PDA

View Full Version : Ian Boys P-47 roll rate data challenge



XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:39 PM
I can't believe you P-47 dudes with the data have not done this? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


") Your measurements of the sustained roll rate now
2) Your measurements of the snap roll rate now
3) A description of the conditions of these tests - speed, alt, fuel, ammo
4) An original document showing the figures should be different for that plane under the same conditions and make sure it is a plane fitted with wing pylons.

For what it's worth the Net3Summer map is set to a sea level air temp of 15 degrees centigrade so that should get you started.

Of course in the absence of this material there's not much we can put to Oleg ..."

"just once in the format described above. that has never been done."



http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=002877

<center>http://www.assonetart.com/jsGodsgrace.jpg </center><center>/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The above statue was a gift from France</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:39 PM
I can't believe you P-47 dudes with the data have not done this? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


") Your measurements of the sustained roll rate now
2) Your measurements of the snap roll rate now
3) A description of the conditions of these tests - speed, alt, fuel, ammo
4) An original document showing the figures should be different for that plane under the same conditions and make sure it is a plane fitted with wing pylons.

For what it's worth the Net3Summer map is set to a sea level air temp of 15 degrees centigrade so that should get you started.

Of course in the absence of this material there's not much we can put to Oleg ..."

"just once in the format described above. that has never been done."



http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=002877

<center>http://www.assonetart.com/jsGodsgrace.jpg </center><center>/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The above statue was a gift from France</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:47 PM
Well, that's infuriating.

Seems like some heads are stuck in the sand...how much data do they actually need???

Wing pylons? Gimme a break.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>



Message Edited on 08/14/0303:56PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 09:18 PM
Give you a break? Why? Wing pylons stuck that far out affect inertia.

They are also (correctly) the reason the D-10 rolls faster than the D-22 and D-27.

Got anything more scientific to say than "gimme a break"?

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 09:44 PM
This is getting seriously tiring,,,

Heuristic_ALgor, weren`t you the one telling everyone to keep calm, Now you`re jumping on the whining bandwagon. I prefered it when you pretended to be a cool computer,,,

"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

Message Edited on 08/14/0308:47PM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 09:51 PM
Take what you get and smile. If you don't like the FM in FB then go play CFS. If you don't like those, make your own game. Oleg has the RIGHT to do whatever he wants with this game. If he wants to make the FW-190 fire 20mm hot dogs then so be it, who are you to say he can't? Oleg and his team have worked hard to make this game what it is so give them the credit they deserve and be thankful this game is even here.

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/agrill101/Sig.jpg.txt"

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:18 PM
hmm, Shifty, I believe in correct measurement, etc.. I love this game.

And yet, I don't think saying that whatever one person thinks we should all just say 'ok' to.

Now, I can't stand the undocumented and stupidy like 'this game sucks' - but certainly there have been many documents showing roll rates on this forum and it's clear the p40 and p47 are incorrect.

Best thing to do at this point, is simply provide this information in the format requested - shouldn't be to hard - right?



S!
609IAP_Recon

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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:19 PM
Shifty101 wrote:
- Take what you get and smile. If you don't like the
- FM in FB then go play CFS. If you don't like those,
- make your own game. Oleg has the RIGHT to do
- whatever he wants with this game. If he wants to
- make the FW-190 fire 20mm hot dogs then so be it,
- who are you to say he can't? Oleg and his team have
- worked hard to make this game what it is so give
- them the credit they deserve and be thankful this
- game is even here.
-
- http://www.geocities.com/agrill101/Sig.jpg.txt

/Petter_Gul
CO, Flygflottilj 16
#1 Swedish Virtual Squadron
http://www.f16vs.tk
_________________________

"Slider.... You Stink..."

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:28 PM
-Oleg has the RIGHT to do whatever he wants with this game.

that is true, but there is something you have to remember. is he making it for himself or for the public?

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

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:18 PM
Shifty101 wrote:

"If he wants to
- make the FW-190 fire 20mm hot dogs then so be it"

ROFL! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The mental picture of a P-47 being sprayed with weiners at 20,000 feet is just too damn funny. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Thank God they fixed that in the patch.

"Oleg and his team have
- worked hard to make this game what it is so give
- them the credit they deserve and be thankful this
- game is even here."

Not quite as funny but well said.



<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:21 PM
Rifleman75 wrote:
-
- that is true, but there is something you have to
- remember. is he making it for himself or for the
- public?
-
-----------------------------------------

That still doesn't tie his hands as to how his sim is supported or developed.


<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:41 PM
ianboys wrote:
- Give you a break? Why? Wing pylons stuck that far
- out affect inertia.
-
- They are also (correctly) the reason the D-10 rolls
- faster than the D-22 and D-27.
-
- Got anything more scientific to say than "gimme a
- break"?
-
- _____________
- Ian Boys
- =38=Tatarenko
- Kapitan - 38. OIAE
-

With all due respect, do you have proof? What documents did Oleg use that justify the roll rate given to the P-47 in FB? Because they certainly DO NOT correspond to the charts available. I've posted the sources I have, Oleg has yet to give any explanation whatsoever. The roll rate of the P-47 is so far off anything available, that his figures seems arbitrary.

The community has argued this, it was brought to Oleg's attention PRIOR to the release of FB, it was brought to his attention after the release of a beta patch. And now it is being brought to his attention again - but this time he has implemented elaborate new rules before he will take notice. What's next, swing a dead chicken over our heads while stamping one foot, shouting the message in Latin?

Machine's response is appropriate. Oleg has yet to give any explanation as to the source for his numbers. He set the stage early on with the P-47, stating it was "no fighter" and that he would "portray it as it really was." I think he's portraying it as he wished it was.

The roll rate of the P-47 is wrong. Frankly, I don't give a crap if Oleg fixes it or not, this is his game. But any claim that the game and Oleg strives to be accurate, while avoiding an honest discussion among those forwarding facts that suggest he is wrong in some regard, is bunk.

Oleg graced the Fw-190 folks with his insights when they claimed the view was wrong, offering proof that he was correct afterall. But the P-47 roll issue is much older, and Oleg has said NOTHING. In this regard, he loses a little credibility.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg



Message Edited on 08/15/0303:24AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:05 AM
I posted about this in the other thread. It does strike one as strange that Oleg will NOT release his figures used to model the P-47 FM. It really could put an end to the debate, but not posting the data does hurt his overall credibilty and claims of accuracy. IMHO

<center>
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1asig3.gif

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:12 AM
UCLANUPE wrote:
- I posted about this in the other thread. It does
- strike one as strange that Oleg will NOT release his
- figures used to model the P-47 FM. It really could
- put an end to the debate, but not posting the data
- does hurt his overall credibilty and claims of
- accuracy. IMHO


Gee whiz, he was willing to prove people wrong about the Fw-190 view. Yet he remains silent on this issue.

Frankly, the roll performance of the P-47s in FB seem arbitrary. They don't correspond to anything I've seen that is published on them.

I'd quite like to see what Oleg bases his notions in this regard on. But his secret recipe for P-47 roll performance is as closely guarded as the recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:20 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- UCLANUPE wrote:
-- I posted about this in the other thread. It does
-- strike one as strange that Oleg will NOT release his
-- figures used to model the P-47 FM. It really could
-- put an end to the debate, but not posting the data
-- does hurt his overall credibilty and claims of
-- accuracy. IMHO
-
-
- Gee whiz, he was willing to prove people wrong about
- the Fw-190 view. Yet he remains silent on this
- issue.

Bloody hell! The patch has been out, what - two days, and you're mouthing off like that because he hasn't responded to all of your queeries? I should imagine he's taking a well earned break after getting the patch out. Sheesh - his entire life doesn't revolve around serving you, y'know.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:26 AM
AeroBob wrote:

- Bloody hell! The patch has been out, what - two
- days, and you're mouthing off like that because he
- hasn't responded to all of your queeries? I should
- imagine he's taking a well earned break after
- getting the patch out. Sheesh - his entire life
- doesn't revolve around serving you, y'know.


He knew of the issue well before the patch was released. And even before the release of FB to the public.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:29 AM
well said skychimp

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

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

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:13 AM
Heres a test to humor you. Perhaps someone can prove (or disprove) these values. I would be intersted to know precisely how wrong the roll rate is.

Online 3 map 1200. Flying P-47D10, 50% fuel. Full stick deflection, left hand roll. 1000m alt

400kmh TAS (~365 IAS)= about 120 deg/sec

500kmh TAS (~465 IAS)= about 72 deg/sec

Video. (this is at 1/2 speed)

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/roll.avi

&lt;embed src="http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/roll.avi">



Message Edited on 08/14/0307:17PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:36 AM
Good one Fennec. First post that tests something instead of crying.



<center>http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge/taosig.txt



TAO be my guide

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:38 AM
Fennec, I don't understand why that's at 1/2 speed, and my tests at 10,000 meters, 500kph show a 360; roll takes around 10 seconds so that would make it 36' per second.

<center>http://www.goobage.com/pics/D_Rat.gif </center>
<center><font><font size=1 ><font color=000000>Visit RatFinks Screaming Pile of Sin and Confusion</font></font size> (http://www.goobage.com/forum.php)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:53 AM
I can't play an AVI file in media player, real player or quick time. Got another format?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:53 AM
A little while ago I did some tests based on a NACA chart Buzzsaw posted graphing roll rate as a function of speed, at 10,000 feet. Flying the P-47D-10 in the Smolensk quick mission map at this altitude, I found its speed in a full-deflect clockwise roll at 300 mph to be roughly 32 degrees/sec, slower than ANYTHING on the chart apart from a Zero or Typhoon traveling at around 364 mph. The chart shows roughly 82 degrees per second for the P-47C-1, which was absolutely not different enough in any way to account for such a discrepancy.

This takes the plane from over four seconds for a complete roll to over eleven.

The P-40 is likewise crippled.

***************************************

"Oh no, the V-1 Doodlebug is heading for our bunghole!" ---David

"...I possess the wings of faith. Though heavy on my shoulder (no measurement can prove their weight), still a burden are they not to me. I am the challenger of gravity." ---Emperor

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:03 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I can't play an AVI file in media player, real
- player or quick time. Got another format?
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-


I had no problems at all. Didn't checked but may be in divx format. Download the codecs at divx dot com and play it with media player.

<center>http://www.geocities.com/dangdenge/taosig.txt



TAO be my guide

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:18 AM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- Heres a test to humor you. Perhaps someone can
- prove (or disprove) these values. I would be
- intersted to know precisely how wrong the roll rate
- is.
-
- Online 3 map 1200. Flying P-47D10, 50% fuel. Full
- stick deflection, left hand roll. 1000m alt
-
- 400kmh TAS (~365 IAS)= about 120 deg/sec
-
- 500kmh TAS (~465 IAS)= about 72 deg/sec
-
- Video. (this is at 1/2 speed)
-
- http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/roll.avi
-
- &lt;embed src="http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/roll.avi">



That's not what I am seeing in your video.

The first roll, at half speed I see a complete roll in about 11 seconds (5.5 seconds at full speed). That's not 120 degrees per second, that's 65 degrees per second.

Your second roll took 19 seconds at 1/2 speed, or 9.5 seconds at full speed. That's not 75 degrees per second, that's 38 degrees per second.

That's consistent with what everyone else, including myself, has found.


BTW, thanks TAO for pointing me to Divx.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg



Message Edited on 08/15/0306:21AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:23 AM
Salute All

Hold on fellas with the accusations against Oleg.

He has a right to ask for detailed documentation.

Either later tonight or tommorrow, (U.S. PST) I will provide Ian Boys with details of the tests which should satisfy any questions about the validity of those tests.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:29 AM
Forgive my math.

<div align=center>http://www.members.shaw.ca/fennec/plane.jpg </div><font size=-9>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:33 AM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- Forgive my math.


Your math doesn't bother me. And I appreciate your posting the video.

Compare the performance to the P-47C-1 roll in the NACA chart.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/roll.gif


Not very similar, are they. The P-47 in the chart does not drop below 67 degrees per second (the slowest roll rate in the speed range) anywhere from 160 mph to 390 mph. But the FB P-47 is rolling at 38 degrees per second?



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg



Message Edited on 08/15/03 06:36AM by SkyChimp

Message Edited on 08/15/0306:37AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:41 AM
Salute Fennec

First of all I have done a number of my own tests, and don't get anywhere near as good figures as you do. Perhaps you were using a rudder to assist?

Even with your test, I don't get the time figures you indicated.

I have timed your video several times.

I get nearly 13 seconds for the first roll, and nearly 19 for the second one.

That translates to 6.5 seconds for a 360 degree roll for the first attempt, and 9.5 seconds for the second.

That is 55 degrees per second on the first attempt, and 38 degrees per second on the second.

Both are well below the chart which SkyChimp has listed.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:50 AM
Salute

By the way all:

Please do your tests at 10,000 ft, (3280 km) so they can be compared directed to the test data on the NACA charts.


Thankyou RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:52 AM
I made sure I was flying as close to 10,000 ft as I could.

***************************************

"Oh no, the V-1 Doodlebug is heading for our bunghole!" ---David

"...I possess the wings of faith. Though heavy on my shoulder (no measurement can prove their weight), still a burden are they not to me. I am the challenger of gravity." ---Emperor

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 05:44 AM
This site has roll rates posted; taken from: America's Hundred Thousand: U.S. Production Fighters of World War Two" by Francis H. Dean http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/1310.html

Slowest: @ 150 mph IAS: P-47C&D @ 50 lbs stick force = 57 deg/sec

Fastest: @250 mph IAS: P-47C&D (@ 50 lbs force) = 85 deg/sec

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 10:00 AM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- 400kmh TAS (~365 IAS)= about 120 deg/sec
-
- 500kmh TAS (~465 IAS)= about 72 deg/sec

If (as Skychimp has said) a P47C1-RE has
same roll rate as a D-10, then from naca report 868,
page 166, the 500kmh speed should be about 80 degrees/s,
which is what we see from your tests. For 400km/h we
should see 85 degrees/s not 120, though. (All this
given 50lbs stick force).

I'm not sure if page 164
of that report is related to the P47 (it shows 80lb
stick force). It's a long report, and it's hard to get
the window large enough to clearly read the text, and
see the whole document, which makes it hard to scan read!

Looks like the actual tests Fennec did were half those
values, though.



Message Edited on 08/15/0309:04AM by AaronGT

The_Blue_Devil
08-15-2003, 11:45 PM
It isn't a bump...it's just keeping an important thread at the top.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySigII.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 04:03 AM
http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/P-47%20Data.pdf

This is a bump...with another link to my data...I also posted it for IANBOYS in the Old SimHQ forum.

Not much to say that hasn't already been said...I am amazed however, that we get into the weeds about fuel, ammo, altitude, wing pylons, etc., which mattered in real-life, but don't seem to have much effect in FB...and THAT's the justification for a poor roll rate?

Sorry...but you can do all the tests with different fuel, different ammo, and get results that are all VERY similar...and even, at different altitudes...even regardless of wing pylons.

So, let me get this straight...the P-47 in FB is pre-hobbled due to it's obvious huge weight, ammo, and wing pylons...even though it didn't actually behave that way in reality?

There is no FB P-47 airspeed, altitude, fuel load, or load out, that will match the roll rate numbers found in AHT @ 30lbs or 50lbs, or even come close. I am hard pressed to find the data in AHT incorrect (it's not AHT data per se, it's NACA/USAAF/etc. data garnered by USAAF, NACA, RAF, and even civilian pilots). Why is it Ianboys and/or Oleg can't explain EXACTLY why this is the case? It's a serious question...why is it the curves DON'T even match?



<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 04:14 AM
Oi, Machine....while you're here...

Does your DVD player play regions' 2 and 4 discs ?



Lixma,

Blitzpig.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 04:20 AM
Unfortunatley no...never understood why I must suffer only with Region 1.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . Pfft.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 05:08 AM
While the mis-modeling of the P-47 does not seriously impair one's ability to enjoy FB in its current state (as the sim is still basically an Eastern Front game), Maddox's apparent blind faith in and unwillingness to confront challenges to Russian test data bodes ill for future expansion prominently featuring British and American planes (not to mention increases the prestige of those who exagerate the abilities of VVS and German planes in comparison to those of the USAAF in their continuing anti-American campaign).

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 07:19 AM
Pfft, whens the KingCobra coming out?

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 06:47 PM
Question.. FB's displayed speed bar is IAS in KPH correct?

So if you do the KPH to MPH conversion you can compare your test results to the NACA charts?

The P47's roll rate in combat was below average as the NACA charts show, but it wasn't as bad as its portrayed in FB. I'll be interested in Olegs reasoning..or better yet some hard data.

I personally fear we're going to see yet another case of undeniable "Secret" Russian test data made by VVS "experts" during Stalins regime that Oleg can't show you but that proves his position is right.. But, since Oleg hasn't replied at all yet, maybe there is still hope, so I'll keep an open mind.

If he tries to hang this all on the wing pylons, then he's simply wrong.. you don't HALVE the roll rate because of those pylons.. not even close..

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>*********************************
The P47's roll rate in combat was below average as the NACA charts show, but it wasn't as bad as its portrayed in FB. I'll be interested in Olegs reasoning..or better yet some hard data.

I personally fear we're going to see yet another case of undeniable "Secret" Russian test data made by VVS "experts" during Stalins regime that Oleg can't show you but that proves his position is right.. But, since Oleg hasn't replied at all yet, maybe there is still hope, so I'll keep an open mind<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*****************************

Just a few things to keep in mind-

First of all, the P47 was a high altitude fighter. In the Eastern Front, most combat was at low to medium altitude.

The P47 training that USAAF fighter pilots recieved dicated that they were to keep all their engagements above a strict 15,000 ft hard deck. Anything lower then that and it "was suicide for a -47 pilot".

***Note*** this was in 43-44, when the -47 was taking on the Luftwaffe on in their own back yard, performing fighter sweeps and not CAS, as was the case later. Later in the war, the incredible potential for this airplane as a true fighter bomber was brought out in spades. By then, though, the P-51 and the Spitfires were operating in conjunction for proper air superiority, thus delegating the ground attack role to the P-47- to which the aircraft was better suited. A radial engine that was damn near indestructible, coupled with one of the most rugged airframes ever produced yeilded a fighter bomber non pariel.

The reason behind this was that the aircraft responded, performed, and maneuvered *better* at high altitude then the thicker air down low.

Now we turn to the Eastern Front, where most battles took place at low to medium altitudes- not the place to be taking a P-47 in the fighter role.

But seeing as how the combat *was* taking place at lower altitudes, it stands to reason that the Russian testers were performing their tests far below the optimum fighting altitude of the fighter. If you think about it, it *is* logical, and it makes sense. Add a possible different fuel (the American 8th AF used a very high Octane fuel), and different maintainence regimen, and you will quickly find yourself flying a *very* different fighter plane.

Food for thought, gentlemen /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Message Edited on 08/16/0303:50PM by Rabidpanda76

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 12:50 AM
Rabidpanda76,

Regardless of what the P-47 was designed to do, it had specific performance characteristics that were accurately and carfully measured by several different agencies. The P-47 in FB cannot duplicate the results of these measurements. Now, why is that?

Oh, yeah...'cause the model is incorrect. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Your other comments seem to get into the realm of guidelines and strategy vs. reality. P-47s almost ALWAYS dropped below this 15,000 ft "hard deck" (you could point me at a reference for it) during their missions...and I have a theory that this altitude was more a concern for staying with escorted bombers rather than a performance issue. Whether it was in pursuit of a bad guy or on the way home to strafe...I guarentee I can find several instances of P-47 combat below 15,000 where the P-47 was comfortably in control of the situation...just FYI. Also, most of the flight tests we're talking about here took place well below that.

Another issue with the roll rate may really involve altitude too...it may be that the data for FB IS wrong (and I think it is) but also that the data is being used to reflect air density which is something I don't think the sim does very well. I wish I knew how to measure it, but airplanes don't handle all that differently at medium altitudes than they do on the deck...so the "low altitude world" of FB may have other corrections to reflect that atmosphere (such as flight model corrections) to compensate for environmental variables that FB may be lacking...hmmm...now there's a thought. Sorry, just sort of rolling this around in my head as it comes out...something to think about for me.



<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:03 AM
Rabidpanda76 wrote:
- Just a few things to keep in mind-
-
- First of all, the P47 was a high altitude fighter.
- In the Eastern Front, most combat was at low to
- medium altitude.
-
- The P47 training that USAAF fighter pilots recieved
- dicated that they were to keep all their engagements
- above a strict 15,000 ft hard deck. Anything lower
- then that and it "was suicide for a -47 pilot".
-
- ***Note*** this was in 43-44, when the -47 was
- taking on the Luftwaffe on in their own back yard,
- performing fighter sweeps and not CAS, as was the
- case later. Later in the war, the incredible
- potential for this airplane as a true fighter bomber
- was brought out in spades. By then, though, the
- P-51 and the Spitfires were operating in conjunction
- for proper air superiority, thus delegating the
- ground attack role to the P-47- to which the
- aircraft was better suited. A radial engine that
- was damn near indestructible, coupled with one of
- the most rugged airframes ever produced yeilded a
- fighter bomber non pariel.
-
- The reason behind this was that the aircraft
- responded, performed, and maneuvered *better* at
- high altitude then the thicker air down low.
-
- Now we turn to the Eastern Front, where most battles
- took place at low to medium altitudes- not the place
- to be taking a P-47 in the fighter role.
-
- But seeing as how the combat *was* taking place at
- lower altitudes, it stands to reason that the
- Russian testers were performing their tests far
- below the optimum fighting altitude of the fighter.
- If you think about it, it *is* logical, and it makes
- sense. Add a possible different fuel (the American
- 8th AF used a very high Octane fuel), and different
- maintainence regimen, and you will quickly find
- yourself flying a *very* different fighter plane.
-
- Food for thought, gentlemen

Prelude: I recognize you didn't post a lot here yet, so chances are that you are also not a regular visitor to the forum. This is why I will not run mad now /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

The altitude argument is getting OLD! We are talking rollrate here, and this has actually not very much to do with altitude (the rollrate for the Jug in FB at high alts is just as poor as at low alts anyway). It has to do with IAS. In FB the rollrate from on medium IAS is about 50% too low compared to NACA charts. At low speed it's closer.

Furthermore the P-47 was a B&Zer regardless what altitude. Sure, the P-47 was a high alt monster, but this doesn't mean the P-47 couldn't still fly decent B&Z even on the deck. I don't know why ppl would think you cannot B&Z anylonger at low alts only because you fly a fighter which excelled at high alts. When you have a landrover which is doing great in terrain, does it mean you can't drive it on the streets?



=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:06 AM
Hey Machine /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif - I never said the model was correct. I never said that they never dropped below 15,000 feet (I have about 2 hours of -47 guncam footage that will attest the direct opposite), but the training regimen *did* say that taking on a ME-109 or a FW190 not from a position of advantage below 15,000 feet was not a good idea /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

All that statement was for was to point out that the fighter did not perform nearly as well on the deck, and at medium altitudes as it did up in the thin air above 20,000 feet. Here, it had no equal.

All I was merely pointing out was possible reasons for the malighnment of the fighter. It merely suggests the notion that the fighter's performance is totally based off of misleading numbers.

I believe a few things-
1) that the flight model *is* wrong.
2) that Oleg did not really *neuter* the aircraft, his data must just be the results of flight tests performed by Russia at low altitudes- where a serious misjudgment would result.

I've seen posts basically almost accusing Oleg of Arbitraially "fudging the numbers" so to speak. I was merely trying to point out a possible reason.

That's all- food for thought /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

****edit****

Heya Heart- I believe that the intent of my post hasn't really gotten across.

I thought that perhaps all performance aspects of the Thunderbolt would be better at hight altitude, and that it wouldn't be reflected properly in tests flown at low altitude. Talk to any P-47 vet out there- the Jug could outroll damn near anything in the air at high altitude.

I understand the roll rate is off- I have a copy of America's Hundered Thousand, as well as many different reports. The Thunderbolt is a fave of mine, and it breaks my heart to see it done this great a misservice.

And you are correct- at low altitude I'm sure it *could* do a great job of B&Z at low altitudes- it had a helluva lot of power and that wide chord propellor probly did it a buncha good /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

However, see above- from a position of equal or dis-advantage taking on an FW-190 or a -109 at low altitude wasn't a good idea /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

At low alts the Jug would bleed energy much much faster then in the stratosphere where it thrived /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

After the patch, the inertia shown by the 7 ton beast is impressive- and pretty accurate I bet /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Just that darned roll rate /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif











Message Edited on 08/16/0306:16PM by Rabidpanda76

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:15 AM
Rabidpanda76 wrote:
- Hey Machine /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif - I never said the model was
- correct. I never said that they never dropped below
- 15,000 feet (I have about 2 hours of -47 guncam
- footage that will attest the direct opposite), but
- the training regimen *did* say that taking on a
- ME-109 or a FW190 not from a position of advantage
- below 15,000 feet was not a good idea /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- All that statement was for was to point out that the
- fighter did not perform nearly as well on the deck,
- and at medium altitudes as it did up in the thin air
- above 20,000 feet. Here, it had no equal.


Well, we know that already. I don't think MachineII, Buzzsaw, or SkyChimp expects to fight a 109 or 190 with no E advantage at low altitudes. That would not be a good idea - you can give it a try, but if the enemy pilot doesn't $uck, you will have to disengage and hope to be able to extend (at least when you are on your own). All ppl are talking about is rollrate. Not if the P-47 can turnfight 109s.

- All I was merely pointing out was possible reasons
- for the malighnment of the fighter. It merely
- suggests the notion that the fighter's performance
- is totally based off of misleading numbers.
-
- I believe a few things-
- 1) that the flight model *is* wrong.
- 2) that Oleg did not really *neuter* the aircraft,
- his data must just be the results of flight tests
- performed by Russia at low altitudes- where a
- serious misjudgment would result.
-
- I've seen posts basically almost accusing Oleg of
- Arbitraially "fudging the numbers" so to speak. I
- was merely trying to point out a possible reason.
-

Rollrate has to do with IAS, as already said. The rollrate of the Jug won't be that of a He111 just because it's flying on the deck.

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:20 AM
Rabidpanda76 wrote:
-
- Just that darned roll rate /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-

OK. That's the point. We agree. You know, it just happens to often that someone says the rollrate is incorrect and then someone jumps in with the high alt thing.

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:29 AM
That's probably because roll rate is a part of performancee, and performance at hi altitude is what the 'Bolt was famous for /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In any case, I was just exploring ideas.

How do you suppose the roll rate (of all things on the 'Bolt) got so fudged? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:46 AM
Rabidpanda,

I understand the 15,000 thing now...got it.

You want to know how the P-47 data got fudged? Well, nobody know for sure, BUT there's some clues. Soviet's did some tests of the P-47 during WWII and found it wanting at low altitude and only slightly better as a fighter bomber...these tests may have been used here. Oleg is on record as saying something equivalent too the P-47 not being a very good fighter...something the sheer number of kills the P-47 attained seems to dispute...but feels it was a better fighter bomber.

UGH.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 04:07 AM
Well, he *is* correct in saying that the Thunderbolt was a better fighter bomber then a pure fighter. But most of that reasoning lies behind it's extreme ruggedness and ability to take unheard of damage and still come home. Round engines are always better then blocks when strafing, ya know? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It was America's IL2- with a bit better dogfighting capability /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oh, hey- just looking at the previous post I made seemed like I wax comin' down and actin' all defensive towards ya- not intended! Cheers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

But seriously now- I'd love to see the data Oleg used, and more importantly WHY.

C'mon devs- let us help ya /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Message Edited on 08/16/0309:08PM by Rabidpanda76

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 07:27 AM
No problem Rabid...

And the data is a big secret around here...not just for the P-47, but for all the planes in FB. Or so I think...

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 05:12 PM
Oleg considers American manufacture data as "advertizing" data so is 'very' unreliable. Have to make that almighty buck,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif so lets fudge the data to make sales./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Only problem, the Services and a Government Agency tested to confirm the "advertizing" data and in some cases found that "advertizing" data was lower than what they found.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 05:21 PM
Don't presume to know what Oleg thinks. There is a lot of discussion re the P-47 with Oleg behind the scenes and I remain hopeful re fixes.

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 06:03 PM
Ianboys...

Thanks for the post. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nice to know it's being discussed.


<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>



Message Edited on 08/18/0301:03PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 06:19 PM
Thanks Ian, I do think it helps to know this is being discussed.



S!
609IAP_Recon

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

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

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