircraft, and even went so far as to post references demonstrating that in level flight the Mustang was not limited by overheating, even at +25 psi.

I then explained that in most cases the game uses overheating to prevent players from running their engines flat out all the time contrary to the limitations listed in the POH/Pilot's Notes or similar technical documentation.

However, as a subsidiary point I mentioned that air-cooled engines are by definition more prone to overheating when run at high powers, and quoted the test report on running the P-47D at high power using 44-1 fuel which clearly states that high CHT could be reached during extended climbs or level flight and that care was therefore required.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, now it is time to dig into his charts to see if there is anything else he has assumed, misread or realized while looking through rose tinted glasses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean to see how many more opportunities you can find to twist, assume, misread or misinterpret to further your goal of rubbishing this thread to protect the performance of what I can only assume is your favourite a/c against the changes required to bring it into line with historical performance. Irrespective of the overheating issue, speed at both high and low altitudes & ROC are excessive, but of course you've forgotten that and instead have decided to concentrate on overheat because that's a more complicated issue and therefore easier to play games with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
ljazz

(if it is messed up, then fix it.... but with facts, not what you think it should be) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to engage in debate, please do so via reference to fact rather than your tiresome fiction based upon what you think the facts "should" be, or what I "should" have written. Otherwise perhaps if you have nothing productive to say, perhaps you "should" say nothing at all? I assure you that no further demonstration of your failure to comprehend the written word, nor of your willingness to distort it to suit your purposes is required!

Diablo310th
02-22-2007, 12:28 PM
OK....I found something. Here is a quote from a site which i will provide the link to stating the number of gallons of water in the Jug.
"To meet the demands for a higher emergency rating and to safeguard the engine from detonation when operated at considerably above the military power, water injection has been applied to the Thunderbolt's power plant. Water is pumped from a 30 gal tank strapped to the firewall and is admitted through a water regulator by operation of a solenoid valve. Pressurized water beyond the regulator resets carburetor mixture so that the fuel-air ratio is decreased thereby increasing power without a corresponding rise in manifold pressure. The higher increase in power, however, is developed by high manifold pressure accomplished through a boost reset mechanism also actuated by water pressure; the reset overrides the supercharger regulator setting of the waste gates, therefore permitting the turbo to develop the higher rpms required to maintain the War Emergency Rating manifold pressure."

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

This may not answer all questions but it's a start

Viper2005_
02-22-2007, 12:41 PM
Yes, I've seen that. The trouble is that AFAIK when water injection was first introduced a 15 gallon tank was used, giving about 10-11 minutes of water at 56" Hg/2700 rpm.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035-11oct43.html

Somewhere along the line they switched to a 30 gallon tank, but when? What size of water tank should each of the P-47s in game have?

Also, since water consumption was almost certainly proportional to rpm and manifold pressure, how long should the water last at the higher power settings used by later P-47s in the game?

JtD
02-22-2007, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

Somewhere along the line they switched to a 30 gallon tank, but when? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A very good question. I have seen contradicting info on this issue, for instance the D-10 with both 15 and 30 gal data. I think they may have field modded early models and exchanged the 15 gal tank with a 30 gal tank when they found out that 30 is better.

Diablo310th
02-22-2007, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Yes, I've seen that. The trouble is that AFAIK when water injection was first introduced a 15 gallon tank was used, giving about 10-11 minutes of water at 56" Hg/2700 rpm.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035-11oct43.html

Somewhere along the line they switched to a 30 gallon tank, but when? What size of water tank should each of the P-47s in game have?

Also, since water consumption was almost certainly proportional to rpm and manifold pressure, how long should the water last at the higher power settings used by later P-47s in the game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree....maybe only Oleg has teh documents to prove or disprove that. Just like his loadout of the 50's with HE ammo. We can argue this all we want but ultimately it's Olegs documents or others that we can provide will get him to change things. So far nobody can present anything that will get him to change his mind I'm sure.

Von_Rat
02-22-2007, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
How about leaving all this online **** at home and just bringing the facts here and fix what needs to be fixed regardless if it screws up the balance on one server online.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
then the p47 should be able to exploit the same wep bug d9 and others do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? To make it fairer on warclouds? If its a bug and can be proved as such and fixed thats excellent. It means one more plane thats closer to its real life counter part. I'd rather see that than keeping bugs in planes for the sake of a few online pilots who fly one plane sethttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you still dont get it do you.



wep usage at alt causeing overheat is unhistorical for p47, but viper says its needed because thats how the game limits wep usage. so if its unhistorical how do we implement it? we do that by looking at how other planes implement it and model the p47s wep usage accordingly. that means that if other planes can run wep all the time by just dropping to 103, the p47 should be modeled the same way to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WEP usage limitations should be done as they were IRL. The engine will fail after a given period of time either through wear, overheating or other negative effects of putting too much pressure on it or simply the resevoir running dry. For the most part real life limits on some engines were there so the engine had a longer life span and give pilots and ground crews some sort of yard stick to judge when it needed overhauls or throwing in a bin.

I stand by what I say though. If one plane is wrong, fix it. If this means another plane thats incorrect and now has some advantage over the corrected plane, so what, this isn't Quake or BF1942, balance and simulation shouldn't be used in the same sentence. It adds a little more credibility to this sim when one more plane is correct to its real life counter part.

BTW i've still seen nothing to say a real FW190D 9 '44' can't run at 103% power until its juice runs dry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i would love it if wep usage limitations could be done in game as it was irl. but the game doesnt do it that way, as viper has explained at least twice.

since the planes wep usage cant be made like rl we can only discuss how to approximate it. the ingame p47 cant be "fixed" as you suggest. it's hi alt wep usage can only be limited in the same way as other planes, to bring it inline with the other planes. viper uses the words "made consistent".

there is no black or white here, that you seem to be looking for.

Von_Rat
02-22-2007, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
...cause your arguing for one bug to replaced by another... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I? Your perception seems to be clouded by prejudice. Pathetic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

talk about pathetic, you start the name calling without even relizeing i mostly fly the d9 and not the p47. so much for prejudice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might hurt your ego, but I don't give a **** about how many hours you spent in whichever plane, as this has zero effect on the flight models in this sim.

What I find pathetic is that you argue for more bugs in a sim game just to keep your online server plane setup balanced. Just sick. But you just don't get it. Actually you didn't seem to get anything I wrote. I bet you still open the rads on the P-47. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Well, like I said. Pathetic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you seem to be the one with the hurt ego,,,jeeez what a rant.

as for bugs, despite your delusions i dont want more bugs, i just don't want to trade one bug for another. i guess your just to thick to grasp that though.

i don't open rads on p47 as wide as you open your mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Von_Rat
02-23-2007, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
There comes a time in the life of most big code when you've reached some limits.
Some limits, not just a limit. You hit one, you find another when you need to 'add this please'.

Then comes the time when it takes longer to fix bugs than it took to change or add the code.
And then you know that to push it more is a total mistake, and you tell just that and yet the
customers demand their wants.

On the way to filling the space of hardware and resources, decisions have to be made about how
much space everything gets. And then modeling and simulation become art because there are
judgment calls to make that go beyond technical specs.

Limited effects can be coded so there are limited means of expressing in the model factors of
the real planes as seen by the makers of the code.

So either it's a matter of perhaps data mixup or it's a matter of a balanced decision that it
is the best they did and leave the worm can closed please. The balance probably involves more
factors than anyone not head in the code begins to know and that includes 'adding bits'.

Maybe there would be an answer just at least accept that either case may be true and ready to
accept either? Izzat possible? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

good post

JtD
02-23-2007, 07:31 AM
Power settings the P-47D-10 can go without overheating in level flight in game (Crimea, 12:00 noon):

3000m: 100% no water
4000m: 102% with water
5000m: 108% with water
6000m: 110% with water

The D-27 seems to be a tad better, maybe 1%, because of the higher speeds and thus better cooling.

Diablo310th
02-23-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Power settings the P-47D-10 can go without overheating in level flight in game (Crimea, 12:00 noon):

3000m: 100% no water
4000m: 102% with water
5000m: 108% with water
6000m: 110% with water

The D-27 seems to be a tad better, maybe 1%, because of the higher speeds and thus better cooling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm well that's very intersting. So basicly this means that teh Jug has the same ability to cheat using teh 103% WEP as teh Dora? Did i read that right? So no need to change eitehr?

Brain32
02-23-2007, 08:08 AM
Yes, well the "tiny" little problem is that t3h Jugie can do it rads closed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Diablo310th
02-23-2007, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Yes, well the "tiny" little problem is that t3h Jugie can do it rads closed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL awwww ok I see Brain. Well then Oleg needs to fix the rads on it and make it worth opening them. They haven't had any cooling effect in many many patches. Actually I would rather see them work and be able to actually use them to help cool my PW down when I need to.

Viper2005_
02-23-2007, 08:53 AM
JtD's results show that the P-47's performance is considerably different from that of most other aeroplanes.

Most aeroplanes (eg the Dora) can run at about 103% power with open radiators and avoid overheat.

The P-47 achieves the powers JtD quotes with closed radiators.

Somewhere between 4 km and 5 km it passes 103% power and from that point onwards there is a large inconsistency because on the one hand it can run beyond 103% without overheat, and on the other it can do so with no drag penalty from open radiators.

I would point out that this isn't just a radial engine thing, because if it was then other types such as the Fw-190A would be able to do it.

***

Anyway, aside from the overheat issue, the P-47 seems to be too fast at low level, very slightly too slow at medium level and much too fast above FTH, whilst also climbing far too well at all altitudes.

This combination of bugs, combined with the fact that the game doesn't model compressibility effects results in the P-47D doing things that it couldn't and therefore shouldn't.

WWMaxGunz
02-23-2007, 09:50 AM
You are asking for more code to bring the flight engine to higher detail level.
Have you checked if the current situation is the way it is on purpose?

Viper2005_
02-23-2007, 10:34 AM
No, I'm asking for the existing code to be applied to the P-47. At this stage I am merely collecting evidence and conducting research, although I have already come to some pretty solid conclusions.

I expect to receive P-47 manuals early next month, along with other resources which I shall then use to decide which areas to test.

I want to get this well and truly right before I contact 1c.

JtD
02-23-2007, 01:57 PM
Maybe you can tell us what they say about the water tank capacity.

Viper2005_
02-23-2007, 02:17 PM
Will do!

zunzun
02-24-2007, 06:23 AM
There seem to be some variety regarding SL speed on P47D:

In this comparation chart (I think is from US Navy) it says P47D at 64hg does 354 mph IAS at SL.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/7721/alliedchrts2mf2.th.jpg (http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=alliedchrts2mf2.jpg)

Then, there is the comparation between D,M and N models, as posted by Kahuna, showing the D doing 345mph at SL (this one is a d-30).

Meanwhile in the report about the razorback at 70hg with 150 octanes fuel shown a SL speed of "just" 346-348 mph (if compared with former two).

I don`t know where these discrepances come from but it could be by using a diferent engine with a diferent turbocharger (bubletops optimized for lower height operations after invasion).

Anyway, acording these data D-27 seems to be ok at SL if compared with these two test (a bit slow if compared with the first one and about 6mph too fast if compared with the second one).
D Late also doesnt seem too fast at SL if compared with these two test because logic says that at a higher engine output SL speed should be greater.
Obviously if we stick with the third test speed is too high.
Finally, as we dont have (at least I dont) any other data but the test on the P47D Nº42-26167 using 44-1 fuel, the high level speed above FTH seems wrong on the high side.
What I think is that there is two much "data mix" in the FM of the D-27 late. Perhaps the "almost p47 M performance" quote is the key.

Viper2005_
02-24-2007, 08:03 AM
Well, I'd much rather that it was either a D or an M. If it's a mix between the two then how can we analyse its performance?

I am surprised that Nº42-26167 was the slowest at sea level because since it was a razor back it should have had much less drag...

jermin122
02-24-2007, 09:53 AM
I also have one question of P47D, P51, P38, Spitfire and Tempest. Can their boost fluid be run out?

jermin122
02-24-2007, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

1.does that doc say how long to overheat with rads closed?

those links you posted relating to overheat are for mustang so they are worthless for this disscussion.


2.its only slighty differant, big deal you gotta play with throttle a little. if they change p47 the same trick better apply. im getting sick of american planes being held to a hi standard, but all the other planes can slide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you had forgotten us Anton fans. Can anyone please tell me whether antons overheat like hell in RL?

jermin122
02-24-2007, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Viper2005: The game uses "overheat" to enforce engine operating limits as well as to model actual overheating. So in other words, if you're flying a P-51 at WEP in a level speed run, IRL you won't overheat the engine with the radiator in AUTO, but if you exceed the time limit for operations at WEP you greatly increase the risk of engine failure and/or crew-chief induced injuries.

The game doesn't model this kind of failure mode, so instead it uses "overheat". Almost all the radiators in the game are deliberately undermodelled. Once a certain overheat temperature is reached a timer starts and after a specified time period the engine is damaged. Subsequent failure is then inevitable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed!

IIRC, in the game, MW50 has a 26 mins limit on all 109s and 38 mins on Ta and D9'45. After the MW50 fluid is run out, MW50 should be disabled immediately. Otherwise the engine will be damaged. Doesn't P47's water-injection work like MW50? And AFAIK, Forsazh also has a time limit in RL but it doesn't have such a limit in the game.

Kwiatos
02-25-2007, 03:35 AM
Forsazh was only maximum engine avialable power not aditional boost like MW50 or Water-Injection - and was limited only by altitude (up to 3 km) and overheat.

JtD
02-25-2007, 03:57 AM
It still was limited in time as can be seen in the La-5FN handbook. I'm just to lazy to look it up now.

It's the same as wep settings for Merlins, Allisons or BMWs. All just ran high boost and still had limitations in the region of 3-5 minutes.

Diablo310th
02-25-2007, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
I also have one question of P47D, P51, P38, Spitfire and Tempest. Can their boost fluid be run out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The water supply on the jug will indeed eventually run out.

jermin122
02-25-2007, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It still was limited in time as can be seen in the La-5FN handbook. I'm just to lazy to look it up now.

It's the same as wep settings for Merlins, Allisons or BMWs. All just ran high boost and still had limitations in the region of 3-5 minutes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yup!

jermin122
02-25-2007, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HellToupee:yet you are forgetting many planes are chronically optimistic at various alts, d9 doing 450mph at 6k or g2 outclimbing a k4 or the overall 190 mega strong dm envy of any p47 for example. Should those be fixed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Viper is trying to make this sim more historically accurate and we can see his hard efferts. If you think some other planes are chronnically optimistic, just start another thread. This thread is about P47, not any other planes. Otherwise please keep silence. And if you think this game is not that accurate, you know, there isn't only one ww2 flight sim in the world.

VW-IceFire
02-25-2007, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
I also have one question of P47D, P51, P38, Spitfire and Tempest. Can their boost fluid be run out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
With the Tempest the WEP brings the engine up beyond its recommended maximum power/boost settings. You'll notice the boost jumps up to a maximum of 9lbs (given that we have a 9lb version - later models had 11lb and 13lbs). There is no fluid...although you really can't (in real life) run an engine like that indefinitely. I believe the comment was that pushing the throttle past the WEP pin (which broke the pin on the throttle) was a signal to the ground crew to do a rebuild on the engine after.

jermin122
02-25-2007, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Von_Rat: if p47 is changed then at all alts, nots just low like now, the p47 will have to fly rads open and drop outta wep to cool. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know that? You know exactly what Oleg will do? If you are really afraid about this, why don't you just tell Oleg but mess around here? Geez, someone is talking about something hasn't happened yet! But seriously, I don't think Oleg will change P47 to a piece of junk.

jermin122
02-25-2007, 11:55 PM
Just finishing reading this thread. I didn't expect that the result could be so dramatic. P47 can also do the 103% exploit and even with rad close! So what was Von_Rat actually arguing all about? Maybe he hadn't flown P47 long enough? Who knows.

And Viper, do you know how long can water-injection on P51, Spitfire and Mustang last? Maybe they should be fixed too.

R_Target
02-26-2007, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
And Viper, do you know how long can water-injection on P51, Spitfire and Mustang last? Maybe they should be fixed too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51 doesn't have water injection.

jermin122
02-26-2007, 12:34 AM
Then what WEP did it use?

R_Target
02-26-2007, 01:12 AM
Some of the others can probably explain it better than I can, but to my understanding the Merlin uses high octane fuel for anti-detonation with high boost pressure(WEP).

TheBandit_76
02-26-2007, 04:55 AM
This is incredible, a bunch of "blue" guys really really concerned about "fixing" the US planes to dumb them down even more.

UN-believable.

Seriously guys, how MUCH of an advantage is enough? You already have weapons, FM, DM, AND stability over US planes.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Mysticpuma2003
02-26-2007, 07:30 AM
Ok, I got to page 5 and started to see it turning into a flame war, so I skipped through to the last page.

After reading the facts posted in the first pages, I appreciate the need for historical accuracy, although with counter-arguments it becomes difficult to define who is right or wrong without getting guys who flew the planes IRL to fly these too.

I would be disappointed to see any changes to the P-47D as it is already challenging to fly, and saying that it is no-longer to have a very slight advantage in climb at alt, is really taking the biscuit.

The cockpit model is still incorrect, the weapon loadout is still incorrect and yet, we have to suffer with these. Now along comes another argument to say that there is a slight indiscrepancy in it's WEP model.

How does this sound.

Oleg if you read this and are at-all interested in fixing the P-47, could you please put it at the end of the list of fixes which you have also ignored in this formidable plane?

As it stands, it is believed to be a mix of accurate and inaccurate modeling by parts of the community.

So for the sake of fairness, let those who would fly the P-47, suffer less by giving us the proper model and maybe those who complain about certain parts of it's performance could argue as vehemently for this to be fixed at the same time?

Why only ask for one thing to be fixed, when there are so many?

Could it be that there is another agenda?

MP.

Diablo310th
02-26-2007, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why only ask for one thing to be fixed, when there are so many?

Could it be that there is another agenda?

MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shirley not!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jermin122
02-26-2007, 08:38 AM
To be frank, I don't see how challenging it is to fly P47, MP. Contrarily, it's quite easy. The only planes in Warcloulds can deal with it is Dora. And perhaps you don't know how deadly the .50 had become since 4.08. A few hits could make an A9 almost unflyable. And most P47 sI encountered in WC are one or two thousand meters above me when I was cruising at 6500m. As for the zoom climb, it can outzoom A9 very easily. Go to try A9 for several sorties. You'll find it that A9 is the most challenging plane to fly.

Viper2005_
02-26-2007, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
Ok, I got to page 5 and started to see it turning into a flame war, so I skipped through to the last page.

After reading the facts posted in the first pages, I appreciate the need for historical accuracy, although with counter-arguments it becomes difficult to define who is right or wrong without getting guys who flew the planes IRL to fly these too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, given the data available, I'd say that the climb rate and speed performance can be looked at very objectively.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would be disappointed to see any changes to the P-47D as it is already challenging to fly, and saying that it is no-longer to have a very slight advantage in climb at alt, is really taking the biscuit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now we get to the main thrust of your argument...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The cockpit model is still incorrect, the weapon loadout is still incorrect and yet, we have to suffer with these. Now along comes another argument to say that there is a slight indiscrepancy in it's WEP model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> What's an "indsicrepancy"? Seriously, if you mean the duration of its water injection, it might actually be a very large discrepancy. If you mean its overheat model, it's totally out of line with the rest of the aeroplanes in the sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How does this sound.

Oleg if you read this and are at-all interested in fixing the P-47, could you please put it at the end of the list of fixes which you have also ignored in this formidable plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh ok, so you want him to carry out every "fix" which would enhance its performance and then maybe if he has time deal with its massive over-performance issues in climb and level speed both on the deck and at high altitude. Great.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As it stands, it is believed to be a mix of accurate and inaccurate modeling by parts of the community.

So for the sake of fairness, let those who would fly the P-47, suffer less by giving us the proper model and maybe those who complain about certain parts of it's performance could argue as vehemently for this to be fixed at the same time?

Why only ask for one thing to be fixed, when there are so many? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, as I collect more data, the list of fixes I'm asking for is slowly getting longer. This list of fixes includes an increase in speed at medium level, and fixing the fuel placard in the cockpit to reflect the use of 150 grade fuel. I haven't even mentioned the totally inaccurate mechanics of the turbocharger gauges etc because the chances of major changes being made to the cockpit model at this stage are nil. However, a realistic cockpit model would force you to manipulate the "supercharger" level with considerable dexterity to keep the various engine parameters within limits at different altitudes...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Could it be that there is another agenda? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You certainly seem to have one... Personally I just want the P-47 to perform as correctly as possible within the constraints imposed by the game engine, irrespective of the effect this may have on certain players' online stats. Then once it's fixed I'll probably move on to another aeroplane. I am very interested in the performance of the Fw190 - but since my German is terrible, it may take me quite some time to form an opinion as to what its performance should be like for comparison with the game...

Chances are BoB will beat me, but thankfully I have quite a lot of data on the Spitfire I...

JtD
02-26-2007, 09:25 AM
Most WEP systems in WW2 used higher boost settings. You just have the engine go full throttle, just like pushing the pedal to the metal in your car. This comes at a price of increased stress to the engine, extra heat and a huge fuel consumption.

Engines that had been used under WEP settings quite often did get a complete overhaul just to make sure they can safely take it another time.

Mysticpuma2003
02-26-2007, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You certainly seem to have one... Personally I just want the P-47 to perform as correctly as possible within the constraints imposed by the game engine, irrespective of the effect this may have on certain players' online stats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to point out that the stats Viper is talking about, does not relate to me.

Please go to Warclouds and check out my stats, I am the player who makes all the others look good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Seriously, and not getting into a war of flames, can I ask the reason for only picking the one issue to highlight with the P-47?

I have, as I said above, requested the proper loadouts (2x1000lb bomb and 1x500lb) along with corrected gunsight (not Octagonal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ), Supercharger levers that show the Supercharger is actually engaged, along with others who have requested other fixes.

Now if Oleg wants to go plane-by-plane, and fix all the issues, then that is fair and I can respect that, but if he changes each plane, feature-by-feature, I don't see that it can be justified.

So lets say I said that the loadouts are biased towards Blue, because I can only carry 2000lb of bombs, instead of 2500lb, well already I am limited to the amount of damage I can inflict because of this.

Oleg comes along and reduces the length of WEP boost due to this thread.

I then have a plane that, not only carries a reduced loadout, but now I am limited to my altitude flying time. So why has he only fixed something that could help the other team, but not increased the bomb load?

I have, as I said above, no problems with accuracy being asked for, but alongside it, I would ask that fairness also be given.

If you take away a slight altitude advantage, please give me an increased reason to 'pound the ground!'

Yours, 'non-flamingly', MP.

TheBandit_76
02-26-2007, 11:17 AM
Yes, ignore the one-bullet-death R2800 and instead "fix" up something that could potentially make the P47 competitive in Warclouds.

We all know the history books say US planes were far from competitive opponents for the LW.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

JtD
02-26-2007, 12:08 PM
What do you think about opening up an "I whine because I fly on Warclouds" topic and leave ORR for game related things like plane performance?

Viper2005_
02-26-2007, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You certainly seem to have one... Personally I just want the P-47 to perform as correctly as possible within the constraints imposed by the game engine, irrespective of the effect this may have on certain players' online stats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to point out that the stats Viper is talking about, does not relate to me.

Please go to Warclouds and check out my stats, I am the player who makes all the others look good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Seriously, and not getting into a war of flames, can I ask the reason for only picking the one issue to highlight with the P-47?

I have, as I said above, requested the proper loadouts (2x1000lb bomb and 1x500lb) along with corrected gunsight (not Octagonal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ), Supercharger levers that show the Supercharger is actually engaged, along with others who have requested other fixes.

Now if Oleg wants to go plane-by-plane, and fix all the issues, then that is fair and I can respect that, but if he changes each plane, feature-by-feature, I don't see that it can be justified.

So lets say I said that the loadouts are biased towards Blue, because I can only carry 2000lb of bombs, instead of 2500lb, well already I am limited to the amount of damage I can inflict because of this.

Oleg comes along and reduces the length of WEP boost due to this thread.

I then have a plane that, not only carries a reduced loadout, but now I am limited to my altitude flying time. So why has he only fixed something that could help the other team, but not increased the bomb load?

I have, as I said above, no problems with accuracy being asked for, but alongside it, I would ask that fairness also be given.

If you take away a slight altitude advantage, please give me an increased reason to 'pound the ground!'

Yours, 'non-flamingly', MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the intention of this thread is to look at all aspects of P-47D performance. Fairness doesn't come into it. This is just all about accuracy. So, if you've got documentary evidence, post away and I'll add it to the list of things that need fixing.

However, I expect that we are more likely to see performance tweaks than other more complicated mods because of the limited resources available for patches etc.

But by all means, post away - I have no agenda here other than accuracy, whatever certain people might think.

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2007, 02:12 PM
If this has just been about a 'bug' report the please stop reading this post now!

Otherwise:

So here is yet another add to the fix list that was AFAIK closed months ago.
But perhaps it gets re-opened for a complete re-tweak of every plane climb, speed and turn?

While we're at it let's go to the Louvre and have them touch up all those old paintings.
I am sure that is a more important use of the sharply discriminating minds here instead
of correcting the lesser art form exercised by Team Maddox.

It can't be perfect so instead it is the best they could do. That does involve decisions
and tradeoffs and yes, it is an art and so it is up to the artist(s). Anyone here one of
that crew? What I pity the most is every time any of them interacts here, they get swamped
with over 50% abusive whines.

HayateAce
02-26-2007, 05:11 PM
Sounds like some bleus getting pwned in teh Warclowns.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Viper2005_
02-26-2007, 05:14 PM
I'm not a fan of quoting myself, but I will make an exception in this case:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Same old story HayateAce. You have nothing worthwhile to say, but as ever you just can't resist saying it anyway.

Please waste time/bandwidth/oxygen elsewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ljazz
02-27-2007, 04:47 AM
The more I look at this, the more I don't have an issue with the overheat or wep (water duration) being fixed. In a 40+ minute flight online, I used a total of 9 mins water. Landed 3 kills. I see very little advantage in using the water above 25k...... and it is probably even lower than that Certainly not enough for me to whine about. In fact, IMHO, using water up there is simply a waste. As far as the overheat is concerned, your reports show a very fine line between overheating and not.... decreasing climb rate so that 20mph more was obtained was enough to keep the engine cool. This leads me to believe that in higher speed cruise at alt, overheat should not be a problem. After JtD's comment to me that the model did account overheat at lower speeds, I did some offline checking, and I do concur. However, it appears very basic, and I somehow think it is a bit too simplistic. So much so that we can probably find overheat issues with every a/c in the sim.

Viper, I'm trying to find out specifics, but a few patches ago, Oleg increased the speed on the 47's across the board. My understanding is someone presented him with some overwhelming info. I think you'll have a tough go of getting him to change it. Perhaps we can get Kahuna to elaborate?

And while we're fixing it, why don't we make sure we get this too (as noted in the first report you linked to):

"K. High Altitude Trials

Several flights were made over 30,000 ft. and no objectionable characteristics were noticed. The airplane performs and handles very similar to the way it does at lower altitudes."

It would be nice to have it handle as nice up high as it does down low. As it stands, turning above 25k is like riding a unicycle. A real balancing act on the rudders.

ljazz

Brain32
02-27-2007, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It would be nice to have it handle as nice up high as it does down low. As it stands, turning above 25k is like riding a unicycle. A real balancing act on the rudders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You should really buy a joystick, playing with the keyboard although possible just doesn't cut it.
As for it's low level performance, I didn't know P47 was low alt turnfighter, but I guess Oleg did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

zunzun
02-27-2007, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
As for it's low level performance, I didn't know P47 was low alt turnfighter, but I guess Oleg did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this a joke? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Diablo310th
02-27-2007, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zunzun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
As for it's low level performance, I didn't know P47 was low alt turnfighter, but I guess Oleg did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this a joke? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It must be zunzun. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Viper2005_
02-27-2007, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
The more I look at this, the more I don't have an issue with the overheat or wep (water duration) being fixed. In a 40+ minute flight online, I used a total of 9 mins water. Landed 3 kills. I see very little advantage in using the water above 25k...... and it is probably even lower than that Certainly not enough for me to whine about. In fact, IMHO, using water up there is simply a waste. As far as the overheat is concerned, your reports show a very fine line between overheating and not.... decreasing climb rate so that 20mph more was obtained was enough to keep the engine cool. This leads me to believe that in higher speed cruise at alt, overheat should not be a problem. After JtD's comment to me that the model did account overheat at lower speeds, I did some offline checking, and I do concur. However, it appears very basic, and I somehow think it is a bit too simplistic. So much so that we can probably find overheat issues with every a/c in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many times do I have to refer you to post #1 in this thread?

OVERHEAT IS USED IN THE GAME TO PREVENT ENGINE ABUSE, NOT SIMPLY TO MODEL ACTUAL OVERHEATING. THAT IS WHY AIRCRAFT LIKE THE P-51 OVERHEAT IN THE GAME IN LEVEL FLIGHT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TEST DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE. THIS WORKS AROUND THE FACT THAT THE GAME DOESN'T DIRECTLY MODEL ENGINE FAILURES DUE TO THE USE OF HIGH POWER SETTINGS FOR EXCESSIVE PERIODS OF TIME.

THEREFORE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IRL THE P-47 WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE OVERHEATED IN HIGH SPEED LEVEL FLIGHT AT HIGH ALTITUDE, IN ORDER TO BRING IT INTO LINE WITH THE MODELLING SYSTEM USED IN THE REST OF THE GAME IT SHOULD BE MADE TO DO SO, BECAUSE IN THE TIME AVAILABLE IT IS MUCH EASIER TO CHANGE ONE AIRCRAFT TO MATCH THE REST THAN IT IS TO CHANGE ALL THE OTHER AEROPLANES AND ADD THE CODE REQUIRED TO CAUSE ENGINE FAILURES WHEN HIGH POWER SETTINGS ARE ABUSED.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Viper, I'm trying to find out specifics, but a few patches ago, Oleg increased the speed on the 47's across the board. My understanding is someone presented him with some overwhelming info. I think you'll have a tough go of getting him to change it. Perhaps we can get Kahuna to elaborate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'd say that the test data presented thusfar is of pretty decent quality, and I shall be adding to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And while we're fixing it, why don't we make sure we get this too (as noted in the first report you linked to):

"K. High Altitude Trials

Several flights were made over 30,000 ft. and no objectionable characteristics were noticed. The airplane performs and handles very similar to the way it does at lower altitudes."

It would be nice to have it handle as nice up high as it does down low. As it stands, turning above 25k is like riding a unicycle. A real balancing act on the rudders.

ljazz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Handling is a very subjective business. I haven't had any problems with the P-47's handling. But then I never had any problems with the P-51 even when everybody was complaining to high heaven, probably because I use a high quality joystick.

If you can find an objective way of measuring the characteristics which you feel need to be changed, great. If not I don't see any changes being made.

ljazz
02-27-2007, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
The more I look at this, the more I don't have an issue with the overheat or wep (water duration) being fixed. In a 40+ minute flight online, I used a total of 9 mins water. Landed 3 kills. I see very little advantage in using the water above 25k...... and it is probably even lower than that Certainly not enough for me to whine about. In fact, IMHO, using water up there is simply a waste. As far as the overheat is concerned, your reports show a very fine line between overheating and not.... decreasing climb rate so that 20mph more was obtained was enough to keep the engine cool. This leads me to believe that in higher speed cruise at alt, overheat should not be a problem. After JtD's comment to me that the model did account overheat at lower speeds, I did some offline checking, and I do concur. However, it appears very basic, and I somehow think it is a bit too simplistic. So much so that we can probably find overheat issues with every a/c in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many times do I have to refer you to post #1 in this thread?

OVERHEAT IS USED IN THE GAME TO PREVENT ENGINE ABUSE, NOT SIMPLY TO MODEL ACTUAL OVERHEATING. THAT IS WHY AIRCRAFT LIKE THE P-51 OVERHEAT IN THE GAME IN LEVEL FLIGHT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TEST DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE. THIS WORKS AROUND THE FACT THAT THE GAME DOESN'T DIRECTLY MODEL ENGINE FAILURES DUE TO THE USE OF HIGH POWER SETTINGS FOR EXCESSIVE PERIODS OF TIME.

THEREFORE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IRL THE P-47 WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE OVERHEATED IN HIGH SPEED LEVEL FLIGHT AT HIGH ALTITUDE, IN ORDER TO BRING IT INTO LINE WITH THE MODELLING SYSTEM USED IN THE REST OF THE GAME IT SHOULD BE MADE TO DO SO, BECAUSE IN THE TIME AVAILABLE IT IS MUCH EASIER TO CHANGE ONE AIRCRAFT TO MATCH THE REST THAN IT IS TO CHANGE ALL THE OTHER AEROPLANES AND ADD THE CODE REQUIRED TO CAUSE ENGINE FAILURES WHEN HIGH POWER SETTINGS ARE ABUSED.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Viper, I'm trying to find out specifics, but a few patches ago, Oleg increased the speed on the 47's across the board. My understanding is someone presented him with some overwhelming info. I think you'll have a tough go of getting him to change it. Perhaps we can get Kahuna to elaborate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'd say that the test data presented thusfar is of pretty decent quality, and I shall be adding to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And while we're fixing it, why don't we make sure we get this too (as noted in the first report you linked to):

"K. High Altitude Trials

Several flights were made over 30,000 ft. and no objectionable characteristics were noticed. The airplane performs and handles very similar to the way it does at lower altitudes."

It would be nice to have it handle as nice up high as it does down low. As it stands, turning above 25k is like riding a unicycle. A real balancing act on the rudders.

ljazz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Handling is a very subjective business. I haven't had any problems with the P-47's handling. But then I never had any problems with the P-51 even when everybody was complaining to high heaven, probably because I use a high quality joystick.

If you can find an objective way of measuring the characteristics which you feel need to be changed, great. If not I don't see any changes being made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This portion is new:

Viper-"THEREFORE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IRL THE P-47 WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE OVERHEATED IN HIGH SPEED LEVEL FLIGHT AT HIGH ALTITUDE, IN ORDER TO BRING IT INTO LINE WITH THE MODELLING SYSTEM USED IN THE REST OF THE GAME IT SHOULD BE MADE TO DO SO....."

... and was not in your first post. Yet this was, and contradicts what you've just posted:

Viper-"In addition, the P-47D does not appear to suffer from any form of overheating at altitude, which would appear to be historically inaccurate ......"

Perhaps we could understand what you're saying a little bit better if you did too? You've gone from historically inaccurate to it now being a compromise of the game engine. And since you've changed your original post numerous times, I think even you're a bit lost. (remember, I made a copy of one of the first versions)

But I digress... fix the water amount, change the overheat. The guy(s) in the Jugs that were spanking you before will still be spanking you.

I too have a good rig, and there is no test needed to understand the in game version of the 47 doesn't handle "very similar to the way it does at lower altitudes." You must admit that not even the 51 handles the same up high as it does down low... nothing even close to similar. Perhaps this is a compromise too?

ljazz

Viper2005_
02-27-2007, 09:50 PM
Let me help you with your selective reading:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In addition, the P-47D does not appear to suffer from <span class="ev_code_red">any form</span> of overheating at altitude, which would appear to be historically inaccurate based upon the following, taken from the Recommendations section of the report:

quote:
It is recommended that pilots using these higher powers be cautioned concerning the high cylinder head temperatures and carburetor air temperatures which may be encountered in extended climbs or level flight.



Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of actual overheating, it would appear that overheating is used in general within the sim as a device to prevent players from greatly exceeding various engine limitations (such for example as the 5 minute limitation for +25 psi operations of the Mustang III, or 67"Hg operations of the P-51B-D) despite the fact that test documentation would suggest that overheating would not in fact limit performance at high speed (see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64161.html , which cites average radiator openings of 8" corrected to give performance equivalent to a flush radiator [7" opening], and http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html which cites a radiator adjustment to 8" opening to provide adequate cooling at +25 psi, thus suggesting that normal engine temperatures should in fact be provided by the AUTOMATIC radiator setting in level flight even at high powers)

As such, the P-47 appears to be something of an anomaly, which it would be nice to see corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emphasis added in nice bright red highlighting just for you.

Now compare and contrast with my more recent post:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IRL THE P-47 WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE OVERHEATED <span class="ev_code_red">IN HIGH SPEED LEVEL FLIGHT AT HIGH ALTITUDE</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do really hate it when people don't bother to read things properly.

I have edited my initial post several times in order that key information is presented in one place, avoiding the need to scroll through all the pages of B/S posted by those with clear partisan agendas, and/or questionable literacy.

As for aircraft handling, I'm not seeing anything objective. You can argue all you want, but without data it's just a waste of bandwidth.

TheBandit_76
02-27-2007, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
... fix the water amount, change the overheat. The guy(s) in the Jugs that were spanking you before will still be spanking you.

ljazz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Klemm.co
02-28-2007, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljazz:
... fix the water amount, change the overheat. The guy(s) in the Jugs that were spanking you before will still be spanking you.

ljazz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Vat's so funneh about that?
It's just like with the 190: Even though it is porked severely, the guys that are good in it will still be good in it even if it gets porked more.

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-02-2007, 07:32 AM
It seems to me, that most of the dudes that fly the P-47D these days are the same dudes that were flying them back when it couldn't out dive a zero or out roll an He111.


TB

JG14_Josf
03-02-2007, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It seems to me, that most of the dudes that fly the P-47D these days are the same dudes that were flying them back when it couldn't out dive a zero or out roll an He111. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup

Diablo310th
03-02-2007, 08:30 AM
yup...same ones. We have stuck with the fat lady thru thick and thin.

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
yup...same ones. We have stuck with the fat lady thru thick and thin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. But what about the P47? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
03-02-2007, 09:42 AM
I think the Jug is getting more popular these days. I by now prefer it over the Lightning which I didn't half a year ago.

Monguse
03-02-2007, 10:41 AM
Since we are still chatting about the 47.

Does anyone know of an official document on the type of ammo used by the USAAF by belt sequence layout?

From everything I have read, not official document mind you, just history books and lots of veterans. The USN and USAAF used more API/APIT than ball ammo.

Diablo310th
03-02-2007, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
yup...same ones. We have stuck with the fat lady thru thick and thin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. But what about the P47? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2007, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OVERHEAT IS USED IN THE GAME TO PREVENT ENGINE ABUSE, NOT SIMPLY TO MODEL ACTUAL OVERHEATING. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which may be one of the 'edges' of the modeling. There's only so much can be done due to
hardware and code-compile limits and that may be just one of many choices that had to be
made. Once the basic code engine foundation is set it becomes harder to violate with
every next change or addition made. I know, I've been there with other projects. No
matter how flexible or expandable you make the base, there's always something that is
'got to have' that violates it or asks for too much of exactly the resource(s) you have
the least of.

Murphy's Law applies extra to code!

An old "real programmers" saying:
If you open a can of worms then you will need a bigger can to put them all back into.

Viper2005_
03-05-2007, 09:57 AM
Which is exactly why IMO it would be best to bring the P-47 into line with everything else rather than ask for the whole sim to be changed.

I hope to have P-47 manuals and training films in the not too distant future BTW...

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-05-2007, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monguse:
...From everything I have read, not official document mind you, just history books and lots of veterans. The USN and USAAF used more API/APIT than ball ammo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heya Guse! Like you, I have myriad books (albeit not "official" history documents) and I think the info you seek could be more elusive than you may think. I know many pilots could have their armoroers setup their belted ammo however they'd like and the configurations were so diverse...

Though not an official document, I may have something with that info pertaining to the P-47. I'll holler at you tonight or Wed.


TB

Diablo310th
03-05-2007, 12:24 PM
I jsut found this from an old post years ago.

P-47 Pilot Lt. Col. Jacobson Combat report Dec. 5 1944

Although it's nothing really spectacular, he claims two kills, but what's interesting is that he mentions what type and how many rounds he expended. They appear to be entirely Armor Piercing Incindiary, either M-8 and/or M-20 rounds.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I claim two Fw 190s destroyed. "Ammunition expended: 632 rounds 50- caliber API [Armor Piercing Incendiary].

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-05-2007, 12:34 PM
Some of the top P-47 aces used NO tracer rounds. They would load 4-1-4-1 AP(ball) and API respectively.

I'll look for my source and post soon...if I can find it quickly enough.


TB

M_Gunz
03-06-2007, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Which is exactly why IMO it would be best to bring the P-47 into line with everything else rather than ask for the whole sim to be changed.

I hope to have P-47 manuals and training films in the not too distant future BTW... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay now please stop and think.
&gt;The code for the other ways already existed before P-47 was added was in place and working.
&gt;It was already difficult to add code before the P-47 was added.
&gt;If the P-47 uses different code then it had to have been added and debugged, MANY hours work.
Does that seem logical to you?
Does it indicate that the development team has made the P-47 model as is on purpose?

Viper2005_
03-06-2007, 09:57 AM
I expect that the P-47 doesn't have its own private code, but rather has an "interesting" set of constants in its overheating model which result in the observed behaviour.

Changing these constants to bring them into line with the assumptions of the rest of the game would be much the same as making other changes to FM constants (eg Mustang III top speed), or indeed changing the belting of the 151/20.

No new code - just some changes to existing parameters.

Diablo310th
03-06-2007, 09:58 AM
more found

A book sample:

Wolf, William. American Fighter-Bombers in World War II: USAAF Jabos in the MTO and ETO. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 2003
ISBN 0-7643-1878-0
391 pages

http://stonebooks.com/archives/031123.shtml


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 1944 the Ordnance Section of the 12th Air Force. using 57"' Fighter Group fighter-bombers, conducted a study of attacks on a static Italian steam locomotive. Strafing damage was found to stall a locomotive and cause repairs ranging from one to 35 days, and that strafing was much more likely to achieve hits than bombing or rockets. It was suggested that strafing using a .50 belting of four armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds to one tracer was ideal (as opposed to the previous API-lncendiary-APl-Incendiary-Tracer belting). Strafing from 90-degree beam was suggested over an attack from a shallower angle, as these perpendicular strikes were more likely to perforate the locomotive's boiler and less likely to ricochet.

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

So, basically there wasn't a problem with killing aircraft with the .50 caliber because the U.S. was able to mass produce specialized Incindiary and Armor Piercing Incindiary .50 cal ammo for use in it's aircraft. Only in the Korean war because of the high altitude nature of the aircraft, and the jet engine and fuel used was the only limiting factor that caused the .50cal to go out of favor. It was more than adequate during WW2 though as can be seen in the examples above.
------------------------------------------------

Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148

With API ammo the 50's will actually have more power and stopping ability too.

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

more

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.vought.com/heritage/special/html/symilitary.html, recounted by Marine Corps crew chief Bud Yinger:

"Other crews were kept busy belting ammunition. Belting the 50-caliber ammunition had to be arranged so that the rounds were in order-- tracer, armor piercing, incendiary."

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



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.cannon-lexington.com/Pages/Bob%20Capps.htm, recounted by CV-16 crew chief Lowell R. Capps:

"Our next learning adventure was how to belt 50 cal. ammo. There were four of us that sat around this belting machine that had a tray. One of us would put an armor piercing shell in the tray, another an incinderary and the other a tracer."

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

more...LOL

AlmightyTallest Posted Sat February 26 2005 12:03 Hide Post
Okay, just found one of my books that gives a standard aircraft belted ratio for the Corsair.

From: "Corsair The F4U in WW2 and Korea"
by: Barrett Tillman

Page 20-21

"most aviation .50cal ammo was belted in the ratio of AP-I-AP-I-Tracer"

So at any rate since the .50cal ammo belt used in PF goes for all .50cal guns, I think if the HE load is incorrect the HE round should be replaced by either an Incindiary, or if you want to cover all bases, an Armor Piercing Incindiary round.

Monguse
03-06-2007, 06:40 PM
Excellent find!!!!

Now that we are talking about bringing up the P47 let's see if when the P47 get the radiator fixed we can also get the correct 50's ammo count and the correct type.

Viper can't thank you enough for your diligence. See what you can find on the ammo belt make up. Let's get it all fixed.

Brain32
03-06-2007, 07:21 PM
Don't forget that what we have under "Extra ammunition" loadout was actually standard ammo loadout!

Diablo310th
03-06-2007, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Don't forget that what we have under "Extra ammunition" loadout was actually standard ammo loadout! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

true Brain....that would mean 2 things. One that the Jug could carry x-tra ammo and bombs if it was correct and ...two that the Jug would actually be faster if it carried what is now default ammo load due to reduced weight.

JtD
03-06-2007, 10:24 PM
As a matter of fact the majority of razorback Jugs tested were armed with 6x.50 cal and 300rpg. Meaning our standard loadout carries more guns and more ammo than what the testers in 1943 considered standard.

Viper2005_
03-07-2007, 05:05 PM
How?

I want to see accurate DMs throughout the game, but it isn't that easy.

Can you give me data?

I know the R-2800 was tough. But I can show you anecdotal stories of Lancaster pilots who lost an engine on takeoff and continued to Berlin with the remaining 3 flat out.

The trouble is, very few tests were done detailing what happens when you shoot (for example) an MG151/20 at an R-2800 running flat out in a representative installation.

Unless you can find such data, the best we can hope to do is to extrapolate from gun-camera footage.

Which is great except that it is open to interpretation.

<span class="ev_code_red">I really want to get things right here. That means that I can't start campaigning for changes without data.</span>

Give me the data and I'm right behind you.

Monguse
03-07-2007, 05:52 PM
What sort of document do we need to get the belt feed ammo accepted?

I'm all ears.

Viper2005_
03-07-2007, 06:25 PM
I'm all in favour of changing the belting on the .50; the recent tests of its incendiary effect (or lack there-of) suggest that it is really needed!

But that discussion really belongs in a different thread...

Brain32
03-08-2007, 08:04 AM
DM weakness of the P47????? Are you ******ed or only trolling, every single P47D in this game acts like the one from the famous story. Jesus Chirst fighting one P47D in a 4 cannon FW190 is like fighting 2 FW190A9 with only two 50 cals on a freakin Spitfire. As it is know it takes almost as much 20mm mg151/20 to down a P47 as it takes 50 cal bullets to down a FW190. It's a freakin King Tiger tank with wings and you want it stronger??? How about completely damage resistant, good enough?

And BTW, what's with this BS turn rate, that plane had 7 frekin tons, it was not a low alt turnfighter for God's sake, and it didn't turn THAT good at altitude, what's with the Allied rollercoaster since 401 anyway?