PDA

View Full Version : The VERY Underpowered P-47



mbm003
02-19-2008, 01:56 PM
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel the Thunderbolt is underpowered? Every time I see movies about it or documentaries, they always talk about how powerful the engine was. They say it had a radial cylinder engine that gave it 2800hp, but in IL2, I just don't see it. I barely reach high speeds in the P-47 unless I'm diving, and when I DO dive, all of my energy is gone and I can never regain my altitude advantage.

There are pilots who spoke of the paddle-bladed propellers which "scooped" up the air and made the plane climb a lot better. I don't see it. The plane feels weak. The engine, fragile. They said pilots could come home and land with a cylinder shot off from their engine because they worked independently. I don't feel any of this is the case with IL2.

Even the stories of more than 300 holes filling the plane's body and still the P-47 would return pilots safely. This was what it was KNOWN for. I get wings sheared off easily in IL2, and for some reason the rudders go when a single bullet hits anything near it. This doesn't feel like a P-47 to me. If I'm wrong, let me know. That's just how I feel.

PBNA-Boosher
02-19-2008, 02:20 PM
mbm, I understand your frustration but simply don't agree at all. I've been using the 47 in some campaigns now and am very satisfied with it. Whether I'm against 109's in Normandy or against Zekes and Ki's in Saipan, the 47 is doing very well for me. It keeps its speed no problem, rolls well, etc.... Make sure that when you fly and dive you keep the ball centered in the turn/bank indicator. You could be flying uncoordinated, which is something I do not recommend.

As for being weak... well. I disagree again. I've taken some devastating damage in the P-47 and come home in this game, but I've also taken some pretty bad damage and had to bail because it was all concentrated in one place. It depends on the damage, like for all planes. Of course, the best way to avoid this problem is not to get hit in the first place.

jurinko
02-20-2008, 01:19 AM
Not to hi jack P-47 thread, but I read recently memoirs of LW pilot flying on Fw 190, which he described as a plane with abundance of power, and the usual way how to disengage from the attacker was to shot directly upwards. These heavy planes, especially F-4U, definitely feel underpowered and lose speed in maneuvers too fast.

Jambock_Dolfo
02-20-2008, 02:25 AM
Hello all.

I have not played this game for a long while, so my comments may be out of place... but please allow me.

One thing I note on computer flight simulators is the inability to "relate to the real thing".
I started flying on PC sims before learning to fly real planes. From "Jet", "BOB1940TFH" "SWOTL" "AOE, AOP" all the way to Il-2. A computer does not give you the feel of performance. Usually we expect prop planes to behave like high power jets, and most of the time computer games will behave just like that. Having said that, I believe that Il-2 series is the most accurate WW2 airplane combat game out there. But in order to enjoy it we have to keep things under a certain perspective.
In my opinion we should have some sort of "mandatory basic flight training" on low performance aircraft. Piper cub, J-3, Stearman, Moth, whatever. To get a feel of flight performance. A few hours on low power planes can give you a good perspective. You can not just point the nose 20 degrees above horizon and expect the thing to climb. Some power and attitude exercises should also be worth a lot. Control input differences at a range of power settings and speeds. It is difficult to get the feeling on a game where you demand instant satisfaction.
I have never flown real high powered warbirds, the closer to that were the 7gcbc, 8kcab, gc1b, cap10b and pt19, so I can not comment on how close to the real thing the models in game are. But the "feeling" is at least decent IMO.
Anecdotal evidences, individual perceptions and such can be misguiding most of the time. "High powered, climbing better, rugged, superb engine" are very relative terms. We hear lots of stories of Jug pilots flying back home with substantial damage. Some with part of the wing missing after clipping some trees or chimneys, others with lots of holes shot through the airframe. Thing is, that does not entitle us to demand being able to ram others midair or fly into ground structures or trees, or get shot at by the enemy and continue to fly happily as if nothing happened. Hey, the plane is tough, but not magic. If I had my plane shot IRL I would focus 100% on RTBing or getting the heck out of there, 100% frightened, guaranteed. Be sure. But while flying in the game we take a lot of things for granted.
Of course the game is not perfect. Nor will it ever be. There are many limitations. Even some relative parameters will be off, given those game engine limitations. We can not fly the planes in-game per the real world Airplane Flight Manual. For the game world is not the real world. Different laws apply.
Wow, this ended up being a long rant. It is not directed at anyone or any plane in particular, just me feeling bored after some hours of study.

So, in short, enjoy the game, make the best of it. It is a wonderful game.

Or maybe teh P-xx is porked/uber and Oleg is biased.

Who really knows.

-dolfo

ImpStarDuece
02-20-2008, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by mbm003:
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel the Thunderbolt is underpowered? Every time I see movies about it or documentaries, they always talk about how powerful the engine was. They say it had a radial cylinder engine that gave it 2800hp, but in IL2, I just don't see it. I barely reach high speeds in the P-47 unless I'm diving, and when I DO dive, all of my energy is gone and I can never regain my altitude advantage.

There are pilots who spoke of the paddle-bladed propellers which "scooped" up the air and made the plane climb a lot better. I don't see it. The plane feels weak. The engine, fragile. They said pilots could come home and land with a cylinder shot off from their engine because they worked independently. I don't feel any of this is the case with IL2.

Even the stories of more than 300 holes filling the plane's body and still the P-47 would return pilots safely. This was what it was KNOWN for. I get wings sheared off easily in IL2, and for some reason the rudders go when a single bullet hits anything near it. This doesn't feel like a P-47 to me. If I'm wrong, let me know. That's just how I feel.

I'm a long time P-47 flyer, and it doesn't feel underpowered at all.

Remember, it was the heaviest single seat fighter of the entire war.

As for having 2,800 hp - this was only available on the very late war M and N versions and souped up versions running on 150 Octane "purple passion".

The D's we use in the game had between 2,200 and 2,600 hp, depending on the particular engine. From memory, I think the D-10 has 2,200 hp, the D-22 has 2,335 hp, the D-27 has 2,500 or 2,600 hp and the D 'Late' has 2,600 or 2,800 hp

The P-47 wasn't exactly nimble at low altitudes, although it really shone above about 25,00 feet. A Gloster Gladiator was faster 20,000 feet than all but the most powerful versions.

stansdds
02-21-2008, 03:57 AM
I have found that those who feel the Thunderbolt and the Corsair are under powered are not using them correctly. These are not good turn fighters, the real ones weren't either. They perform best at higher altitudes and are most effective when using squadron/team tactics. As for engine fragility, I don't know if that is the damage model or the fact that AI gunners are expert marksmen and can place rounds where they will do the most damage.

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-21-2008, 09:01 AM
Thrust to weight ratio can make things seem out of balance. Remember, the fuel load on a P-47 could weigh almost as much as an entire Spitfire.

The only observation I can seem to make on the P-47 that is potentially out of whack (besides the mixup of the 500lb and 1000lb hardpoints and absence of HVAR's as a loadout option) is the relative performance of the D-22 which should be almost equivalent to the bubbletop D-27, but is closer to the D-10 in game.

Otherwise, it's a terrific aircraft.

VW-IceFire
02-21-2008, 09:52 PM
P-47 is a very fast and very powerful plane. The trouble is that with a simulation you're disconnected from the aircraft so the feeling of power with the giant engine vibrating in front just isn't there.

Its not a turn fighter and the P-47 is not the most agile plane on the block but its definitely fast and while it has the feeling of being a bit slower its like one of those larger highway cruisers of a car where you don't feel the speed but you look down and you're waaay over the speed limit. The P-47 is a bit like that.

What I'd suggest is taking out 25% or 50% fuel instead of 100%. Even at 25% you're going to outlast your German fighter opponents. The weight savings alone will make the P-47 handle better and might help you out. Also worth thinking about practicing your energy manuevering techniques better known as the boom and zoom. Look it up on Google and see if you can work it out. The P-47 is one of the best boomers and zoomers there is so its a good one to learn in.

mbm003
02-21-2008, 10:08 PM
Will do. Thanks all.

stansdds
02-22-2008, 05:58 AM
Good point about the fuel. My Corsair squadron will routinely take off with 25 to 50% in the main fuel cell and a drop tank. Once we enter the engagement area, we drop the tanks. This gives us more than enough fuel to get there and back and we are down to optimal fighting weight during combat.

Aaron_GT
02-22-2008, 01:23 PM
They say it had a radial cylinder engine that gave it 2800hp,

Late versions with water injection and full tilt. Earlier versions somewhat less.

The big thing about the P-47 wasn't so much the engine power but the turbocharger which meant that it retained a larger fraction of its maximum power at high altitude.

At sea level the P47's hp per lb is pretty average, and its sea level speed was relatively pedestrian. Up high it has good hp per lb, and its speed is better than most.

VW-IceFire
02-22-2008, 05:17 PM
Good point Aaron. I never fully appreciated the P-47s high altitude performance until I was in a COOP and we ended up fighting at 9000 meters. The P-47 at that altitude outfought all others and I was seriously enjoying the plane as we had the speed and turning power and everyone else was in serious trouble.

Diablo310th
02-25-2008, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Good point Aaron. I never fully appreciated the P-47s high altitude performance until I was in a COOP and we ended up fighting at 9000 meters. The P-47 at that altitude outfought all others and I was seriously enjoying the plane as we had the speed and turning power and everyone else was in serious trouble.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Kwiatos
02-25-2008, 09:27 AM
THE WORSE THING IN P-47 FM IN GAME IS TOO SLOW ROLL RATE AT MEDIUM TO HIGH SPEED.
REAL P-47 HAD AT 360MPH 70 DEG/SEC BUT THESE FROM GAME HAS ONLY 40 DEG/SEC

Diablo310th
02-26-2008, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
THE WORSE THING IN P-47 FM IN GAME IS TOO SLOW ROLL RATE AT MEDIUM TO HIGH SPEED.
REAL P-47 HAD AT 360MPH 70 DEG/SEC BUT THESE FROM GAME HAS ONLY 40 DEG/SEC

That is an issue that hasn't been brought up in a very long time. Long forgotten problem. It sure would make fighting FW's more interesting.

Kwiatos
02-26-2008, 11:32 AM
These make high speed passes on target little fustrating :/

anarchy52
02-26-2008, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
These make high speed passes on target little fustrating :/

Not as frustrating as making high speed attacks in 109.

Wildnoob
02-27-2008, 02:26 PM
I like the P-47 performance (but don't fly much with it).

my primary tactics are shoot and run. I attack only if I had advantage and use the plane's powerful engine to take evasive actions.
I never flow it at high altitude against humans, but see a player in a coop ( I was killed at start) figth on equal terms with a KI-84 at about 7000-7500 meters (against a human).

at low and medium altitude I manage to outrun BF-109's with great sucess.

it's a great multirole figther in my opinion.

BD_Gryphon
02-27-2008, 09:58 PM
The maximum speeds at all altitudes are correct

JG14_Josf
02-27-2008, 11:44 PM
That is an issue that hasn't been brought up in a very long time. Long forgotten problem. It sure would make fighting FW's more interesting.

Anyone,

The maximum roll rate and the rate of acceleration on the roll axis are two different things. If I missed something while reading this board concerning any information measuring the rate of acceleration on the roll axis then please point me to that information.

This is more significant that someone may think at first glance.

Consider, for example, two planes where one is following the other and the front one can roll a maximum rate of roll faster than the one behind. The lead one can roll two turns before the following one can turn one turn.

That would be the maximum roll rate.

Now suppose the idea was to measure acceleration on the roll axis and to find this out the plane in front rolls left while setting up a horizontal break turn to the left at maximum g load turning left followed by a roll right, as fast as possible, and loading back up to maximum g load going right. Both planes do this 4 times left and 4 times right or as many times as possible before one plane stalls (reaches corner velocity).

The plane that can accelerate on the roll axis from level flight to maximum performance turning left will escape the guns of the other or, if that one is behind the front one, the faster accelerating roll plane can pull lead on the one in front. Then both planes roll the opposite way and accelerate from left bank to right bank as fast as possible. Neither plane may actually reach maximum roll rate. One may reach maximum roll rate first while the other reaches a higher maximum roll rate later.

Which is more important?

A. Maximum roll rate
B. Rate of acceleration on the roll axis

The plane scissoring left to right ahead of the plane rolling (and not reversing the roll) is not the issue asked. I've read Robert S. Johnson's account on that scenario. The pilot ahead who can accelerate and load up the g force faster can hold that turn until the attacking pilot begins to pull lead and only then reverse to take advantage of faster acceleration on the roll axis (plus add a little dive or climb rather than telegraphing in the horizontal only plane).

In the game the P-47 and the Fw190As are not quick in loading up the g force. Why is that? Why are these planes unable to transition from no load to high g load quickly even when the air speed is much higher than corner speed? Why do they ˜feel' heavy?

At speeds higher than corner speed any plane has the required energy to generate the lift required to accelerate the mass (no matter how much weight the fighter is designed to lift at corner speed).

What is really strange, in my view, is how the 190D model (with the same wings) is quicker at loading lift force.

Diablo310th
02-28-2008, 08:38 AM
Josf.....I understand what you are saying, and I agree. Acceleration into the roll in a scissors would be much more benificial. Would not the rate of roll if it was set to low also affect the rate of acceleration of roll in total effect and feel?

JG14_Josf
02-28-2008, 11:54 AM
Josf.....I understand what you are saying, and I agree. Acceleration into the roll in a scissors would be much more benificial. Would not the rate of roll if it was set to low also affect the rate of acceleration of roll in total effect and feel?

Diablo (The Devil?),

I think rate of acceleration and maximum roll rate can be dependent as well as independent in the game. What I find to be very interesting has little to do with roll on the roll axis alone and much to do with roll on the roll axis while lift is produced by the wings.

Four things to consider:

A. Roll acceleration (from zero to maximum roll rate)
B. Maximum roll rate
C. Roll on the roll axis only
D. Roll coupled with acceleration on the pitch axis

This is much easier to see while testing in the game. If the player only rolls on the roll axis (tries to keep the elevator neutral) the rate of acceleration quickly becomes the maximum roll rate.

That answers your question because the rate of acceleration on the roll axis is nearly the maximum roll rate (it happens very fast), therefore any error in maximum roll rate is an error in acceleration on the roll axis. It is possible for the game designer to keep the rate of acceleration on the roll axis and add maximum roll rate. Would the player be able to tell the difference compared to an increase in both roll axis acceleration and maximum roll rate?

Suppose it takes 10 degrees of roll to reach maximum roll rate and maximum roll rate is X degrees per second. If X is increased only while roll acceleration is not increased the plane will take more than 10 decrees of roll to reach maximum roll rate. If, on the other hand, roll acceleration is increased and maximum roll rate is increased it is possible to reach a higher maximum roll rate in 10 degrees of initial roll acceleration from wings level.

Roll performance alone is not much use and any advantage in roll acceleration or maximum roll rate can be offset by a disadvantage in pitch axis acceleration.

A fast roll rate only (no acceleration on the pitch axis) can make it harder for the attacking plane to hit the wings while the fuselage remains to be a sitting duck.

I don't think that the Fw190 and P-47 were slow in responding to pitch acceleration as they are in the game and flight tests show how the reverse is true. I have two examples of pitch axis testing and one example of combined roll and pitch axis testing combined.

The British tested an Fw190 for ˜pull out' and ˜pitch-up' and it performed favorably against Spitfires. The Americans tested an Fw190 against a P-47 and the P-47 ˜pulled out' favorably compared to the Fw-190. These are tests done at speeds above corner speed so the possibility of stalling is not a possibility unless g force exceeds the limit (pilot or plane limit).

Two planes side by side ˜pull-up' into the vertical. One goes higher faster. That is pitch axis acceleration.

The other test is the one that couples roll axis and pitch axis acceleration combined. I will quote the words describing the test (or relative evaluation) conducted by a competent fighter pilot in WWII. Before doing so I am expressing my opinion that the P-47 may out perform the Fw190 in this coupled roll and pitch axis rate of acceleration. I do no know this to be true. I am also going to report that both the Fw190 and the P-47 are very poor at accelerating on the pitch axis in the game with or without adding roll axis acceleration during the effort to get the g force going on the lift vector. In the game the two planes ˜feel' very sluggish as if the wings are bending and causing all kinds of turbulence as pitch rate increase (or tries to increase).

Here is the quote:


Decidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow.

Much can be misinterpreted when visualizing what is or is not an aileron turn. In this case I find it difficult to imagine a 109 ripping wings off when ONLY rolling around the roll axis or, it is inconceivable to me to see this as anything other than the coupling of acceleration on the roll axis with acceleration on the pitch axis. I could be wrong – I am expressing my viewpoint on the subject.

My suggestion to anyone is to read up on how agility (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:gZPsTRJw2TgJ:www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf+navair.navy.milunrestricted&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us) is measured by those who know and then try that in the game.

The link to the Navair site isn't working for me currently so I can't quote the relevant methods of testing agility. If the link works for you then please consider reading about the Wind-Up-Turn and Loaded Decelerations. Read how it is done and then try doing those tests in the game. Try a Wind-Up-Turn with the Jug. Try it with a Spitfire. See what you think about ˜agility'.

Roll axis performance alone is a very minor part of performance and hardly something remarkable if that advantage is trumped or canceled by a very poor rate of acceleration on the lift vector.

If any plane is flying above corner speed (4,5,6,7,8,9, or any specific g load) the maximum rate of acceleration is that g load. The plane will reach that rate of acceleration (that g load), however the question is: How fast will it accelerate to that g load?

How fast will the plane combine a roll and pitch movement from level flight into a maximum performance turn? That is what is tested with the Wind-Up-Turn and the Loaded Deceleration. Both have nothing to do with sustaining a constant speed level turn. They are measures of agility or the ability to transition from one condition of flight into another condition of flight and both the P-47 and the Fw190A series planes were known to be agile. How could an agile plane ˜feel' heavy? I think the answer would be: When the plane is flying too slow, at or near the stall for any given g load, it will then 'feel' heavy. Flying above corner speed both planes, in my opinion, should be agile not ˜heavy'. Flying above corner speed for those ˜heavy' planes is flying at speeds where the wings are capable of generating more lift than weight times the g load factor for that corner speed.

In other words a corner speed can be the Va or structural limit of the air frame and that can be 14 g. If the plane is flying above the 14 g airspeed the wings can generate 14 times the aircraft weight at that speed. That is the definition so there is little point in arguing about it. If the corner speed is the pilot g load limit (6 g in the game I suppose) then the plane flying higher than the 6 g corner speed can generate enough lift to accelerate 6 times the weight of the plane. Above the 6 g corner speed there really isn't any reason for the plane to ˜feel' heavy because the plane is ˜heavy'. If there is a legitimate reason for the plane to ˜feel' heavy it would be a reason such as a poor wing design or some other physical reason since the ˜weight' of the plane is less than the power to ˜lift' the weight (6 times more power than weight at speeds above the 6 g corner speed).

The F-16 is a ˜heavy' plane compared to the P-47. Which plane has a higher maximum turn rate and a smaller minimum turn radius? Which plane ˜feels' heavier?

If you think the answer is: The P-47 can sustain a tighter level flight turn at a constant airspeed; then the answer isn't the answer to the question.

One plane can turn a higher turn rate around a smaller turn radius. One plane can perform a Wind-Up-Turn at a higher maximum G load (The pilot is a factor of course) and do so at a specific MINIMUM airspeed (just before the plane stalls). That point at which the plane is at the maximum g force and at the slowest speed possible is the fastest possible turn rate and the smallest possible turn radius.

Which one of those two planes can turn the higher maximum turn rate and be flying around the smaller turn radius?

Which one can turn a higher maximum G load and what is the minimum speed at that highest maximum G load?

Which one can accelerated (decelerate) down to that corner speed quicker from any higher starting speed?

Here is another question if you are interested:

If both planes (P-47 and F-16) are at the maximum possible g load at the slowest possible speed in a diving turn; which one will reach the ground first if both start into those maximum performance turns from the same altitude?

A. Maximum G load possible
B. Minimum speed at that maximum G load possible
C. Angle of dive during the sustained maximum diving turn at A and B above

I may have diverted off the ˜underpowered P-47' thread some – please excuse my diversions.

mbm003
02-28-2008, 04:40 PM
No problem. I'm sure the P-47 will not change at all in any later patches.

Diablo310th
02-29-2008, 06:56 AM
Josf......fantatic reply. thank you. I actually understood what your saying. I'm just an old shop teacher so sometimes all the techinical jibe goes over my head...LOL ~S~

JG14_Josf
02-29-2008, 03:11 PM
The Devil,

Thank you. I appreciate the feed-back.

In case there remains any confusion for other readers I want to add a few more comments on this matter of combined force applied to more than one axis. I purposefully stayed away from adding the yaw axis so as to limit the potential for confusion.

A player in the game may do well to know how adding yaw accelerates roll movement. Someone who simply moves the stick fully sideways may arrive at an impression that the plane has a poor rate of acceleration on the roll axis (does not respond quickly from level flight into maximum roll rate) and that impression may be adjusted when the player kicks the rudder while moving the stick.

Initially the yaw movement accelerates the outside wing making that wing go faster while the inside wing decelerates and goes slower. The net result can be an increase in roll axis acceleration for reasons that may not be easily measured. The player can see the difference and use it to advantage.

I can offer a few other comments on that subject in case an interest is present.

While taking a lesson in flying a Cessna my instructor pointed out how much of his flying is done by his feet. Try this in the game and you may be rewarded as I have been. Before thinking and reacting to any desire to roll the airplane left or right think instead of yawing left or right. What this will do is train you to lead your turns with rudder and that is not a bad thing to learn in the game or in reality.

Try doing this while climbing out in formation with your wingmen (something we do often in the game). Try leaving the stick alone and trim in your climb speed a little on the fast side. Now weave around by yawing and only correct with the ailerons or elevator if you fail to maintain a desired flight path with exclusive rudder use.

I now have to unlearn a lot of unnecessary cross-controlling habits as a result of learning this method of flight. Lead with the rudder is the idea. It may be an idea you can embrace.

Kwiatos
03-01-2008, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by mbm003:
No problem. I'm sure the P-47 will not change at all in any later patches.

Unfortunately not. I mailed with Oleg some time ago and he confrim that P-47 has too slow roll rate at medium to high speeds but he said that isnt possbile to change these without change slow speed roll rate which is now accuarte. But how it is possbile that up to version PF 3.04 was possible that P-47 have better roll rate at high speed and now it is not possible?
(I tested P-47 in 3.04 and had much better roll rate at speeds)

BadA1m
03-01-2008, 08:02 AM
I suspect that the (quite elderly) game engine is limiting what can be done with the newer FM. Remember that the 4xx flight model is a prototype of the BOB model, I think poor highspeed roll rates may be the price for things like better propwash and tourque effects. Of course I only speculate and if challenged I will backpedal and deny ever even posting here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
03-01-2008, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbm003:
No problem. I'm sure the P-47 will not change at all in any later patches.

Unfortunately not. I mailed with Oleg some time ago and he confrim that P-47 has too slow roll rate at medium to high speeds but he said that isnt possbile to change these without change slow speed roll rate which is now accuarte. But how it is possbile that up to version PF 3.04 was possible that P-47 have better roll rate at high speed and now it is not possible?
(I tested P-47 in 3.04 and had much better roll rate at speeds) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Probably something to do with putting the new FM system in on top of the old engine. Its fortunately not as slow as it was back in the 1.0 days...thats when the He-111 could out roll a P-47.

steiner562
03-02-2008, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
THE WORSE THING IN P-47 FM IN GAME IS TOO SLOW ROLL RATE AT MEDIUM TO HIGH SPEED.
REAL P-47 HAD AT 360MPH 70 DEG/SEC BUT THESE FROM GAME HAS ONLY 40 DEG/SEC
Agree 1000%.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-02-2008, 09:45 AM
Load up FB 1.0 then tell me how bad it is. Thats when I flew it exclusively and trust me it has come a loooong way and I would bet is very close to real world data. Although it does a have a wacky DM and the engine does not take near the damage it could.

S!

Diablo310th
03-06-2008, 08:44 AM
If I remember right, Tagert did some tests with charts awhile back that showed the Jug rolled too slow at mid to high speeds. Either that or I'm confusing it with another test he did. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Aaron_GT
03-07-2008, 01:43 AM
The P-47 at that altitude outfought all others and I was seriously enjoying the plane as we had the speed and turning power and everyone else was in serious trouble.

It is as it should be as the P-47 was designed around the turbocharger as a high altitude interceptor (although it failed to full the original brief for it also being lightweight!). It was also a good groundpounder due to lift capability and a damage-resistant engine. In that sense it also fulfills the roles of the 190F and G, as well as having far better high altitude performance than the 190A series. So it makes a good all rounder with dogfighting at low levels being its weakest suit.

Aaron_GT
03-07-2008, 01:45 AM
Tagert did some tests with charts awhile back that showed the Jug rolled too slow at mid to high speeds.

But that it also did a bit too well at slow speeds. The real problem was the first couple of versions in the sim - the roll performance is relatively close to reality now - close enough that you can do the same sort of things in the sim as in real life.

Diablo310th
03-07-2008, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tagert did some tests with charts awhile back that showed the Jug rolled too slow at mid to high speeds.

But that it also did a bit too well at slow speeds. The real problem was the first couple of versions in the sim - the roll performance is relatively close to reality now - close enough that you can do the same sort of things in the sim as in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly...I wasn't sure if that was the right test I remembered. It rolled a little too fast at slow speeds. If I remember right this was true of several planes too tho. As I fly mainly at 15,000 ft and higher I wish it was the other way around tho...LOL

VW-IceFire
03-08-2008, 10:12 PM
Pretty much all of the planes in the game roll too well somewhere and not well enough somewhere else. I think if you look at each in general they are generally correct but they are off from where they should be.

P-47 does roll very well at low speeds and I find that useful when doing a high yo-yo or vertical scissors.

M_Gunz
03-09-2008, 12:09 AM
It might be very good that airframes were built to take 14G but in WWII era and since it
is the pilot that sets the G-limit. WWII era charts hold that at 6 G's maximum. 4 G's
is a hard turn even if it isn't the hardest possible, at 5 G's there is a time limit for
even strong pilots. That is why corner speed is at 6 G's and there is the 6 G upper limit
on E-M performance envelopes, the doghouse charts.
You go through a maximum turn from above corner speed then your turn at pre-blackout G's
gets tighter as you slow down, it's a spiral from same G's applied against a steadily slowing
object.

Once you've slowed to 6 G at the slowest speed your plane can turn that hard, it being a WWII
fighter cannot maintain that speed and still turn at 6 G's. It can maybe sustain 3 G's or so.

Hold onto it below corner speed and you have to turn at less G's until you're down to highest
sustained turn where engine, drag and G's all balance out... might make interesting compare
to top speed where engine, drag and 1G balance out.

OTOH you can hold onto corner speed by not turning any harder than will slow you below that.
At that speed, a bit above to allow for bleed and you can perform for a short time a maximal
break in your current path. That is the speed many War Birders and Aces High players seem
to get tattooed onto the backs of their hands, figure about 240mph for P-51 and most fast
planes. How is your climb at corner speed becomes more important than climb at dead slow.
Compare FW 190A-4 and Spit V climb at 400kph.

JG14_Josf
03-09-2008, 01:29 PM
Once you've slowed to 6 G at the slowest speed your plane can turn that hard, it being a WWII
fighter cannot maintain that speed and still turn at 6 G's. It can maybe sustain 3 G's or so.

Anyone,

When the use of the word "maintain" applies to maintaining altitude the words ˜cannot maintain that speed and still turn at 6 G's" is true for any plane, including modern planes, that cannot maintain altitude and turn at 6 g. When the nose is pointed down the dynamics change; the plane, any plane, can maintain 6 g at the minimum speed for 6 g for that plane if that plane can maintain 6 g in a nose low turn at minimum speed. The obvious unknown variable then becomes dive angle.

Since the topic is the P-47 it may be relevant to the topic to compare two planes against the P-47 during a nose low turn where the pilot and the plane maintain minimum speed at 6 g for as long as the plane and the pilot can stand 6 g at the minimum speed.

If the person interested in this type of discussion has performed the Wind-Up-Turn or the Loaded Deceleration as described on the Navair site and that experience, in the game, familiarizes the concept of corner velocity it may then be possible to test three planes in the game for this unknown variable of dive angle during a maximum performance turn for all three planes.

It is probably not likely that all three planes can maintain the same dive angle while turning 6 g at minimum airspeed.

The plane with the lower airspeed at 6 g will certainly spiral down in the tightest turn (smallest radius) and that tightest turn will be at the fastest turn rate.

If that same plane maintains that 6 g turn, at the smaller turn radius, and at the faster turn rate, at a shallower dive angle it will then prove to be impossible to pull lead on the other planes diving at a steeper dive angle. See this?

No matter which plane, at 6 g, and at minimum speed, has the steepest dive angle - the effect of the steepest dive angle, at 6 g, and at minimum speed for 6 g, will be an ability to spiral down and avoid being shot in a dive down at corner speed.

The following quote may be relevant:

Boots (http://www.acepilots.com/korea_blesse.html)


The MiG pilot fired several rounds, and my wingman broke without telling me. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Now the first two MiGs are coming around to cut off my wingman. I checked my fuel gauge and said to myself, "Oh man, this is one thing I don't need." I came back down, sandwiching the two MiGs between my wingman and myself. I could see the number three and four MiGs trying to cut me off, trying to come in behind me. This fight had started about 23,000 feet; we still had lots of altitude. I told him, "Put your nose down and keep four "G's" on that thing and we'll be okay. So he did, he was pulling it around and going down, the MiGs were trying to get on him, and finally I got in position on the number two man, and I hit him. Sparks flew and pieces of his tail came off. He broke off right away, then the leader broke off, and the two of them left. I called my wingman and said, "Okay, you're clear, roll it out, heading such and such and keep going. Climb to 32,000 feet and you'll be okay." He did that and got home fine.

I am not the guy claiming to know everything so please don't get into that argument. The link linked may not directly apply to the P-47 and if the link has no relevance to this topic, at all, it doesn't – ignore my post. Isn't that simple?

TheGhostFiles
03-11-2008, 05:54 PM
I had a friend who flew a F4Uc in WWII, Herb Levine. He was a real nice guy, quite a big guy. He once told me why the wings were gull shaped. He said "Get a big engine, put a big prop on it, and go like hell!" Him and his wingman destroyed a Japense Sub Conning Tower with their wing canons only, and at night. They were night fliers. He also said the F4 had great maneuverability and was fast, and dominated the Japanese planes.

The P47 was built to take punishment, it after all, was a bomber. I'm sure you're all aware the P47 racked up lots of fighter kills.

The Hellcat could out climb zeros, and was also a dominator.

The P-51 B&C&D Mustang could slightly out turn, and out climb a ME109 with power to spare. Bud Anderson's interview described this nicely.

But not in this sim.

So enjoy the sim for what it is, because I doubt it will ever be changed. Maybe we should all chip in and get Oleg American Satellite Military and History Channel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gf

VW-IceFire
03-11-2008, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by TheGhostFiles:
I had a friend who flew a F4Uc in WWII, Herb Levine. He was a real nice guy, quite a big guy. He once told me why the wings were gull shaped. He said "Get a big engine, put a big prop on it, and go like hell!" Him and his wingman destroyed a Japense Sub Conning Tower with their wing canons only, and at night. They were night fliers. He also said the F4 had great maneuverability and was fast, and dominated the Japanese planes.

The P47 was built to take punishment, it after all, was a bomber. I'm sure you're all aware the P47 racked up lots of fighter kills.

The Hellcat could out climb zeros, and was also a dominator.

The P-51 B&C&D Mustang could slightly out turn, and out climb a ME109 with power to spare. Bud Anderson's interview described this nicely.

But not in this sim.

So enjoy the sim for what it is, because I doubt it will ever be changed. Maybe we should all chip in and get Oleg American Satellite Military and History Channel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gf
F4U-1C is indeed a dominating aircraft in the game and its reassuring to know that the real pilots felt it was this way as well.

P-47 was not, repeat not, a bomber. It was designed as a high altitude interceptor fighter. Much of its rugged construction was due to the designers selecting the R-2800 radial plus a turbosupercharger. Indeed the ducting for the turbosupercharger acted like its own armor plate and the rest of the plane was just extremely well built. It was used as a fighter-bomber because of its ruggedness and it was decently well suited to the role because the wings were sturdy so a heavy load could be carried and the plane was tough with a tough engine. But it was certainly not designed to be rugged because its designers felt it would be engaged in low altitude strafing. That was probably the last thing they thought their fighter would be doing when it was initially drawn up. Indeed it was to meet a requirement for continental defense (thus the initial lack of interest for long range) and is a follow on to Republic's previous designs. The previous designs didn't quite have everything together but the P-47 nailed things on the head and was an excellent high altitude fighter.

Accurate test reports show that the Hellcat and the A6M5 Zero were an interesting match with the Hellcat outclimbing the Zero above 15,000 feet and out turning the Zero above 300mph. In-game these numbers are off but close. A pilot experienced with the Hellcat can either beat the Zero or depart from combat with the Zero in almost all situations and thats with the Hellcat underperforming in its top speed.

Last time I got myself into a turning fight with flying a P-51C against a 109G-6A/S online I won. Altitude was about 12,000 feet and at that altitude the two are evenly matched but the Mustang is faster and holds a slight turn advantage.

Not all is as it seems.

Brain32
03-13-2008, 05:04 AM
...the words ˜cannot maintain that speed and still turn at 6 G's" is true for any plane, including modern planes, that cannot maintain altitude and turn at 6 g.
Well Josf this is not entirely true, modern planes have such a huge trust they can undertake for greater manouvering feats than the pilot can take. For example 1960 MiG-21F could sustain a 9G turn, imagine what can modern planes with much more trust achieve, just look at F-15 it's thrust to weight is over 1:1 and that beautyfull thing can accelerate in vertical flight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif



The P-51 B&C&D Mustang could slightly out turn, and out climb a ME109 with power to spare. Bud Anderson's interview described this nicely.

But not in this sim.
Yes it's unbelievable, I see the same sh*** in FSX, Fokker DrI outturns Boeing 747, and even does it easily, it's pretty sad how neonacizm got it's way in the flight simulations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

tragentsmith
03-13-2008, 05:46 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JG14_Josf
03-13-2008, 10:18 AM
Well Josf this is not entirely true

Brian32,

I'm not sure why you quote my words, point out how my words are 'not entirely true', and then change the subject from 'the plane' to 'the pilot' to prove how my words are 'not entirely true'. Perhaps you are confused?

Most WWII fighter planes, as far as I've read so far, can handle more g load than most WWII fighter pilots. Some exceptions are obvious. A lighter built version of Spitfire, say the Mark V, could not sustain as much g when the plane is over-loaded with stuff so the pilot was warned about that condition whereby the pilot could cause the plane to suffer structural damage when pulling g force while over-loaded and do so before the pilot blacked out. This was very common, if you think about it, when fighter planes strapped on bombs. How many bombs can an F-16 carry? What happens to Va when loaded up?

Now take a sturdy plane, like the P-47 for example, at fighter combat loads where Va is at a high speed and a high g. What is the speed for Va? What is the g for Va? What is the typical pilot g limit?

I may have misunderstood your comment about my comment?

Here is your comment:


Well Josf this is not entirely true, modern planes have such a huge trust they can undertake for greater manouvering feats than the pilot can take. For example 1960 MiG-21F could sustain a 9G turn, imagine what can modern planes with much more trust achieve, just look at F-15 it's thrust to weight is over 1:1 and that beautyfull thing can accelerate in vertical flight

Now compare that to what I wrote (not entirely true):


...the words ˜cannot maintain that speed and still turn at 6 G's" is true for any plane, including modern planes, that cannot maintain altitude and turn at 6 g.


We seem to be focusing on two different things. My point concerned the often confused usage of the term ˜maintain' when communicating turn performance.

Some actual numbers will definitely clear things up.

Does anyone know the corner speed for the aircraft structure (not the pilot black out corner speed), or Va, for the P-47, say, the D model like the latest version in the game?

What is the P-47D corner speed and g load at corner speed (Va)?

If that were known it could then be know if this were ˜all' true (not half true or partially true or not quite true or not entirely true):


...the words ˜cannot maintain that speed and still turn at 6 G's" is true for any plane, including modern planes, that cannot maintain altitude and turn at 6 g.


Suppose, for example, that the P-47, a rugged plane, managed to test out, in fact, with a 300 mph 14 g corner speed. I picked those numbers at random. The idea is to suppose the Va could be known despite the fact that the Va, for the P-47D is not known.

If, then, the P-47D, the plane, could sustain (maintain) 14 g at 300 mph (or whatever the actual Va limit is for that fighter plane when loaded up as a fighter plane), then, it could.

The plane could.

The plane could maintain 14 g at 300 mph (if that were its actual Va structural limit) from 20,000 feet all the way down to the deck in a diving spiral.

My point, the part that was pointed out since so much confusion concerns this word ˜maintain', was to point out how each plane, almost all of them in WWII, can ˜maintain' Va in a diving spiral. The point is to separate the ˜maintain' word from the ˜sustain altitude' term.

Va, or corner speed, can be maintained in a diving turn and if the pilot can't handle as much as the plane, like most WWII fighter planes loaded up as fighter planes, then ˜corner speed' becomes the pilot g limit – since the plane can handle more than the pilot.

That does not account for sudden changes in g load ˜onset' nor does it account for pitch oscillations or Dutch Rolling or any other dynamic accelerations on any axis such as those types of maneuvers that fall into the category of agility.

The funny part, from my perspective, is how responses to what I write apparently confuse what I write with what the reader thinks. My suggestion is to perform Wind Up Turns and Loaded Decelerations as they are described in the Navair site and see how that works in the game. You may be surprised by the results.

Fighter planes, and this is a factual design designation, fighter planes like the P-47 and the Fw190A series fighter planes should be, according to much of the historical record, two very agile planes when flown at speeds above corner speed. These were rugged planes built for high g loads. These were agile fighter planes capable of transitioning from one maneuver into another maneuver quickly. The idea, and this is a myth, that these ˜fighter bombers' were slow in responding to g onset because they were ˜heavy' is ridiculous. Once these fighter planes, or any plane, is flying at speeds above corner speed (for any g load) these planes, by definition, produce more lift than weight. Since these fighters, any fighter, produces more lift than weight when flying above corner speed (for any g load) it is then immaterial as to the amount of weight being lifted.

If the player tries the Wind Up Turn and the Loaded Deceleration in the game the concept may become clear. Sustaining a level turn is a performance advantage like a spiral turn going up is a performance advantage. A spiral turn going down is also a performance advantage. Another advantage is the ability to transition from straight and level flight into a maximum performance turn at the g limit (pilot or plane).

To suggest that the P-47, or the F-16, ˜should' be slow in transitioning (feel heavy) because the plane is heavy is confusion about physics. At least that is how I see it and I am merely commenting on what I've read about these planes so far.

If someone can offer a historical example of how the P-47 ˜felt' heavy (not an example where the pilot is feeling the 1000 pound bomb as ˜feeling' heavy) like many people are apt to say in the game, then, please educate me.

I think the P-47 should be one of the best turn fighters (at high speed) in the game and this should show up in a diving spiral at corner speed. What is the dive angle when maintaining the highest g load at the lowest speed in the P-47 compared to, say, the Spitfire VB?

If you are not curious then ignore my post. If you have a comment concerning something you observe then why point to what I wrote and call what I wrote as being ˜not entirely true'?

I don't get it.

Col.BBQ
03-13-2008, 10:37 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brain32:
Well Josf this is not entirely true, modern planes have such a huge trust they can undertake for greater manouvering feats than the pilot can take. For example 1960 MiG-21F could sustain a 9G turn, imagine what can modern planes with much more trust achieve, just look at F-15 it's thrust to weight is over 1:1 and that beautyfull thing can accelerate in vertical flight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[QUOTE}

Where did you hear that the Mig-21 can sustain a 9 G turn? The F-15 can only sustain 7 Gs and not even the F-16 can sustain a 9 G turnrate, even in full burner.

M_Gunz
03-13-2008, 10:56 PM
Who is Brian32?

I've seen a 'Brain32' here............

M_Gunz
03-13-2008, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by TheGhostFiles:
The P-51 B&C&D Mustang could slightly out turn, and out climb a ME109 with power to spare. Bud Anderson's interview described this nicely.

Bud Anderson's BOOK of which a chapter describing exactly such a fight gives us the conditions
which at 30,000 ft and high speed do match the action in IL2 nicely. He ALMOST lost.

That does not transpose to every other altitude and speed. Fighter performance is not so simple.

JG14_Josf
03-14-2008, 07:36 AM
The F-15 can only sustain 7 Gs and not even the F-16 can sustain a 9 G turnrate, even in full burner.

Anyone,

Here again is a possible point of confusion for anyone who may confuse ˜sustain' g load with ˜sustain' altitude. This is also, again, showing the limitations of historical record concerning factual fighter aircraft performance.

What is the maximum rate of sustainable g load for any fighter plane? That would be the Va number or the ˜corner speed' number and that number does not require level flight where the plane sustains altitude.

Readers on this forum may be led to believe that my comments are meant to troll topics and to cause trouble. I am not that person. This type of topic interests me because this type of topic concerns fighter aircraft performance.

There is a difference between a turn that sustains altitude and a turn that sustains a maximum possible g load. If a turn that sustains altitude is performed by a fighter pilot piloting a fighter plane the turn will reach a maximum possible g load during the turn where altitude is maintained and that g load will be less than the maximum g load possible when altitude is not maintained. Conversely the g load maximum for level flight will be more than the g load possible during climbing flight such as the maneuver called a climbing spiral.

Going up equals less g load possible in a sustained turn compared to a level turn where altitude is sustained.

Going down equals an ability to sustain a maximize g load right up to the maximum limit of the fighter plane structure and/or the pilots capacity to sustain g load.

Since the topic is the P-47, a very strong and very heavy plane compared to most of the fighters in WWII, it may be a good idea to differentiate between the turn advantages during level or climbing turns compared to the turn advantages during diving spiral turns or even during pull outs at the bottom of high speed dives before zooming up into zoom climbs – spiral or otherwise.

The most obvious factor causing the difference between the ability to sustain g force in a level turn, sustain g force in a climbing turn, or sustain g force in a diving turn is gravity. The P-47 isn't likely to sustain a high amount of g force in a climbing spiral since the P-47 is massive. It is huge in size and very heavy compared to, say, a Zeke, 109, Spitfire, or Yak.

Going down is altogether different. Rather than having a required power or force needed to raise the weight against the gravity field and raise the weight through massive amounts of air mass the weight is pulled down by gravity. The difference is not insignificant. The weight is power. The weight isn't a power that accelerates at a faster rate if the reader is entertaining that notion. The weight is a power that can move air mass.

To get an idea of how weight is a power that can move air mass, such as the required power to move air mass during a diving spiral turn, the person having an interest in this can imagine what would happen if weight were adjustable in the game on a slider.

The interested person can also imagine an ability to dump weight out of an aircraft as if pulling the plug on the fuel tank.

Imagine two fully loaded P-47s diving side by side in a maximum performance turn and one P-47 dumps out the entire fuel load in one second. Imagine both planes turn fighting with the engines on and then with the engines off during maximum g load turns going down in a spiral.

If the reader has enough interest is this comparison of how weight effects turn performance the reader may arrive at the unknown variable of dive angle. Interest in things other than trolling may not be the default setting on this forum. I can't help that.

VW-IceFire
03-14-2008, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGhostFiles:
The P-51 B&C&D Mustang could slightly out turn, and out climb a ME109 with power to spare. Bud Anderson's interview described this nicely.

Bud Anderson's BOOK of which a chapter describing exactly such a fight gives us the conditions
which at 30,000 ft and high speed do match the action in IL2 nicely. He ALMOST lost.

That does not transpose to every other altitude and speed. Fighter performance is not so simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you for providing us with the context. These are the things that are so often left out in some books and other sources and you have to go straight to the main source of information and then realize that...oh yes...this is a specific situation.

I'd encourage people to fly the Mustang more at 25,000 feet against 109 and 190 opposition and find out how good the Mustang and Thunderbolt really are. Both of the US planes are markedly different at that altitude in their relative performance differences versus the Axis craft. They are good down low as well but the relative advantages shift.

M_Gunz
03-14-2008, 05:56 PM
Here's a link to that online chapter. (http://www.cebudanderson.com/ch1.htm)

The main page has lots of good stuff too. ;^)

It's like there's levels to understanding aircraft from a gamer POV.

In the start a person doesn't know much but everything they do know is supposed to be true.
Then later on they find out it is but only in certain conditions though those may be 'wide'.
I'm at this stage where I don't know the details of all the planes or all the details of any
one but I do know better than to easily use blanket statements with terms like always in them.
Once in a while I might forget and get corrected... oh well, live and learn.

And You I know knows more details of these planes than I may ever try to!

VW-IceFire
03-14-2008, 08:42 PM
Ahh you just read for long enough, look at the 1st hand testing documents, read books endlessly...it gets sucked into the brain eventually http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
03-18-2008, 10:26 PM
Actually I went through the process 10 years ago but with WWI planes in RB2 at the Delphi FSF.

WOLFMondo
03-19-2008, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by TheGhostFiles:
I had a friend who flew a F4Uc in WWII, Herb Levine. He was a real nice guy, quite a big guy. He once told me why the wings were gull shaped. He said "Get a big engine, put a big prop on it, and go like hell!" Him and his wingman destroyed a Japense Sub Conning Tower with their wing canons only, and at night. They were night fliers. He also said the F4 had great maneuverability and was fast, and dominated the Japanese planes.

The P47 was built to take punishment, it after all, was a bomber. I'm sure you're all aware the P47 racked up lots of fighter kills.

The Hellcat could out climb zeros, and was also a dominator.

The P-51 B&C&D Mustang could slightly out turn, and out climb a ME109 with power to spare. Bud Anderson's interview described this nicely.

But not in this sim.

So enjoy the sim for what it is, because I doubt it will ever be changed. Maybe we should all chip in and get Oleg American Satellite Military and History Channel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gf

I think you watch too much history channel.

Bremspropeller
03-20-2008, 09:03 AM
not even the F-16 can sustain a 9 G turnrate, even in full burner.


Depends on the motor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


Josf:
The F-16's FLCS reduces max g availiable, when switched into Cat III mode (which is done whenever carrying A/G ordnance or tanks on the wings). There is no Va in fighters today - flight control software won't let you exceed maxG anyway...
Full aft stick deflection is gonna give you max availiable G or max availiable AoA, depending on speed.

M_Gunz
03-20-2008, 09:47 AM
Full actual stick deflection in an F-16 is just how far?

Bremspropeller
03-20-2008, 10:11 AM
None on the very early models (dunno which block brought the change), roughly 6mm on the following ones.

Wildnoob
03-20-2008, 04:03 PM
the most comm error pilot's make is try enter in dogfigths with more agile planes.

the P-51 and the P-47 should be used only with energy tactics.

when I start to play I get shoot down many times trying to enter in dogfigth with more agile planes. I know that should use energy tactics, but I simple didn't manage to know how to use this tactics. in the beggining is very confuse, as our instinct says that make a turn to try follow an enemy planes looks like the most logic thing to do with every plane, but in fact it's not.

against the BF-109 the best way is full open the trottle and avoid him when you are not in a favorable condition. it's very simple, full open your trottle and you will loose most pursuiters.

and attack only, only in advantage.

try make a test with the Mustang and the Thunderbolt, try full open your trottle (especially on deck) and see if a 109 will manage to caugth you.

against the FW-190 from A series the same tactic works very well at high altitude, but not much at low and medium. against the A on low and medium and against the D on every altitude that's all much more to the pilot skill, as you will not have a clear advantage on speed on this cases. but will found an match in maneuverbility.

against early and mid war the Japanase planes the same. but against late war figthers at medium and low altitude (the JM2 don't enter here) things became much more difficult, as the N1K and the KI-84 where superior in many critical aspects like maneuverbility, power (it's a little inferior but enough to stay with all allied planes easly) to most allied aircraft. with this kind of planes I recommend try stay at a more higher altitude and have a good teamwork.

anyway, people should know more the power plant of this planes to know how to use then effectively.

I just cited the most basic.

JG14_Josf
03-22-2008, 02:18 PM
There is no Va in fighters today - flight control software won't let you exceed maxG anyway...

Bremspropeller,

We may be on different pages. MaxG is Va, so how does the programmer know when to limit maxG anyway?

Example:

The fly by wire program allows the pilot to maneuver the aircraft up to X g when loaded as a fighter plane and that maximum g, loaded as a fighter plane, is possible at y airspeed (true).

That would be corner speed for the plane loaded up as a fighter plane.

Suppose the software limits the max g at 12 g and at .5 mach

If the plane is then loaded up with bombs the plane will stall at .5 mach before reaching 12 g.

The plane may break well before 12 g since the bombs have to be accelerated along with the airplane in the turn.

That was the page I was on.

A P-47, for example, could have a 12 g corner speed at 250 mph (a wild guess) when loaded as a fighter plane. In other words the plane could generate enough lift force to accelerate the fighter load-out to 12 g at 250 miles per hour (if that was the corner speed for that plane) when loaded as a fighter plane with the fighter plane load-out.

If that were the corner speed for the P-47 loaded as a fighter plane (12 g at 250 miles per hour) the P-47 would stall (when loaded as a fighter plane) at 249 miles per hour if the pilot tried to produce 12 g on a g meter at 249 miles per hour. The same pilot, with the same corner speed, could accelerate the fighter load-out on the P-47 to more than 12 g at 251 miles per hour.

249 miles per hour = stall before 12 g
250 miles per hour = 12 g only = no more
251 miles per hour = more than 12 g possible because more speed can generate more lift force

Now load that plane (without the software limiting the pilot control) up with bombs.

What happens to corner speed?

The P-47 with a 250 miles per hour 12 g corner speed can still lift the fighter load-out up to 12 g at 250 miles per hour, however now there are bombs attached to the plane and the wings will now stall at 250 miles per hour before the plane, with the bombs attached, can accelerate up to 12 g.

The problem with this change in weight concerns the actual load on the aircraft structure resulting from the increase in weight. If the P-47 could withstand 12 g at 250 miles per hour when loaded as a fighter plane it could withstand that load – that was OK. That does not mean that the P-47 could withstand 5 g when loaded as a fighter bomber. The additional weight adds stress to each increase in g from 1 g to 2 g on up to whatever acceleration on the lift vector is produced by lift force.

Like this:

--------------------------Fighter load-out-------------loaded with bombs
1 g at 150 mph------------10,000 lbs --------------------20,000 lbs
6 g at 200 mph-----------60,000 lbs --------------------120,000 lbs
12 g at 250 mph----------120,000 lbs --------------------240,000 lbs

At those weights above the problem of reaching the load-limit of 120,000 lbs for the fighter load-out at 12 g becomes a problem of reaching the load limit of 120,000 lbs at 6 g when loaded with bombs.

If the P-47 pilot had to adjust his flying ˜software' because the P-47 isn't a fly by wire aircraft the obvious thing to do is know the Va for both load-outs and fly the plane accordingly. Even though the added weight of the bombs increases the stall speed for each g load the fact remains that the wings can generate the same amount of lift at the same speed. Like this:

10,000 lbs of lift at 150 mph
60,000 lbs of lift at 200 mph
120,000 lbs of lift at 250 mph

Therefore the aircraft can be loaded down to minimum loads so as to reduce stall speeds and gain more acceleration on the lift vector at slower speeds.

Like this:

--------------------------Fighter load-out-------------loaded light
1 g at 150 mph------------10,000 lbs --------------------5,000 lbs
6 g at 200 mph-----------60,000 lbs --------------------30,000 lbs
12 g at 250 mph----------120,000 lbs ------------------60,000 lbs

The P-47 stripped down (like a racing plane perhaps) could retain its 120,000 lbs load limit where the wings can handle 120,000 lbs of force. The lightened version would not be at that limit at the same speed as the loaded up version. The wing, at that same speed, can produce the same amount of lift like this:

10,000 lbs of lift at 150 mph
60,000 lbs of lift at 200 mph
120,000 lbs of lift at 250 mph

The wing determines the maximum amount of lift produced at a given speed. The weight of plane determines the amount of load produced at that maximum amount of lift produced at that given speed. If the loaded weight increases the result is a higher stall speed because the added weight exceeds the lift capacity of the wing for that corner velocity at that g force (rate of acceleration). If the weight decreases the result is a lower stall speed because the subtraction of weight unloads the required lift force at that corner speed and at that g force (rate of acceleration).

So...Va change as the loaded weight changes not because the wing produces more or less lifting force at different speeds rather the reason for the change in Va is a function of changes in weight causing a change in the angle of attack required to produce the lift force required to accelerate the weight.

This could be seen from a prospective of having the plane dump ballast during a nose low turn at corner speed. As the plane reduces weight during a maximum performance turn the pilot would be required to adjust the controls to maintain the same rate of acceleration on the lift vector.

In the example of the P-47 loaded up to 20,000 lbs at 6 g in a nose low turn just above the stall and just below Va (120,000 lbs of load on the wing structure) at 200 mph the illustration of dumping the weight can be visualized.

Imagine the P-47 at 6 g and just above the stall at 200 mph where the pilot is almost blacked out and the wings are almost ripped off the plane (120,000 lbs of load on the wings).

If the reader has that picture in view the reader may realize how the pilot can't pull more g force without stalling or slowing the plane down. If the plane slows down the wing can't lift 120,000 lbs. If the pilot drops the nose to speed up the wing can produce more than 120,000 lbs and the wings could rip off or the pilot could black out. If the pilot raises the nose and the plane slows down the plane stalls or goes below the speed needed to produce 120,000 lbs of lift force.

Now dump the weight down from 20,000 lbs (with bombs) to 5,000 lbs (under fighter load-out weight) during that nose low turn at 6 g, at 200 mph and see how the plane reacts to the reduction of weight.

The wing will continue to produce 120,000 lbs of lift force if the pilot holds the same angle of attack as the weight drops. The plane would then be producing more lift force than 6 times the weight of the aircraft (because the weight of the aircraft is reducing) at that angle of attack (right at the stall for the all-up weight). If the pilot was limited to 6 g before the pilot blacked out the pilot would black out as the weight reduced and as the plane increased acceleration from 6 g to 6.1 g because the wings continued to produce 120,000 lbs of lift force and the plane no longer weighted 20,000 lbs times 6 (120,000 lbs).

The pilot would then be required to ease off on the turn or black out. The pilot would have to decrease the angle of attack in order to maintain 6 g as the plane grew lighter.

What would happen to the bank angle?

The true airspeed would lower. The turn would become faster in turn rate. The turn would become smaller in turn radius.

What would happen to the dive angle?

The P-47 reducing from 20,000 lbs to 5,000 pounds in a nose low turn at 6 g would no longer be limited by the aircraft structure as the pilot continued to be limited at the 6 g limit. The plane could easily turn 6 g at a lower speed since the plane no longer had to accelerate 20,000 lbs at the 6 g rate of 120,000 lbs of lift force (200 mph). As the plane dumped weight the wings could easily accelerate the lower weight and do so at even lower speeds. The plane could increase from 6 to 6.1 g and on up to the load limit of 120,000 lbs as the plane grew lighter. The plane could maintain the angle of attack while the weight decreased in the nose low turn. The plane could handle a change in bank angle.

What happens to bank angle when the pilot can't handle a higher rate of acceleration over 6 g as the P-47 becomes lighter in the nose low turn from all up weight at 6 g?

What happens to dive angle?

The P-47 dropping weight while maintaining 6 g would reduce angle of attack and reduce speed while maintaining 6 g because the wing produced too much lift for the lowering weight. It seems clear that the bank angle would roll out and the dive angle would lessen.

I don't know for sure. It seems to be clear to me.

What that seems to illustrate to me is a turn advantage associated with weight in a diving spiral turn at a fixed g load such as 6 g as the increase in weight increases the need to produce more lift with greater angle of attack, greater speed, greater bank angle and greater dive angle.

To help illustrate how the relationship between dive angle, bank angle, angle of attack, true airspeed, loaded weight, and constant g load it may help to consider what happens while weight lowers and while weight gains during the turning process at the constant g load in a diving turn.

That is a curious consideration to me. No one else shares that curious interest.

That is fine. The page I am on doesn't have to be the page anyone else is on. The software that controls the fly by wire g limits on modern planes may be a more interesting consideration. I know from talking to an airline pilot friend that modern passenger jets have g limits built into the fly by wire controls. I think the limit is 2.5 g. That would be the rate of acceleration number and not the load limit so that would not account for the difference in loading from a fully loaded and fully fueled jet compared to an empty jet with a low fuel load. 2.5 g full loaded is not the same thing as 2.5 g empty.

The constant is the amount of lift generated by the wing at a specific speed. The variable of weight changes the load being accelerated at the rate of acceleration possible once the wing reaches the speed required to lift the weight loaded.

DKoor
03-24-2008, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
These make high speed passes on target little fustrating :/

Not as frustrating as making high speed attacks in 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>High speed attacks in 109 are myth.


Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGhostFiles:
The P-51 B&C&D Mustang could slightly out turn, and out climb a ME109 with power to spare. Bud Anderson's interview described this nicely.

But not in this sim.
Yes it's unbelievable, I see the same sh*** in FSX, Fokker DrI outturns Boeing 747, and even does it easily, it's pretty sad how neonacizm got it's way in the flight simulations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your post where you mentioned about LW orders not to attack Yak-3s in the same solar system comes to mind.
Because what you quoted falls into that category.

Bremspropeller
03-25-2008, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
...

To make it short: Va is the speed, till where you can do maximal stick (= control-surface) deflection without damaging the airframe.
Above that speed, a reduced amount of deflection is allowed.

Flying envelope-protected fly-by-wire a/c, this does not have to be considered, as the envelope-protection won't let you exceed G or AoA limits.

But you're still allowed to make full stick-deflections, as the Gs are not exceeded.

JG14_Josf
03-25-2008, 06:50 PM
Bremspreopeller,

Do you know if the Va software adjusts for changes in aircraft weight and if so how does that software adjust for weight.

Does the software reduce g production as weight increases by reducing elevator deflection at lower g loads? Does the pilot adjust something as weight increases. Does the software dampen sudden stick inputs to avoid sudden lift loads?

Are modern fighters g limited by software to a point where pilots no longer suffer black out?

M_Gunz
03-26-2008, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
To make it short: Va is the speed, till where you can do maximal stick (= control-surface) deflection without damaging the airframe.
Above that speed, a reduced amount of deflection is allowed.

Flying envelope-protected fly-by-wire a/c, this does not have to be considered, as the envelope-protection won't let you exceed G or AoA limits.

But you're still allowed to make full stick-deflections, as the Gs are not exceeded.

Yah but only on one axis. Cross-controlling at Va is likely to strain the airframe badly.

I like the bit about "Va software"! (not by you) LOL, ROFLWMFKIA! (with my feet kicking in air)

VA software I know about, it's how they run VA Hospitals!

Jambock_Dolfo
03-26-2008, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
...
Do you know if the Va software adjusts for changes in aircraft weight and if so how does that software adjust for weight.

Does the software reduce g production as weight increases by reducing elevator deflection at lower g loads? Does the pilot adjust something as weight increases. Does the software dampen sudden stick inputs to avoid sudden lift loads?

Are modern fighters g limited by software to a point where pilots no longer suffer black out?

Don't know if you guys are discussing real life or sim here, but...

Fly by wire airplanes, when under protection (normal law, or similar) translate stick movements into G load requests, and compute the required control surface deflection. In short, if you pull back on the stick, you are not requesting an elevator movement, you are requesting G load. Some sort of flight control computer will decide how much elevator that will be. Max deflection will request for max allowable G, which is determined according to acft configuration.

And for "Are modern fighters g limited by software to a point where pilots no longer suffer black out?"
Well, G is limited to protect the airframe from overstressing. If you black out or not that is your own business, I suppose. Although some planes can sense you are not pulling back on the stick anymore and enter some sort of protection mode. YMMV.


-dolfo

Bremspropeller
03-26-2008, 08:38 AM
Dolfo, thats exactly what I was trying to say.

Some fighters switch their command-laws from G to AoA (Mirage 2000 does this at 250 kts AFAIK), b/c you envelope is limited by AoA below "Va" and is limited by G, above "Va".
At "Va", a full aft stick deflection will get you max AoA and max G at a time - theoreticly.

JG14_Josf
03-26-2008, 11:01 AM
Some sort of flight control computer will decide how much elevator that will be.

Anyone,

That is interesting.

How fast does the computer allow the elevator to change angle of attack?

What happens if the pilot stirs the stick?

Can the pilot set the g limit to a high weight flight condition when the plane is actually loaded light and visa versa (fool the computer)?

P.S. If I am not mistaken all planes in the game are set at 6 g where the pilots black out.

M_Gunz
03-26-2008, 12:43 PM
All the pilots in the game grey out and black out in time at 5+ G's, it is not simple as a number.

*The planes don't make that happen.
*G's happen at acceleration which depends on speed.
*Stick stirring is something lame gamers do, luckily the pros get better training, ask some.

Jambock_Dolfo
03-26-2008, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some sort of flight control computer will decide how much elevator that will be.


How fast does the computer allow the elevator to change angle of attack?

What happens if the pilot stirs the stick?

Can the pilot set the g limit to a high weight flight condition when the plane is actually loaded light and visa versa (fool the computer)?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very fast. And for clarity, it does not allow a position for the elevator, it commands.

Stick stirring usually results in a PIO, or Pilot Induced Oscillation. Which is bad. Nobody stirrs the stick on a real airplane.

Never seen such thing as "high weight flight condition". G limit for config is automatic, i.e. high lift devices extended result in reduced G limit. On some fighters there may be switches for diferent ordnance configurations. This would limit the G also, but not to overG any pod I believe. Should ask a fighter jock, if he is willing to/can share such info. But why bother with something you will not use anyway?
If you work on a cockpit and need to flip a switch then you know when and how to do it, and how it works... if you do not work in a cockpit and do not have to flip the switch... why bother about technicalities? Keep It Simple always worked wonders.


-dolfo

JG14_Josf
03-26-2008, 02:29 PM
Very fast. And for clarity, it does not allow a position for the elevator, it commands.

Dolfo,

Do you know the facts here or are you guessing? I'm curious.

Say the pilot moved the stick as fast as possible and that was measured in miliseconds. Would the computer limit the rate of elevator movement or is there no limit to the rate of elevator movement other than 'very fast'?

Suppose, for example, the pilot is flying at maximum speed in a dive and the pilot yanks the stick back as fast as possible. Does the elevator move very fast?

A link would be nice.

The game definitely limits elevator rate of movement; especially at high speed.

Jambock_Dolfo
03-26-2008, 03:05 PM
I fly passenger planes, not fighters. Did fly conventional jets before, and FBW now.

Conventional jets have something called "artificial feel". Hydraulic forces are applied to the control column to give a force feedback, if you will. This varies with airspeed.
Fly by wire with sidestick have zero feedback. No different forces on the stick with different speeds, just a constant spring force. Also the stick does not move to follow control surface movement like in conventional airplanes.
Because of this lack of control forces it is possible to demand maximum G in a very short interval of time. Your miliseconds, if you want so. The rate of delta G applied to the airplane is calculated by the computer, of course. How long does it take to go from a zero G dive to 9G? Well, it beats me. If we have some Viper drivers around here maybe they can shed some light on this one. If I remember correctly there were high operational losses on the first F-16 caused by G-LOCK, because the Viper was said to be able to go up to 9G very quickly (1 sec maybe?).
Or maybe it is just misinformation spread on the internet.
Browsing through the Flight Controls chapter on the FCOM I do not find any delta G over delta t limits... but I do know that if you displace two sidesticks the total G request is the sum of the two deflections, but limited to one maximum deflection.
About the game limiting the rate of movement, well of course. Conventional controls (cables, pulleys) do get very heavy at high speeds. You can not expect to move them as easily as when flying slow. And for the record, we almost never use full control deflection in flight, except on some very special aerobatic planes, and on some maneuvers.

-dolfo

Bremspropeller
03-27-2008, 09:59 AM
FBW enables negative stability-deigns to fly.
The euro-canards (Tiffie, Rafale and Gripen) could never get up without crashin only seconds later if they were flown without FBW.

FBW adjusts the actuators hundreds or thousands of times during a second.
No matter how quick you pull or push the stick, the FBW-computer WILL be faster than your input.

The computer is gonna have validated (or not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) your steering-input (rather: request) even before you'd recognize you have actaully made it.

JG14_Josf
03-27-2008, 12:43 PM
but I do know that if you displace two sidesticks the total G request is the sum of the two deflections, but limited to one maximum deflection.


Dolfo,

Thanks for the response. I didn't figure out that quote above. What is meant by 'sidesticks'? Does that refer to stick stirring or a pilot who rapidly hits the stick twice in succession like a boxer jabbing a speed bag?

Jambock_Dolfo
03-27-2008, 09:20 PM
Sidestick is the airplane's joystick. For some reason they decided to call it something more "professional sounding" than "joystick" or "game controller" =)
Not about moving fast, but about dual input (two sticks moving at the same time) on airplanes that have dual controls.

Sorry about my English, I know it is confusing sometimes.


-dolfo

M_Gunz
03-27-2008, 10:53 PM
Sidestick is at the end of armrest, on the side.....
They move only enough to help prevent tendonitis in F-16 and were modified to do that.

Not for Dolfo or Brems, at least the part from 8th word on:
We have a retired F-16 driver registered here but don't bug him with daft questions esp if
you have any mind to argue with answers he might give.

Bremspropeller
03-28-2008, 07:32 AM
In fact, we have two alumni Viper-drivers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

I like the "DUAL INPUT"-warning on the tech-Busses.
The voice sounds kinga...ghey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG14_Josf
03-28-2008, 09:42 AM
So...why were two sidesticks used?

Two seat trainers?

Jambock_Dolfo
03-28-2008, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
So...why were two sidesticks used?

Two seat trainers?

Family models (trainers); and almost all transport and passenger planes I know of are dual crew too.


-dolfo

M_Gunz
03-28-2008, 09:57 PM
Two sidesticks means 1 plane fits both left and right handed pilots, doesn't it?

Jambock_Dolfo
03-28-2008, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Two sidesticks means 1 plane fits both left and right handed pilots, doesn't it?


Hehe, no.

It means the airplane can be flown either from the left or right seat.


-dolfo

M_Gunz
03-29-2008, 08:48 AM
F-16 with tandem seats?

Jambock_Dolfo
03-29-2008, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
F-16 with tandem seats?

Replace left/right with front/back for tandem.


-dolfo

M_Gunz
03-29-2008, 12:12 PM
Me having never sat in an F-16, is there only one stick for the pilot?
Is it on the side?

Jambock_Dolfo
03-29-2008, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Me having never sat in an F-16, is there only one stick for the pilot?
Is it on the side?

Never been in a Viper either, so my comment is unqualified at best.

But I have never seen a plane with two sticks (or control columns) per pilot. I would say the F-16 has one, and it would be on the right side, throttle on the left.

-dolfo

M_Gunz
03-29-2008, 09:20 PM
Hang on, I'll ask someone I know who knows and get back though my guess is one stick too.
When you mentioned two sticks possible and still work, well ya know?

Jambock_Dolfo
03-29-2008, 11:04 PM
Well, I meant two sticks on transports. One for each pilot. I highly doubt there are two sticks for single seaters.

-dolfo

Bremspropeller
03-30-2008, 07:19 AM
http://rv-8a.net/images/F-16C%20Cockpit.jpg
Block 52+ cockpit.

The stick can be seen in lower right corner.

M_Gunz
04-01-2008, 01:13 AM
That pic is proof and Sensei says the same, one sidestick on the right that the CH is close to same.

BigKahuna_GS
05-29-2008, 04:42 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________
ImpStarDuece
The P-47 wasn't exactly nimble at low altitudes, although it really shone above about 25,00 feet. A Gloster Gladiator was faster 20,000 feet than all but the most powerful versions.

AaronGT--At sea level the P47's hp per lb is pretty average, and its <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">sea level speed was relatively pedestrian</span>. Up high it has good hp per lb, and its speed is better than most.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________



Is this a serious statement or a joke ? I am thinking it's a joke.
A 850hp biplane with a top speed of 257mph was faster than the early versions P47 D-10 & D-22 at 20,000ft?
Or did you mean below 20,000ft? Both statements are absurd.

Read the book "Beware the Thunderbolt" story of the 56th FG in the 8th AF. Over-boosting was the name of the game for all versions early on. Stock manufactuer speed specs did not apply. When the D-22s recieved water injection & paddle blade props
they were very competative even on 130grade fuel. I don't think Robert Johnson was hitting 470mph in his razor back P47 as
he claimed but I bet he was in the 440-450+mph range.

Early 150 grade P47 D-22 testing at only 65"MAP with & without water injection. Does not state prop type-probably a PB.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p47-eglin-level.jpg

Sea level speed was 347mph without WI & 365mph with WI at only 65"MAP. While not the fastest it is certinaly not "pedestrian".

Prior to this 150grade fuel testing the 56th FG had already been overboosting their P47s to 70"MAP on 130 grade fuel as a standard operating procedure. Reportedly late model P47M were being overboosted as high as 90"MAP on 150grade fuel.



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________

jurinko-
Not to hi jack P-47 thread, but I read recently memoirs of LW pilot flying on Fw 190, which he described as a plane with abundance of power, and the usual way how to disengage from the attacker was to shot directly upwards. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">These heavy planes, especially F-4U, definitely feel underpowered and lose speed in maneuvers too fast.</span>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________


Add the P38 to that list as well. I don't think heavier aircraft in this sim retain enough energy retention. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
My dad flew the F4U in WW2 and stated that speed and power was it's virtues. Later models of Corsair were over-boosted utilizing the 145grade fuel for kamikaze interception prior to the appearence of the stellar F4U-4 model. The current
F4U we have in game is almost 10mph too slow at sea level. Navy tests showed a Fleet worn torn combat F4U without any prep
or wax job could hit 366mph V-max--at sea level. In game the F4U hits 356-358mph which is 8-10mph too slow.



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________
JG14_Josf
The plane scissoring left to right ahead of the plane rolling (and not reversing the roll) is not the issue asked. I've read Robert S. Johnson's account on that scenario. The pilot ahead who can accelerate and load up the g force faster can hold that turn until the attacking pilot begins to pull lead and only then reverse to take advantage of faster acceleration on the roll axis (plus add a little dive or climb rather than telegraphing in the horizontal only plane).
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________



Robert S Johnson countered the FW-190 scissors with the "Vector Roll" or "Lead Roll" which was a roll in the opposite direction of the 190s reversal. The axis of the roll would bring the nose of the P47 behind the 190 again without losing much energy. Johnson said the P47 would tend to "mush" and lose too much energy if he followed the 190 through the scissors reversals. Johnson also said he would sometimes just let the 190 scissors in front of him and fire as it passed in front of his nose.



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________
Aaron_GT
But that it also did a bit too well at slow speeds. The real problem was the first couple of versions in the sim - the roll performance is relatively close to reality now - close enough that you can do the same sort of things in the sim as in real life.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________


Do not agree Aaron. How can the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">loss of 30deg a second in a roll rate </span> ever be justified and close to real life ?
It cannot. Also as speeds increase the P47 roll rate suffers even more almost to the point of being "A6M5 Zero" like.
At speeds of 350-400mph the P47 does not want to roll at all. If anything was ever "pedestrian" it is the P47 high speed roll rate.

THE WORSE THING IN P-47 FM IN GAME IS TOO SLOW ROLL RATE AT MEDIUM TO HIGH SPEED.
REAL P-47 HAD AT 360MPH 70 DEG/SEC BUT THESE FROM GAME HAS ONLY 40 DEG/SEC



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________
M_Gunz
Here's a link to that online chapter.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________


Here's the link to the you tube HC dogfight video with a Bud Anderson interview. Nice Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE&mode=related&search=



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________
Bremspropeller
Some fighters switch their command-laws from G to AoA (Mirage 2000 does this at 250 kts AFAIK), b/c you envelope is limited by AoA below "Va" and is limited by G, above "Va".
At "Va", a full aft stick deflection will get you max AoA and max G at a time - theoreticly.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________



I think you are accurate.
I got a chance to discuss this years ago at an El Toro Marine Airbase airshow with a Navy Top Gun pilot who was flying F-16s in their Agressor Sdqn. This pilot was manuevering hard in a multiple bandit ACM scenario when it was clear to him that a high speed mid air collision was going to occur. He manuevered hard enough to stall which converted to an inverted flat spin. This pilot said he had to switch flight control modes so he could get maximum deflection out of the F-16's control surfaces and recover. He came very close to punching out.


-

Aaron_GT
05-30-2008, 06:47 PM
Do not agree Aaron. How can the loss of 30deg a second in a roll rate ever be justified and close to real life ?

No, I wouldn't justify it if it is off by more than a bit (+-10% maybe at any given speed, roughly the same over the range). I was quite vocal when AEP came out in asking for it to be addressed, I just thought it had been. At 360mph at sea level on the Crimean map I get 50 degrees/second for the D-27 with absolutey no rudder input (higher rate with rudder, naturally). I used the keyboard to ensure no rudder.

I presume the reference charts are aileron only, and it should be 70/second at 50lb force. So I make it 20 deg/sec out which is a big margin and way off.

D-10 is the same. I'll see what difference rudder makes tomorrow. You can't do more than 1/4 roll with just ailerons!

But looking at the past threads Oleg apparently said that the figures from AHT and the well known comprison graph are based on the P47C and that the these aren't the right values for the D series, but I couldn't really get any more out of Oleg's words.

ImpStarDuece
05-31-2008, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________
ImpStarDuece
The P-47 wasn't exactly nimble at low altitudes, although it really shone above about 25,00 feet. A Gloster Gladiator was faster 20,000 feet than all but the most powerful versions.

AaronGT--At sea level the P47's hp per lb is pretty average, and its <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">sea level speed was relatively pedestrian</span>. Up high it has good hp per lb, and its speed is better than most.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________



Is this a serious statement or a joke ? I am thinking it's a joke.
A 850hp biplane with a top speed of 257mph was faster than the early versions P47 D-10 & D-22 at 20,000ft?
Or did you mean below 20,000ft? Both statements are absurd.



Not absurd, I just missed out on typiong "to"

The Gloser Gladiator was faster to 20,000 feet than the early P-47s and remained so basically up to the time the P-47 got its larger width 'paddle blade' prop.

Gladiators had a max RoC of about 2,600 ft minute, and could get to 20,000 ft in 10 minutes.

In comparison, early P-47s had a max RoC of about 2,700, but could get to 20,000 ft in about 11 minuts, 60 seconds slower than that dinky little biplane.

Aaron_GT
05-31-2008, 06:58 AM
At sea level the P47's hp per lb is pretty average, and its sea level speed was relatively pedestrian.

I stand by this statement for sea level speeds. In any given year the P-47's speed was pretty average for the year AT SEA LEVEL. Yes, it improved with boosting, but then you have to compare to other planes with extra boost too in the same time period.

The fact that sea level speed was not exceptional is not a particular criticism - it was designed very specifically as a high altitude plane, around a turbosupercharger, and was much faster than 90% of the competition at the altitudes it was designed for. It's the reverse of something like the P-51A.

The chart you linked to shows 365 mph at 65" MP at sea level for mid 1944. As a comparison there is the Fw 190 A8s doing in the 355-360 range at sea level at the same date with extra boosts, the 109G6 at up to 335, the Spitfire IX at around 365 at +25, the Tempest Vat 378 at +9, going up to around 390-400 at +11, P-51Bs at 390 at high boost (72"), Mosquito at 355 at +25. So the P-47s level speed at sea level was pretty average. But it wasn't designed to be super fast there, but rather circa 20,000 ft. Up at 20,000 feet in 1943 there wasn't much that could worry it. It took the P51B to threaten it at 440 in 1944, and in late 1944 the Spitfire XIV and 109K4. But it did superbly well in 1943 to mid 1944 up at that height. It was also an excellent fighter bomber at low altitude due to a good capability for ordnance.

But it's sea level speed was nothing special.

It was obviously a lot faster than the Gladiator at sea level though! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
05-31-2008, 10:11 PM
S!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron_GT
quote:
At sea level the P47's hp per lb is pretty average, and its <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">sea level speed was relatively pedestrian</span>.

I stand by this statement for sea level speeds. In any given year the P-47's speed was pretty average for the year AT SEA LEVEL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hya Aaron you wrote the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">HP was average </span> and the sea level speed <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">pedestrian</span>
There is a huge difference between pedestrian vs average I would think. I would take it that pedestrian would be near the bottom of the barrel and average would mean somewhere in the middle of the pack. A sea level speed of 365mph is not pedestrian.

Also the P47D-22 model was not the main front line P47 fighter in the summer of '44. You need to look at the model P47 being used as a test mule, not the date of the flight testing as all sorts of older airframes were being used for performance mods.
P47D-22 models started arriving in late 43'and were being overboosted to 70"MAP not the 65"MAP used in this flight test and were probably hitting these sea level speeds in late 43'-early 44'.
Hope you see the difference here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



The P47 was known to have a very good roll rate especially at higher speeds.

"The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944. Test comparisons were made with a P-47D-30-RE throughout the early portion of the evaluation period. Much to everyone's surprise, the XP-47N, with its greater wingspan and higher weight actually proved to have better roll performance than the D model. At 250 mph TAS, the N attained a maximum roll rate just over 100 degrees/second. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The P-47D-30-RE could manage but 85 degrees/second at the same speed</span>. At higher speeds, the N widened the gap further."


Anytime you cut the roll rate of a fighter by almost 50% you are cutting a major portion of manuverability and it will never be
"almost as real life"

THE WORSE THING IN P-47 FM IN GAME IS TOO SLOW ROLL RATE AT MEDIUM TO HIGH SPEED.
REAL P-47 HAD AT 360MPH 70 DEG/SEC BUT THESE FROM GAME HAS ONLY 40 DEG/SEC


Now try rolling the P47 at 400mph.


__

Aaron_GT
06-01-2008, 04:52 AM
There is a huge difference between pedestrian vs average I would think. I would take it that pedestrian would be near the bottom of the barrel and average would mean somewhere in the middle of the pack. A sea level speed of 365mph is not pedestrian.

To me the terms average and pedestrian are synonomous. I'll stick to the former in future. Apologies for any confusion. I stand my the statement that its speed at sea level was average, at least at 65" boost in 1944, or even at 70" boost in the later half of 1944 (although with a margin over the main axis fighters).


P47D-22 models started arriving in late 43'and were being overboosted to 70"MAP not the 65"MAP used in this flight test and were probably hitting these sea level speeds in late 43'-early 44'.

I didn't think 70" was cleared until June 1944? How much squadron use was there of 70" before it became official? From looking at the various performance charts moving to 70" might add around 5mph, so faster than the fastest Spitfire IXs, but still short of the likes of the Tempest and P51B in mid 1944. Still in the average range. I'd put the 109 in the slow range, the Spitfire, 190 and P-47 in the average/pedestrian range, and the Tempest and P-51 in the above average range. 70" in late 1943 (giving about 370 mph with WEP, around 350 without) would put the P-47 at the top end of the range though, if it was a widespread rather than isolated boost.

I would agree that there may well be a difference between the razorback and bubble top models, but it is hard to find direct comparisons. Do you have more details? It would have been interesting to find out. There do seem to be a lot of tests, and some are without WEP, and some with. The test topping out at 365 at 65" is at least with WEP. 345-7 seems to be the oft quoted sea level speed which seems to correspond to 65" without WEP.

I've already agreed with you over roll rate.

Brain32
06-01-2008, 07:06 AM
There do seem to be a lot of tests, and some are without WEP, and some with. The test topping out at 365 at 65" is at least with WEP. 345-7 seems to be the oft quoted sea level speed which seems to correspond to 65" without WEP.
345-347 at SL for the "D" model is 70Hg

Aaron_GT
06-01-2008, 10:34 AM
The May 1944 report linked to above gives 347 at 65" without WI/WEP but says it is 'uncorrected', but I don't know what is uncorrected.

Brain32
06-01-2008, 12:17 PM
Uncorrected means that data is not recalculated for standard conditions or something like that anyway, I'm not familiar with professional terminology so somebody might find my expression funny but it is something like that. I also once saw a BF109F4 chart that said something like 700kmh+ at altitude but the data was not corrected...
Anyway on general P47 section at ww2aircraftperf site you can see the curve for 70Hg, it says 347MPH at SL and smokin' hot 444MPH at alt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
06-01-2008, 05:03 PM
So given the margin for WEP (347 without WEP at 70" I presume) that would be 365 at SL again?

M_Gunz
06-01-2008, 09:42 PM
Uncorrected means they haven't corrected for compression or 'position error' which is position
of the pitot on the plane and has to do with compression AFAICT.

IAS --> CAS where CAS is Corrected Air Speed

The upshot is that compression makes IAS read high and wasn't widely or well understood then.
So you got pilots reading large numbers in dives and/or at high alts and those being turned
to TAS, people like Gunther Rall reporting:

I knew exactly that in a dive P-47 is much faster than 109. And the P-47 has a much higher structural strength. They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour. The 109, if you go to 1000, pull it up, you risk that the wings come off.
Just in case you think I make that up. (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html)

IL2 gages do not have that problem.

Brain32
06-02-2008, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So given the margin for WEP (347 without WEP at 70" I presume) that would be 365 at SL again?
Where do you read without WEP from???
No P47 other than "M" - 367MPH or "N"-359MPH did run faster than 347MPH at SL, if you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Aaron_GT
06-02-2008, 10:24 AM
The D-22 in the chart posted by Kahuna was charted at 347 without WEP, and there is a WEP line drawn at 365, and this is at 65". This is 'uncorrected' though. I don't know how much this correction would mean a revision down of the speed.

Most of the other tests I've looked do not seem to indicate if WEP is being used or not, so I am presuming that if not mentioned it is not being used.

If a D model is only getting 347 with WEP AND 70" then it is slower than just about anything apart from a 109 at sea level.

I am not trying to prove anything, just trying to get a definitive figure for speed at sea level, with 70" and WEP, which should be the maximum speed to be seen at sea level for any D model.

Brain32
06-02-2008, 01:38 PM
The D-22 in the chart posted by Kahuna was charted at 347 without WEP, and there is a WEP line drawn at 365, and this is at 65".
This makes no sense, it says 65"+water, that would indicate 70". Because as far as I know water injection itself allowed for higher boost, it was not a magic thing that would allow higher speed(nearly 20MPH more if we look at the chart, that's not a small improvement) on Mother Mary's grace alone. However I don't see the point of discussing that chart as we can debate it to death and still stay clueless as it's not corrected...

Anyway check this out: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

Also check the custom charts on the main P-47 page(scroll down, it's at the bottom of the page): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html


If a D model is only getting 347 with WEP AND 70" then it is slower than just about anything apart from a 109 at sea level.

And that is reality, P47D as it may be news to some guys was designed as HIGH altitude interceptor, it was a very heavy sturdy plane that thanks to the supercharger excelled at high altitude. I mean look at those level speed curves, sure 347MPH at SL is below average in it's time but man, look at the speed at high altitudes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
06-02-2008, 05:32 PM
And that is reality, P47D as it may be news to some guys was designed as HIGH altitude interceptor, it was a very heavy sturdy plane that thanks to the supercharger excelled at high altitude.

Indeed, that was my original point, but I was thrown by that apparent 365 speed and I was trying to make sense of it in comparison to other tests showing lower speeds. The other tests has more comprehensive notes and does note boost to 70" when using water injection.

So what date was 70" definitely cleared by (June 1944?) and when was it common in squadron service are the other questions.

And I presume that there is no 70" plus additional boost with water to even higher boosts. I've seen nothing to suggest there is.

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 03:03 PM
PIece from a USAAF Eagle Squadron pilot who flew SPitfire V's and transferred to P47's :-

'One day in January 1943 General Hunter, the Commander of the 8th Fighter Command, came to visit us at Debden. He said he had a 'surprise' for us. We were soon to re-equip with the very latest American fighter, the P-47 Thunderbolt. As he spoke we heard an unusual engine noise outside and one of the new fighters landed and taxied up beside one of our Spitfires. We went outside to look it over. It was huge: the wing tip of the P-47 came higher than the cockpit of the Spitfire. When we strapped into a Spitfire we felt snug and part of the aircraft; the Thunderbolt cockpit, on the other hand, was so large that we felt if we slipped off the *******ed seat we would break a leg! We were horrified at the thought of going to war in such a machine: we had enough trouble with the Focke Wulf 190's in our nimble Spitfire Vs; now this lumbering seven-ton monster seemed infinitely worse, a true 'air inferiority fighter'. Initial mock dog-fights between Thunderbolts and Spitfires seemed to confirm these feelings; we lost four Thunderbolt pilots in rapid succession, spinning in from low level, while trying to match Spitfires in turns. In the end our headquarters issued an order banning mock dog fighting in Thunderbolts below 8,000 feet.

Gradually however, we learnt how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude, she was a 'hot ship' and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to 'mix it' with the enemy, but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory--where the action was. So, reluctantly, we had to give up our beautiful little Spitfires and convert to the new juggernauts. The war was moving on, and we had to move with it.

The change to the Thunderbolt might have been necessary militarily, but my heart remained with the Spitfire. Even now, thirty years after I flew them on operations, the mere sound or sight of a Spitfire brings me a deep feeling of nostalgia, and many pleasant memories. She was such a gentle little airplane, without a trace of viciousness. She was a dream to handle in the air. I feel genuinely sorry for the modern fighter pilot, who has never had the chance to get his hands on a Spitfire; he will never know what real flying was like.'



You have to remember that it was extrememly heavy, not manouverable compared to lighter fighters, and that for every story incredbile story of a plane absorbing 300 shots and flying home, there are some where the plane received light damage and went down.

Dont think that extreme cases are the norm.


I love the P47, its my favourite US fighter in the Sim.

M_Gunz
06-04-2008, 01:09 AM
In the Great Planes episode on the P-47 it says they made more of them than any other US fighter.
Something like 10,000 were built.

Boy to have had stock in Pratt and Whitney back in those days!