PDA

View Full Version : P47s in Sturmovik



domenlovrec
05-28-2006, 01:27 PM
hi

I realy don't know what are the differences between 3 different P47s in game. Well, gunsight is the only thing i am aware about.

domenlovrec
05-28-2006, 01:27 PM
hi

I realy don't know what are the differences between 3 different P47s in game. Well, gunsight is the only thing i am aware about.

danjama
05-28-2006, 01:50 PM
You cant see the difference in the canopy shapes?

That is the main visual difference.

The later P47's have higher boost values too.

domenlovrec
05-28-2006, 01:58 PM
As i said, i can see the gunsight (canopy shape) difference.

I was hoping if someone could write down main performance difference.

danjama
05-28-2006, 02:43 PM
Its all listed here

This is the link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47)

domenlovrec
05-29-2006, 04:45 AM
Danjama tnx for the info.

However, i still don't know what are the performance differences IN GAME. I used "search" but didn't find anything useful. I'm asking this because the way i fly this plane depends of my knowledge.

danjama
05-29-2006, 05:30 AM
Well, what version are you looking to fly?

I dont have solid figures, but i do fly P47's alot. The P47B/C in game seems alot more suggish and loses energy alot faster it seems. While the P47D holds energy very well, can take high speed dives, and has pretty good turning ability! Its also AMAZING at high altitude. Nothing will touch it up there.

As long as you keep any of them fast, they all perform well. Just like Zemke told it.

domenlovrec
05-29-2006, 05:59 AM
I believe you've mistaken P47 for P51.

In game we have:

P47-D10 (43)
P47-D22 (43)

When online these two types can be flown. Don't know the difference between 10 and 22.

Then we have:

P47-D27 (44) It has different canopy. Plus, there must some performance difference, but i don't know any.

And:

P47D (without any number) It looks just like D27, but there must be some performance difference.

There should be P47 guide! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-29-2006, 06:39 AM
someone should give him a download link for the latest IL2compare tool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

kajr
05-29-2006, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by domenlovrec:
There should be P47 guide! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Four years ago I said there should be a cockpit guide. So I built one! What do they say... Necessity is the mother of invention?

JG53Frankyboy
05-29-2006, 06:52 AM
here is a link to HArdballs Aircraft viewer
http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#014

unfortunatly it looks like airwarfare.com has not the latest il2compare (3.) uploaded ?!
but a lot of Hardballs performance datas are baed on the IL2 compare http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

danjama
05-29-2006, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by domenlovrec:
I believe you've mistaken P47 for P51.

In game we have:

P47-D10 (43)
P47-D22 (43)

When online these two types can be flown. Don't know the difference between 10 and 22.

Then we have:

P47-D27 (44) It has different canopy. Plus, there must some performance difference, but i don't know any.

And:

P47D (without any number) It looks just like D27, but there must be some performance difference.

There should be P47 guide! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, im not mistaken, i interprate the D-10 as a B model, and the D-22 as a C model, caus im old school like that.

The P47D is said to be "near M performance" by Oleg. Which means it has big boost and alot of horsepower.

The D27 is a good performer also.

domenlovrec
05-29-2006, 07:02 AM
Yees! I have this software now and it rox. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

After 5 minutes i realized i make many mistakes when flying, for ex. i allways used T&B vs. FW when flying F4U. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

danjama
05-29-2006, 08:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif glad you're enjoying yourself!

horseback
05-29-2006, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by domenlovrec:
I believe you've mistaken P47 for P51.

In game we have:

P47-D10 (43)
P47-D22 (43)

When online these two types can be flown. Don't know the difference between 10 and 22.

Then we have:

P47-D27 (44) It has different canopy. Plus, there must some performance difference, but i don't know any.

And:

P47D (without any number) It looks just like D27, but there must be some performance difference.

There should be P47 guide! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, im not mistaken, i interprate the D-10 as a B model, and the D-22 as a C model, caus im old school like that.

The P47D is said to be "near M performance" by Oleg. Which means it has big boost and alot of horsepower.

The D27 is a good performer also. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The P-47B was not ready for primetime-and it was about eight inches shorter than the C model, the first of the Jugs to see combat.

Oleg's version of the D-10 has performance I'd compare to the C/early D with the original 'skinny' prop blades. Not so good in acceleration or climb, no water injection, not a contender until you're way up high.

The D-22 would be the razorback that has water injection and the 'paddelblade' prop. It got the maximum out of its engine at all alts, and provided decent acceleration (Bob Johnson, in Thunderbolt! claimed to have been able to stay with a new Spit IX with one in early 1944, after his Jug got the new prop) and climb; much more of a player at low & medium alts while still a monster up high. This model also has the pylons for fuel tanks or bombs available.

The D-27 is the bubbletop; IRL, about the same performance as the D-22, but with a better all around view and in the real thing, more fuel and range. Most had 'dive recovery flaps' similar in intent to those on the P-38, to maintain control in high speed, high altitude dives, where compressability was just around the corner.

The last model provided is supposed to be some kind of super boosted model (a concession to those who have repeatedly pointed to records and accounts that indicate that many, if not most P-47s in combat units were hot-rodded up to well above the 'official' performance) which gives better performance almost to the levels of the M models.

I will refrain from comment on Oleg's interpretation of the P-47 FMs beyond the simple statement that I don't agree with much of it.

cheers

horseback

JG53Frankyboy
05-29-2006, 01:22 PM
it would be nice if the D-22 and D-27 would have the same performance and their only difference would be the canopy...........
but il2compare is showing that the D-10 and D-22 have almost the same perfromance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
so their only difference are the Wingracks of the D-22.

sure i havent tested it in game for myself !
if the D-22 and -27 would have the same performance, that would fit perfect in the ingame JUG familie !

chris455
05-29-2006, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, im not mistaken, i interprate the D-10 as a B model, and the D-22 as a C model, caus im old school like that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No offense Danjama, but that's not "old school", that's just plain wrong.
There are no B or C jugs in the game. If he wants to know that differences between -10, a -22, or a -27, he needs to start by getting his nomenclature correct. Le'ts help him by using the right ones ourselves. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Again, no offense intended.
Chris

VW-IceFire
05-29-2006, 04:45 PM
Here's some rough information to go by:

P-47D-10 - This is the fastest rolling in the game, no wing bombracks, the last true P-47 fighter before they started making them multirole. I believe the D-10 is also the lightest of the heavyweight P-47s. Performance suffers but in the early 1943 timeperiod the P-47 is extremely fast compared to the opposition.

P-47D-22 - Similar to the D-10 but with more weight, range, bombload, and so forth.

P-47D-27 - Comes with a cutdown bubble canopy, far better visibility, lightly less stable, heavier with even more range and firepower advantages over the others. Faster than the previous two.

P-47D - This one comes with no other designation...its the one that is "near P-47M" in performance. This version is the hotrodded P-47 version that is representative of what was being done on the plane and squadron level in the USAAF in 1944. Historically speaking P-47s were given a certain boost setting officially...however Reps from P&W, Republic, and crack mechanical crews often suggested and performed modifications to make the P-47 better performing. Unlike most fighter types, the P-47s size and engine power actually permitted these sorts of modifications with little in the way of problems. The R-2800 also being an extremely robust and reliable engine for WWII standards.

P-47s are tough to fly...I haven't flown them seriously for a while but its a great time if you can make it work.

danjama
05-29-2006, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, im not mistaken, i interprate the D-10 as a B model, and the D-22 as a C model, caus im old school like that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No offense Danjama, but that's not "old school", that's just plain wrong.
There are no B or C jugs in the game. If he wants to know that differences between -10, a -22, or a -27, he needs to start by getting his nomenclature correct. Le'ts help him by using the right ones ourselves. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Again, no offense intended.
Chris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

me=pwned

fair dues

WarWolfe_1
05-29-2006, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Here's some rough information to go by:

P-47D-10 - This is the fastest rolling in the game, no wing bombracks, the last true P-47 fighter before they started making them multirole. I believe the D-10 is also the lightest of the heavyweight P-47s. Performance suffers but in the early 1943 timeperiod the P-47 is extremely fast compared to the opposition.

P-47D-22 - Similar to the D-10 but with more weight, range, bombload, and so forth.

P-47D-27 - Comes with a cutdown bubble canopy, far better visibility, lightly less stable, heavier with even more range and firepower advantages over the others. Faster than the previous two.

P-47D - This one comes with no other designation...its the one that is "near P-47M" in performance. This version is the hotrodded P-47 version that is representative of what was being done on the plane and squadron level in the USAAF in 1944. Historically speaking P-47s were given a certain boost setting officially...however Reps from P&W, Republic, and crack mechanical crews often suggested and performed modifications to make the P-47 better performing. Unlike most fighter types, the P-47s size and engine power actually permitted these sorts of modifications with little in the way of problems. The R-2800 also being an extremely robust and reliable engine for WWII standards.

P-47s are tough to fly...I haven't flown them seriously for a while but its a great time if you can make it work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

The only thing I will add to this is that the DM is way wrong on the R-2800 and the Jug too. I don't know how many times I've had a motor wasted by a single 30cal bullet from a gunner on Jerry bombers, that also goes with 30cal single shot sniper PKs through "Bullet Resistant" wind screen from a 1000meters. THANKS OLEG!

Anyways the DM in the 2800 is the same way in most planes in game that have it, HellCat, Corsair, and P-47 to name just a few.

danjama
05-29-2006, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Here's some rough information to go by:

P-47D-10 - This is the fastest rolling in the game, no wing bombracks, the last true P-47 fighter before they started making them multirole. I believe the D-10 is also the lightest of the heavyweight P-47s. Performance suffers but in the early 1943 timeperiod the P-47 is extremely fast compared to the opposition.

P-47D-22 - Similar to the D-10 but with more weight, range, bombload, and so forth.

P-47D-27 - Comes with a cutdown bubble canopy, far better visibility, lightly less stable, heavier with even more range and firepower advantages over the others. Faster than the previous two.

P-47D - This one comes with no other designation...its the one that is "near P-47M" in performance. This version is the hotrodded P-47 version that is representative of what was being done on the plane and squadron level in the USAAF in 1944. Historically speaking P-47s were given a certain boost setting officially...however Reps from P&W, Republic, and crack mechanical crews often suggested and performed modifications to make the P-47 better performing. Unlike most fighter types, the P-47s size and engine power actually permitted these sorts of modifications with little in the way of problems. The R-2800 also being an extremely robust and reliable engine for WWII standards.

P-47s are tough to fly...I haven't flown them seriously for a while but its a great time if you can make it work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

The only thing I will add to this is that the DM is way wrong on the R-2800 and the Jug too. I don't know how many times I've had a motor wasted by a single 30cal bullet from a gunner on Jerry bombers, that also goes with 30cal single shot sniper PKs through "Bullet Resistant" wind screen from a 1000meters. THANKS OLEG!

Anyways the DM in the 2800 is the same way in most planes in game that have it, HellCat, Corsair, and P-47 to name just a few. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea i agree, the engine was said to last from Germany until England running rough by guys who flew them. But i guess different variations of engine damage arent modelled in game, its either broke or not.

VW-IceFire
05-29-2006, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Here's some rough information to go by:

P-47D-10 - This is the fastest rolling in the game, no wing bombracks, the last true P-47 fighter before they started making them multirole. I believe the D-10 is also the lightest of the heavyweight P-47s. Performance suffers but in the early 1943 timeperiod the P-47 is extremely fast compared to the opposition.

P-47D-22 - Similar to the D-10 but with more weight, range, bombload, and so forth.

P-47D-27 - Comes with a cutdown bubble canopy, far better visibility, lightly less stable, heavier with even more range and firepower advantages over the others. Faster than the previous two.

P-47D - This one comes with no other designation...its the one that is "near P-47M" in performance. This version is the hotrodded P-47 version that is representative of what was being done on the plane and squadron level in the USAAF in 1944. Historically speaking P-47s were given a certain boost setting officially...however Reps from P&W, Republic, and crack mechanical crews often suggested and performed modifications to make the P-47 better performing. Unlike most fighter types, the P-47s size and engine power actually permitted these sorts of modifications with little in the way of problems. The R-2800 also being an extremely robust and reliable engine for WWII standards.

P-47s are tough to fly...I haven't flown them seriously for a while but its a great time if you can make it work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

The only thing I will add to this is that the DM is way wrong on the R-2800 and the Jug too. I don't know how many times I've had a motor wasted by a single 30cal bullet from a gunner on Jerry bombers, that also goes with 30cal single shot sniper PKs through "Bullet Resistant" wind screen from a 1000meters. THANKS OLEG!

Anyways the DM in the 2800 is the same way in most planes in game that have it, HellCat, Corsair, and P-47 to name just a few. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its true...most inline engines are more bullet resistant than the R-2800. So very wrong in this regard. The only thing you have as an advantage is that the R-2800 doesn't light on fire. But it dies off quickly...

chris455
05-29-2006, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only thing I will add to this is that the DM is way wrong on the R-2800 and the Jug too. I don't know how many times I've had a motor wasted by a single 30cal bullet from a gunner on Jerry bombers, that also goes with 30cal single shot sniper PKs through "Bullet Resistant" wind screen from a 1000meters. THANKS OLEG!

Anyways the DM in the 2800 is the same way in most planes in game that have it, HellCat, Corsair, and P-47 to name just a few.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Danjama you are absolutely right and this remains the #1 flaw with the jug in-game. I don't think it will be fixed at this point.
But Oleg has said many times
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "BOB just the beginning"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>crosses fingers.......................... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-29-2006, 07:28 PM
and if ever a P-47 will be apear in one of Maddox's games again, i would like to have these 425 rounds per gun, you can get only by using "additional ammo", as default !!
not only 200rpg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

i realy hope for an 1941/42/43 Adon for "BoB" before switching to the Med http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

chris455
05-29-2006, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">realy hope for an 1941/42/43 Adon for "BoB" before switching to the Med </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't know you were on meds, Franky- you always seemed on the level to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
&lt;&lt;&lt; just kidding! &gt;&gt;&gt;

JG53Frankyboy
05-29-2006, 08:10 PM
not already , i said "before" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

but sometimes a man need drugs to keep him awake , almost, around 4 am in front of his screen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mynameisroland
05-30-2006, 03:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

The last model provided is supposed to be some kind of super boosted model (a concession to those who have repeatedly pointed to records and accounts that indicate that many, if not most P-47s in combat units were hot-rodded up to well above the 'official' performance) which gives better performance almost to the levels of the M models.

I will refrain from comment on Oleg's interpretation of the P-47 FMs beyond the simple statement that I don't agree with much of it.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole issue of 'hotrodded' aircraft is dodgy. All airforces had 'hotrodded' aircraft. In Spitfire Flying Legends, there is an account of a Squadron Leader who had his very own Spitfire VII everyone else in the squadron had brand new Spitfire XVIs, on their missions his men complained that they could never cruise, climb or accelerate at the same rate as their CO so he ended up having to switch to a new XVI as well. Aces like Galland or any high profile pilot in the Luftwaffe had their aircraft modified whether it be telescopic sights, extra gun installations, heavily polished and waxed surfaces, tweaked boost settings, cigar holders or lightened equipment loads.

The only solution to this problem is to stick to ideal design performance figures or to link performance to a pilots virtual stick time. So that if you have spent 500 hours plus in a type you are between 2-3% faster than someone who chooses the type infrequently.

horseback
05-30-2006, 09:08 AM
Like it or not, hot-rodding was much more common in US units than any other nation's air force in WWII, and successful units were notable for how wide-spread it was -often a successful adjustment was shared throughout at least squadron level within the week, and made part of the Group's bag of tricks by month's end, applied to every aircraft in the unit's inventory. A rookie may not have gotten the best or newest airplane in the squadron, but it was not going to be a piece of junk, either.

The 354th, 56th, and 4th FGs were noted for their excellent ground crews as much as their good leadership and aggressive pilots. Zemke's autobiography mentions that he had to fire the CO of his support group in order to get the level of excellence he required. The USAAF & 8th Fighter Command made great efforts to reward the development of useful ways of improving performance and reliability.

The results are clear. US fighter units overall had availability rates around 90%, while LW fighter units appear to have 'enjoyed' availabilities in the 70% range.

It wasn't just a matter of a unit commander or favored ace getting 'reserved' aircraft that outperformed the standard aircraft. The average aircraft in most frontline US units performed better than the 'official' factory figures, in direct contrast to the average late-war German or Japanese fighter.

That's a statement of historical fact, not a complaint about 'gameplay' or 'balance'.

cheers

horseback

Viper2005_
05-30-2006, 11:05 AM
horseback, I would be interested to see evidence of this extremely high performance posted.

The RAF had a few excellent local mods which became official, and for which performance figures are available, with the Aboukir filter springing immediately to mind, along with clipped wings and cropped superchargers for the Spitfire V.

However, I have not seen any hard data relating to local mods of USAAF aircraft.

As for the Luftwaffe, given the war situation, I would have thought that finding a "standard" aeroplane would present something of a challenge!

StellarRat
05-30-2006, 11:43 AM
I think the DM for the 2800 is way better than the P-51. Every hit seems to kill the engine totally or destroy the governor.

WarWolfe_1
05-30-2006, 07:21 PM
Read this Bit I scanned from one of my books.
Qouted from a Confirned P-51 Ace pilot about the P-47.

The DM is off on both the 47 and the R-2800, which as stated before is likewise on many planes in game using that motor.

Taking a 30cal bullet from a 30cal gun causing the R-2800 to start smoking and die shortly after is wrong!

Anways to the text.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/WarWolfe/Text1.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/WarWolfe/Text2.jpg

VW-IceFire
05-30-2006, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

The last model provided is supposed to be some kind of super boosted model (a concession to those who have repeatedly pointed to records and accounts that indicate that many, if not most P-47s in combat units were hot-rodded up to well above the 'official' performance) which gives better performance almost to the levels of the M models.

I will refrain from comment on Oleg's interpretation of the P-47 FMs beyond the simple statement that I don't agree with much of it.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole issue of 'hotrodded' aircraft is dodgy. All airforces had 'hotrodded' aircraft. In Spitfire Flying Legends, there is an account of a Squadron Leader who had his very own Spitfire VII everyone else in the squadron had brand new Spitfire XVIs, on their missions his men complained that they could never cruise, climb or accelerate at the same rate as their CO so he ended up having to switch to a new XVI as well. Aces like Galland or any high profile pilot in the Luftwaffe had their aircraft modified whether it be telescopic sights, extra gun installations, heavily polished and waxed surfaces, tweaked boost settings, cigar holders or lightened equipment loads.

The only solution to this problem is to stick to ideal design performance figures or to link performance to a pilots virtual stick time. So that if you have spent 500 hours plus in a type you are between 2-3% faster than someone who chooses the type infrequently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dodgy in almost any airforce...particularly in the RAF as fuel, engine settings, markings, and virtually everything was mandated top down by officialdom. Modifications were frowned upon...it is ironic that a Spit VII was outflying the XVI's, however I imagine its possible. The early XVI's were troublesome because some of the modifications made on the Rolls Royce Merlin 66 weren't initially copied over to the Packard Built Merlin 266 and some XVI's were noted to be slower than the IX.

However...in the USAAF things were pretty wide open. By 1944 anything in terms of markings and color schemes would go. Thats why you have such stunning variety in USAAF squadron markings...they basically mandated that the stars and bars be placed in the same location but aside from that it was free reign. The same went for engine modifications in 1943 and 1944. Company representatives from Lockheed, Republic, Allison, and Prat&Witney would come from the States and start hanging around with squadrons.

They would authorize (or otherwise) modifications to boost pressures and whatever else you could modify on the engines and planes. The R-2800 had a stunning range of power that it would safely run at. It was very much overengineered as was typical of American designs at the time. Its tolerances were far higher than was actually written in the engineering manuals. This is true to some extent to the Daimler Benz and the Rolls Royce engines (for example) as well but I get the impression it was never to the same extent.

So what you ended up with was alot of hot rodded P-47s (in particular) that were doing well over their rated factory specs. The RAF was far more conservative with that sort of thing requiring official tests and all sorts of things before they let the modification go forward. Case in point, the Sabre IIB engine would operate at +11lb boost with 100 octane fuel...but they didn't authroize that till months after the the Tempest became operational in Europe. It was officially tested over and over before it was authorized. The pilot who had his Spitfire modified with 6 .50cal machine guns flew for a short period of time before someone higher up noticed and ordered the aircraft returned to original armaments.

In the USAAF...they would just have done it under the table and let it go. Its a strange sort of philosophy...I think the RAF was very prudent in making sure all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed but thats what happened.

DmdSeeker
05-31-2006, 12:16 PM
This thread illustrates two things:

The fallacy of two decimal point accuracy on flight charts and the ensuing screams beacause pane X is 0.82% shy of chart Y

and

The astonishing performance spread there must have been in late war Italian squadrons.

VW-IceFire
05-31-2006, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
This thread illustrates two things:

The fallacy of two decimal point accuracy on flight charts and the ensuing screams beacause pane X is 0.82% shy of chart Y

and

The astonishing performance spread there must have been in late war Italian squadrons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uhhh....

Where?

GR142-Pipper
06-01-2006, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only thing I will add to this is that the DM is way wrong on the R-2800 and the Jug too. I don't know how many times I've had a motor wasted by a single 30cal bullet from a gunner on Jerry bombers, that also goes with 30cal single shot sniper PKs through "Bullet Resistant" wind screen from a 1000meters. THANKS OLEG!

Anyways the DM in the 2800 is the same way in most planes in game that have it, HellCat, Corsair, and P-47 to name just a few.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Danjama you are absolutely right and this remains the #1 flaw with the jug in-game. I don't think it will be fixed at this point.
But Oleg has said many times
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "BOB just the beginning"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>crosses fingers.......................... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's a bit hard to understand why we have to wait for BoB for aircraft with the R2800 to have their engine damage models fixed. It was programmed in (and it's grossly off) so it can be easily programmed out as well. It's strange why these types of errors are allowed to remain.

GR142-Pipper

mynameisroland
06-01-2006, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

The last model provided is supposed to be some kind of super boosted model (a concession to those who have repeatedly pointed to records and accounts that indicate that many, if not most P-47s in combat units were hot-rodded up to well above the 'official' performance) which gives better performance almost to the levels of the M models.

I will refrain from comment on Oleg's interpretation of the P-47 FMs beyond the simple statement that I don't agree with much of it.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole issue of 'hotrodded' aircraft is dodgy. All airforces had 'hotrodded' aircraft. In Spitfire Flying Legends, there is an account of a Squadron Leader who had his very own Spitfire VII everyone else in the squadron had brand new Spitfire XVIs, on their missions his men complained that they could never cruise, climb or accelerate at the same rate as their CO so he ended up having to switch to a new XVI as well. Aces like Galland or any high profile pilot in the Luftwaffe had their aircraft modified whether it be telescopic sights, extra gun installations, heavily polished and waxed surfaces, tweaked boost settings, cigar holders or lightened equipment loads.

The only solution to this problem is to stick to ideal design performance figures or to link performance to a pilots virtual stick time. So that if you have spent 500 hours plus in a type you are between 2-3% faster than someone who chooses the type infrequently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dodgy in almost any airforce...particularly in the RAF as fuel, engine settings, markings, and virtually everything was mandated top down by officialdom. Modifications were frowned upon...it is ironic that a Spit VII was outflying the XVI's, however I imagine its possible. The early XVI's were troublesome because some of the modifications made on the Rolls Royce Merlin 66 weren't initially copied over to the Packard Built Merlin 266 and some XVI's were noted to be slower than the IX.

However...in the USAAF things were pretty wide open. By 1944 anything in terms of markings and color schemes would go. Thats why you have such stunning variety in USAAF squadron markings...they basically mandated that the stars and bars be placed in the same location but aside from that it was free reign. The same went for engine modifications in 1943 and 1944. Company representatives from Lockheed, Republic, Allison, and Prat&Witney would come from the States and start hanging around with squadrons.

They would authorize (or otherwise) modifications to boost pressures and whatever else you could modify on the engines and planes. The R-2800 had a stunning range of power that it would safely run at. It was very much overengineered as was typical of American designs at the time. Its tolerances were far higher than was actually written in the engineering manuals. This is true to some extent to the Daimler Benz and the Rolls Royce engines (for example) as well but I get the impression it was never to the same extent.

So what you ended up with was alot of hot rodded P-47s (in particular) that were doing well over their rated factory specs. The RAF was far more conservative with that sort of thing requiring official tests and all sorts of things before they let the modification go forward. Case in point, the Sabre IIB engine would operate at +11lb boost with 100 octane fuel...but they didn't authroize that till months after the the Tempest became operational in Europe. It was officially tested over and over before it was authorized. The pilot who had his Spitfire modified with 6 .50cal machine guns flew for a short period of time before someone higher up noticed and ordered the aircraft returned to original armaments.

In the USAAF...they would just have done it under the table and let it go. Its a strange sort of philosophy...I think the RAF was very prudent in making sure all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed but thats what happened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF had a lot of operational evaluation units throughout the war. Improvements like cropped wings, introduction of cannon armament, modified aircraft as in the Lightened Spitfires that intercepted the Junkers Ju 86 at 41,000ft , introduction of 25lb boost Merlin 66, Taking off from USS Wasp in Spitfire Vs, the introductuction of flying sorties using slipper tanks, the Aboukir filters as aforementioned all of these improvements/modifications were implemented quickly and mostly at a squadron level with or without official clearance. Especially when you look at tactical formations like the Vic becoming line astern or finger 4 or gunnery convergence changing during BoB ect.

The RAF tended to respond very quickly to proposed modifications or improvements if they felt they were merrited.

The Luftwaffe on the other hand simply had a plethora of variations of field mod kits which meant that virtually no two Fw 190 A or Bf 109 Gs need be exactly alike. This allied to the vast number of 'aces' who had personal relationships with their ground crew meant that modifications could and were implemented at the pilots discretion - for example under wing 20mm gondolas on the Bf 109 F series, armour plate, locked down tail wheels ect. And ofcourse the test units were present in the Luftwaffe too ie the Fw 190 A1 operational evaluation unit or the 1st Me 262 units. Norbert Hannig flew 25 sorties with his Daschund in the cockpit of his Fw 190 - RLM did not know or care about unit level antics a lot of the time.

The USAAF may well have been more widespread in sanctioning mods but perhaps because other airforces such as the Luftwaffe did not document mods in their histories with the same rigour? Either way it would make a difficult feature to implement in game. Hell id just be happy with accurate model/year performance for the basic aircraft like the Fw 190 A4

Eagle_361st
06-01-2006, 03:25 PM
Just keep plenty of spare engines for my "Flak Bait" cause I don't fly anything else but the Jug. I do wish in my time overseas they would have addressed this, but I did get the "hotrod 150" Jug, I can't wait to fly that beast. Glad to see some of the old hand Jugheads are still about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif