PDA

View Full Version : P-47 "Thunderbolt" - The best fighter in game.



BY-WEST_KIS
04-26-2007, 02:00 AM
IMHO^
P-47 "Thunderbolt" - The best fighter in game. 8 guns with 3200 shells, best dive speed, huge bomb loads. No concurents on 8000 meters. Best escort fighter...Very good strike plane... And so on.

http://war.by-airforce.com/photo/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=2&pos=3

VVS-Manuc
04-26-2007, 02:32 AM
but P-47 didn't won the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FluffyDucks2
04-26-2007, 02:38 AM
No doubt about it, flown correctly the Jug is currently untouchable in game. It is a VERY good aircraft all round http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hopefully whenever the BF109 has its correct FM restored(it got messed up in previous patches, no spiral climb capability, climb rates porked and bogus elevator lock up at relatively low speed), it will once again be in some way competitive.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2007, 02:57 AM
Very very good plane if flown correctly, also you can outrun and outdive almost anything providing you see them coming.

Particularly good against the Japanese planes where the 8x50s really rip them up or set them on fire.

WOLFMondo
04-26-2007, 03:04 AM
Jug is good. Dora is better under 5k.

OD_79
04-26-2007, 03:13 AM
I much prefer the Tempest. 4 20mm Cannon do far more than those 8 .50's, speed is on a par with anything the Axis have - short of the Me262. Handles well, visiblity to the rear is shocking, but fly in pairs and no problems.

OD.

lowfighter
04-26-2007, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Jug is good. Dora is better under 5k.

Yes, I think P51 too.

JG53Frankyboy
04-26-2007, 04:29 AM
well, thinking about the Razorbacks in game - some better fighters for european 1943 missions in "typical" online-dogfightmap altitudes (almost never above 6000m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) are comming in my mind........

P-39D-2
P-38J
P-51B
F4U-1A
Spitfire IXc
Yak-9D&T
La-5F (not tot speak about the 5FN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

not to speak that european foes can give these a very hard time:
Bf109G-6
Fw190A-5
Mc205_III

the Bubbletop Jugs have both a much better performance, no doubt !

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-26-2007, 06:21 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

I wubba you too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

LOL...The P-47 certainly has its positives and under ideal conditions can, quite easily, rule the roost. Above 5K, the only thing that can really compete is the Ta152 and maybe the 109-K4. The jug definitely has speed and firepower and its handling in the ozone is smooth and docile.

Add to this the great damage model (with a few seemingly weak engine issues) and in a pack it's not only formidable, but almost unbeatable.

Now, under 5K? It's still a good ride with good cockpit visability and decent speed, but get below 3K and under 400kph and you're just asking for a cannon shell to the head.

After I drop in on someone and maybe even turn a couple times to get a firing solution, I immediately start thinking about regaining some altitude. Not only does this allow for a high-speed bounce, but it also eliminates 80% of everyone else on the server as a threat and, given the unmatchable diving capabilities, provides a viable avenue of escape.

Jugs = teh good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


TB

Chris0382
04-26-2007, 06:22 AM
I still love the P-40 in WSBS campaign as the best and the P-38. For some reason they perform the best with my control setup.

BY-WEST_KIS
04-26-2007, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well, thinking about the Razorbacks in game - some better fighters for european 1943 missions in "typical" online-dogfightmap altitudes (almost never above 6000m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) are comming in my mind........

P-39D-2
P-38J
P-51B
F4U-1A
Spitfire IXc
Yak-9D&T
La-5F (not tot speak about the 5FN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

not to speak that european foes can give these a very hard time:
Bf109G-6
Fw190A-5
Mc205_III

the Bubbletop Jugs have both a much better performance, no doubt !

I'm not speaking about online-dogfightmap. I'm speaking about such online-wars as AIRFORCE WAR.
http://war.by-airforce.com
From all planes that you write only Spitfire IX can set competition on high alts with P-47 and NOONE can be compared with P-47 in bombs loading.

BY-WEST_KIS
04-26-2007, 06:48 AM
Some more photos of this great plane
http://war.by-airforce.com/photo/thumbnails.php?album=search&search=p47
http://war.by-airforce.com/photo/thumbnails.php?album=search&search=p-47

Daiichidoku
04-26-2007, 06:49 AM
Oleg Maddox-"the P47 is NOT a fighter"


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

AKA_TAGERT
04-26-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Oleg Maddox-"the P47 is NOT a fighter"


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif ROTFL

MEGILE
04-26-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
are comming in my mind........



wow there sparky, that's some pretty emotive thoughts you got there.

AKA_TAGERT
04-26-2007, 07:26 AM
Actually it is the man not the machine..

I could jump off a cliff with a umbrella and out fly most of these guys in any plane they choose.

I got mad skilz

MEGILE
04-26-2007, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Actually it is the man not the machine..

I could jump off a cliff with a umbrella and out fly most of these guys in any plane they choose.

I got mad skilz

Got Track? you savvy poor nancy?

AKA_TAGERT
04-26-2007, 07:32 AM
ROTFL 100%

Divine-Wind
04-26-2007, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Chris0382:
I still love the P-40 in WSBS campaign as the best and the P-38. For some reason they perform the best with my control setup.
Yup, the P-47 ranks up with my Warhawk and Lightning. Warhawk for the Pacific, and Thunderbolt for the ETO, and the Lightning for the MTO. Got mah bases covered!

Heh, watch out for them Warhawks and their Lightning and Thunderbolts! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LStarosta
04-26-2007, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by BY-WEST_KIS:


I'm not speaking about online-dogfightmap. I'm speaking about such online-wars as AIRFORCE WAR.
http://war.by-airforce.com
From all planes that you write only Spitfire IX can set competition on high alts with P-47 and NOONE can be compared with P-47 in bombs loading.

Yeah not even the Corsair. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ernst_Rohr
04-26-2007, 09:19 AM
I would say the Jug is the best high alt fighter in the game, and not bad at lower alt.

I used to hate the Jug, but after some pointers from a couple of the more experienced 47 drivers, I started liking it more.

My squadron just got done flying a SEOW campaign, and we flew the 47. Did very well in it, and garnered a whole new appreciation for the bird. Flow right, its a excellent plane.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2007, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Oleg Maddox-"the P47 is NOT a fighter"


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

It isnt a fighter in the Russian sense of the word. ie a light fast turning small plane.

If the Thunderbolt had to be used in defence, as in struggling up to meet attacking bandits like they faced often in RUssia, then I have no doubt that it would have performed terribly.

Luckily it always took off from safe bases and gained height before it entered Germany.

You have to look at the different situations, and what each side expected from a fighter.

Daiichidoku
04-26-2007, 09:56 AM
does that mean an american airman would say the ki43 is NOT a fighter? :P

faustnik
04-26-2007, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Jug is good. Dora is better under 5k.

Be sure! Dora is the best under 5K.

Great to have the late Jug though, love that plane! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Blutarski2004
04-26-2007, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Oleg Maddox-"the P47 is NOT a fighter"


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

It isnt a fighter in the Russian sense of the word. ie a light fast turning small plane.

If the Thunderbolt had to be used in defence, as in struggling up to meet attacking bandits like they faced often in RUssia, then I have no doubt that it would have performed terribly.

Luckily it always took off from safe bases and gained height before it entered Germany.

You have to look at the different situations, and what each side expected from a fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Exactly. The TBolt was designed to fly and fight by a very different set of tactical rules. That's why it's so difficult (and probably fruitless) to make comparisons with other fighters.

WOLFMondo
04-26-2007, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
does that mean an american airman would say the ki43 is NOT a fighter? :P

I always thought it was a stunt plane.

ShrikeHawk
04-26-2007, 10:54 AM
Last time I tried the Jug it was trying to get into a turn-fight with zeros "under" 3000m. Okay, I know, I know, that was dumb. But at the time it was hatin' the Jug. That was with Pacific Fighters 4.01m. I don't know if the FM has changed much since then. I have 1946 now and am already liking the Mustang much more in it's 1946 iteration. Also learned a bit more about BnZ since then and am improving steadily.

But I haven't tried the P-47 since then (just haven't gotten around to it). So would anyone care to offer some tips about how to properly fly this bird?

tigertalon
04-26-2007, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Oleg Maddox-"the P47 is NOT a fighter"


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

It isnt a fighter in the Russian sense of the word. ie a light fast turning small plane.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ironically, it was designed by Alexander Kartveli and Igor Sikorsky, both coming from Soviet Union, Sikorsky from Ukraine and Kartveli from Georgia.

AKA_TAGERT
04-26-2007, 12:23 PM
Say what you will about the P-47 but I think it is sexy

Than agin I ride vespas and date fat chicks

WWSpinDry
04-26-2007, 12:38 PM
Nancy flies a P-47D.

AKA_TAGERT
04-26-2007, 01:34 PM
Lucky Nancy

WWSpinDry
04-26-2007, 01:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-26-2007, 03:03 PM
Hopefully whenever the BF109 has its correct FM restored(it got messed up in previous patches, no spiral climb capability, climb rates porked and bogus elevator lock up at relatively low speed), it will once again be in some way competitive.

Umm what version you flying? Because in mine the 109 is a stellar performer and I do extremely well in them online. 43 and below I easily out pace spits, hurris, jugs, and stangs.

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-26-2007, 03:05 PM
I flew the JUG exclusively online in FB 1.0 when it sucked at everything is was pose to be good at. How many of you bandwagon hoppers can claim that one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWSpinDry
04-26-2007, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
... after some pointers from a couple of the more experienced 47 drivers, I started liking it more ... Flow right, its a excellent plane.
So, if someone is intrigued by the idea of flying one, but has no clue where to start, has anyone written any of this stuff down so others can try?

BuzzU
04-26-2007, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
but P-47 didn't won the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


My avatar says different.

GR142-Pipper
04-26-2007, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by OD_79:
I much prefer the Tempest. 4 20mm Cannon do far more than those 8 .50's, .... In this game, ONE 20mm can do better than the 8 50's the P-47 is "armed" with.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-26-2007, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Oleg Maddox-"the P47 is NOT a fighter" Well, there you have it folks. If Maddox actually said that it's clear he doesn't know much about the P-47. One need only look at its war record regarding the number of aircraft destroyed in air-to-air combat to quickly dispell the notion that it wasn't a fighter. It's sort of like saying the F-4 Phantom wasn't really a fighter. Both aircraft were...in the truest sense of the word.

GR142-Pipper

Kurfurst__
04-27-2007, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Exactly. The TBolt was designed to fly and fight by a very different set of tactical rules. That's why it's so difficult (and probably fruitless) to make comparisons with other fighters.

Hmmm... in it's original early form, the Thunderbolt was not truely different in it's tactical role than the Spitfire or the Bf 109 for that matter. It was conceived as a rather short range interceptor, with great emphasis on high altitude performance. The huge size was a result of this - ie. the solution to high alt performance was the fitting of a huge turbocharger complex into the machine.

It's quite a common misconception that either the P-38 or the P-47 were meant to be some kind of advanced thinking for an 'escort fighter'. Nothing can be more untrue, the US bomber doctrine called for those well known, heavily armed AND fast (well, in the 1930 it WAS true) B-17 managing to 'always break through' all alone.

The P-47, and P-38 were originally merely meant to intercept enemy bombers attacking US soil, with the former being rather short ranged initially, and the P-38's whole design concept originates from the fact the US has VAST distances and airspace to defend unlike European countries; it also had commitments in the vast areas of the pacific; therefore the P-38 would have need longer range in it's defensive role, and never forget the US military budget was rather small, so a fewer number of longer ranged planes made sense. A common restriction of 1930s designers being the unavailability of sufficiently powerful engines at the time, and thus the only solution to have long range (ie. heavy fuel loads need to be carried) and sufficient performance for intercept was to use two engines - Bf 110, and the other even less known and less succesfull British, French etc. twins anyone...? They all originated from the same problem.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2007, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by BY-WEST_KIS:
No concurents on 8000 meters.

Hmmm.. the G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 or K-4, , with their high altitude engines, are every bit as good as the later P-47s at altitude. The P-47's advantage vs. most planes is that it's engine has constant, unreducing power output all up to it's very high rated altitude, and thus does not suffer as much as most other planes from the combined effect of thinner atmosphere AND sharply falling engine output above the usual rated altitude of ca 6000 meters.

tools4foolsA
04-27-2007, 03:24 AM
In this game, ONE 20mm can do better than the 8 50's the P-47 is "armed" with.

???????

You must be a lousy shot then!!!!

Those 8 0,50 are awesome.
+++++

Eagle_361st
04-27-2007, 05:34 AM
Yeah I flew the Jug once or twice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It's and ok bird. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BillyTheKid_22
04-27-2007, 06:31 AM
P-47 is best!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-27-2007, 07:05 AM
LOL...These forums are like those cheesy colored oscillatiting lights that were placed in front of our Christmas tree back in the 60's. People change their colors so easily. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Sure the P-47 really...REALLY suxored in its early iterations, and the latest P-47D is a hotrod, but the way people whine about it is hilarious.

So, it doesn't overheat at altitude the way it probably should (maybe an unwarranted concession, but playing devil's advocate), but the engine has a glass jaw and it still gets chopped in half far too often.

It has it's strengths and weaknesses. If you're flying it, fly it to its strengths, if you're fighting it, exploit its weaknesses. Easy enough.


TB

Ernst_Rohr
04-27-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by WWSpinDry:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
... after some pointers from a couple of the more experienced 47 drivers, I started liking it more ... Flow right, its a excellent plane.
So, if someone is intrigued by the idea of flying one, but has no clue where to start, has anyone written any of this stuff down so others can try? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had to ask around in the forum. I got a lot of good advice from TgD Thunderbolt, so you might ask him for some pointers.

Most of my time has been spent in bubbletop 47's, and I still dislike the view out of the razorbacks, but generally the same things apply.

Get up to altitude, pick a hard deck altitude and DONT EVER go below it. Only turn in short segments, holding tight turns bleeds too much energy, and the 47 is a big heavy plane, so its acceleration isnt as good as the oppostion.

The big one for the 47 though, is you absolutely have to keep your speed up. At high speeds, the 47 actually has a better roll rate and turns better than some of the oppostion but ONLY at high speeds. Particularly in a boom, you want to keep your speed high for the zoom portion of it, but you dont want to crank the angle of attack to high on the pull out, or your going to bleed speed quickly.

Finally, I have found it beneficial to push the convergence of the guns out to around 300 or so, you want to give yourself plenty of lead in a B&Z attack.

WWSpinDry
04-27-2007, 08:17 AM
Thanks, Ernst. So, what I see described is the P-47 is essentially only effective air-to-air as a BnZ bird? AM I mis-reading that?

Blutarski2004
04-27-2007, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hmmm... in it's original early form, the Thunderbolt was not truely different in it's tactical role than the Spitfire or the Bf 109 for that matter. It was conceived as a rather short range interceptor,...

..... The original USAAC design specification was in fact for a lightweight interceptor, to which the XP47A was designed. But that design specification, and the XP47A as well, were cancelled as a result of observed developments in air combat over Europe. The XP47B was a totally different airframe designed to a different set of specifications -

quote -
The Experimental Aircraft Division of the USAAC called in Kartveli and informed him that the XP-44 contract was cancelled. So was the XP-47 lightweight fighter contract. They had drawn up a new set of requirements and authorized a new contract to design and develop a new fighter that would be designated the XP-47B. The fighter had to meet these new requirements, some of which were:

1) The aircraft must attain at least 400 mph at 25,000 feet.
2) It must be equipped with at least six .50 caliber machine guns, with eight being preferred.
3) Armor plate must be fitted to protect the pilot.
4) Self sealing fuel tanks must be fitted.
5) Fuel capacity was to be a minimum of 315 gallons.

- unquote

European developements had changed USAAC thinking on fighter design completely by this point. At 12,500 lbs, the new XP47B was only about 900 lbs over the weight limit set in the new specifications. I can think of no other fighter of the time whose initial design weight specification approached 10,000+ lbs.



It's quite a common misconception that either the P-38 or the P-47 were meant to be some kind of advanced thinking for an 'escort fighter'. Nothing can be more untrue, the US bomber doctrine called for those well known, heavily armed AND fast (well, in the 1930 it WAS true) B-17 managing to 'always break through' all alone.

..... Agreed, and true in the same sense that lon range escort was not a consideration in the design of the P51.


The point of my earlier comment was that the concepts underlying US fighter design changed dramatically in response to the lessons drawn from European combat. When USAAC cancelled the lightweight interceptor contract for which the XP47A was being developed, they also cancelled the fighter contract for the XP44, which had promised very good performance in comparison to existing European fighters -

>XP44 Performance Specs:
>Maximum speed of 402 mph at 20,000 feet.
>Initial Climb rate approaching or exceeding 4,000 ft/min.
>Armament four.50 caliber Browning machine guns: 2 above engine + 2 in wings.
>Fuel capacity was no greater than the P-43. With the increased thirst of the far larger R-2800 engine, range would be limited. There is little doubt, however, that the P-44 would have been an effective interceptor.

The new USAAC fighter concept which emerged in 1940 sacrificed climb rate and wing-loading in preference for high speed, good high speed handling, high altitude, long range (though not anticipating a bomber escort role), heavy armament. A fighter of characteristics so dissimilar to those of its principal foreign counterparts unsurprisingly fought with different tactics.

AKA_TAGERT
04-27-2007, 08:31 AM
Nice work BLU!

Also, one of the req of the P38 was to have a great ROC! Which is needed to climb up to enemy bombers ASAP!

But..

That ROC is also useful in fighter vs fighter!

As Kurfurst pointed out, Originally the range was a big issue in the USA what with the much larger country to cover. Where as a little land mass like Germany did not have near as much ground to cover, thus they did not focus on the range requirements.

But..

That great range also means great endurance, thus the ability to stay on target much longer. That is to say, in the ETO (aka German) once we moved across the pond, that great range turned into great endurance, in that the targets were no long 8 hours away. Which meant you could fly 1 hour to the target, hang out for 6 hours and than fly back to base in an hour.

So yes the initial requirements for the 38 may not have been used the way they were intended to be used, but setting higher design standards/requirements like that just resulted in a better all around and more flexible aircraft.

Long story short, having higher design standards/requirements is not a bad thing! It is a cake and eat it too thing! Especially when the engineers can pull it off.. Unlike so many of the napkin drawings! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ernst_Rohr
04-27-2007, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by WWSpinDry:
Thanks, Ernst. So, what I see described is the P-47 is essentially only effective air-to-air as a BnZ bird? AM I mis-reading that?

Not entirely. The 47 is best employed in a B&Z role, where it is very effective. The turn rate on the 47 is comparable to the 190, and 2 to 3 seconds worse than most 109s. You CAN turn in the 47, but you have to be selective about it. In a high speed turn, the 47 is actually very good, and its high speed roll is very good as well.

Against 190A's its an even matchup, with the 47 getting the better climb and accelleraton, and the 190 having a marginally better turn.

109's turn tighter, and climb better, and accellerate better. They are also faster down low. So, in a 47 your better off booming them, and keeping your speed as high as possible. If you keep your speed up, 109's (except the G-10 and K) cant catch you. In a disadvantage vs the 109, you can dive away and make manuvers at high speed that the 109's cant follow due to their controls stiffening up.

Against ANY Japanese plane, stick to B&Z. All of the Japanese planes turn better, and almost all of them outclimb the 47. The 47's advantage there is very high speed, and superior dive performance.

Historically, the 47 is a great ground attack plane, but I have found its kinda limited in game, due to the glass jaw engine problem. So, unless you dont have a choice, stick to high altitude fight operations and stay fast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cajun76
04-27-2007, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I flew the JUG exclusively online in FB 1.0 when it sucked at everything is was pose to be good at. How many of you bandwagon hoppers can claim that one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hi, howya doin'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BuzzU
04-27-2007, 10:31 AM
I love my big fat Jug. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Rood-Zwart
04-27-2007, 10:45 AM
Its an awesome machine, but I really cant imagine how someone can find it beautiful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

GR142_Astro
04-27-2007, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In this game, ONE 20mm can do better than the 8 50's the P-47 is "armed" with.

???????

You must be a lousy shot then!!!!

Those 8 0,50 are awesome.
+++++ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll let you slide because you have "fool" in your name, but you have no idea what you're talking about with this gunnery remark.

GR142-Pipper
04-27-2007, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In this game, ONE 20mm can do better than the 8 50's the P-47 is "armed" with.

???????

You must be a lousy shot then!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, that must be it.

GR142-Pipper

BuzzU
04-27-2007, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Rood-Zwart:
Its an awesome machine, but I really cant imagine how someone can find it beautiful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I like the looks of pit bulls too.

GR142_Astro
04-27-2007, 11:37 AM
That's odd, it's one of the best looking fighters of all time.

http://www.tanxheaven.com/ljs/artwork/P-47Thunderbolt,60x50,Potloodoppapier_resize.jpg

Blutarski2004
04-27-2007, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Nice work BLU!

Also, one of the req of the P38 was to have a great ROC! Which is needed to climb up to enemy bombers ASAP!

But..

That ROC is also useful in fighter vs fighter!

As Kurfurst pointed out, Originally the range was a big issue in the USA what with the much larger country to cover. Where as a little land mass like Germany did not have near as much ground to cover, thus they did not focus on the range requirements.

But..

That great range also means great endurance, thus the ability to stay on target much longer. That is to say, in the ETO (aka German) once we moved across the pond, that great range turned into great endurance, in that the targets were no long 8 hours away. Which meant you could fly 1 hour to the target, hang out for 6 hours and than fly back to base in an hour.

So yes the initial requirements for the 38 may not have been used the way they were intended to be used, but setting higher design standards/requirements like that just resulted in a better all around and more flexible aircraft.

Long story short, having higher design standards/requirements is not a bad thing! It is a cake and eat it too thing! Especially when the engineers can pull it off.. Unlike so many of the napkin drawings! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


..... Tag - I was referring to the P47 and the 1940 USAAC fighter specs. The P38 IIRC was designed up front as a high-altitude interceptor, with impressive climb rate and a cannon to boot.

The P47B OTOH was accepted as a GP fighter by the USAAC despite its distinctly leisurely climb performance. Kartveli (presumably designing to the govt spec, which any good contractor would do) produced an a/c with emphasis on great speed and handling at altitude and heavy armament. US fighters designed from 1939-1940 on were almost all really BIG honkers with 10,000+ lb airframes. Few, if any, showed exceptional climb performance.

I'm not arguing that climb rate is unimportant - far from it. If a fighter shows great climb performance after it has satisfied the other demands of the design specs, no one is going to complain. I'm simply saying that the USAAC as of +/- 1940 had a somewhat different outlook on what constituted an effective fighter aircraft and what performance factors were to be emphasized. And those different emphases dictated that different tactics were required for the fighter to be successful in aerial combat.

Well, that's my take on it, anyways.

Brain32
04-27-2007, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In this game, ONE 20mm can do better than the 8 50's the P-47 is "armed" with.

???????

You must be a lousy shot then!!!!

Those 8 0,50 are awesome.
+++++ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll let you slide because you have "fool" in your name, but you have no idea what you're talking about with this gunnery remark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On a link below you can see a track of me obliterating a 109 with the P47 ONLINE ON WC_WF in game version v405 I seriously recommend it as the effect is stunning, the plane is cut in half and set on fire with a short burst.
LINK: http://www.esnips.com/nsdoc/4ff24d07-986f-4af5-ac8f-f511e0a1e272

GR142_Astro
04-27-2007, 12:33 PM
U missed the point brain.....

Xiolablu3
04-27-2007, 01:34 PM
I also have no problem with the .50's, my opinion is that they are at least as strong as HMG's should be.

Make sure you get in close.

The 8x.50s on the Jug are definitely stronger than one 20mm.

I find the 6x50's on the Hellcat about the same as 1x20mm and 2x7.7's on the early Bf109's.

I often wonder why GR142 still play this game or hang around here as they do nothing but complain...

GR142_Astro
04-27-2007, 04:41 PM
Xio,

I don't even know what the heck you're talking about. I said nothing about the effectiveness of the .50s. I was clueing toolfool in that Pipper's gunnery is juuuust fine.

I often wonder if you even read what's posted. I've posted up my share of criticisms of the game, but it's not like there's a better combat flight sim out there just yet. So we use this one for now.

VW-IceFire
04-27-2007, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I flew the JUG exclusively online in FB 1.0 when it sucked at everything is was pose to be good at. How many of you bandwagon hoppers can claim that one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hi, howya doin'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll join in on that. After a brief stint in the La-7 and Bf109K I got bored of flying what everyone else was and made the P-47 my next plane. Gosh it was aweful in 1.0 and 1.1 wasn't much better...but it was satisfying to get a kill because it was always hard earned.

BuzzU
04-27-2007, 05:07 PM
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 Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I flew the JUG exclusively online in FB 1.0 when it sucked at everything is was pose to be good at. How many of you bandwagon hoppers can claim that one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hi, howya doin'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll join in on that. After a brief stint in the La-7 and Bf109K I got bored of flying what everyone else was and made the P-47 my next plane. Gosh it was aweful in 1.0 and 1.1 wasn't much better...but it was satisfying to get a kill because it was always hard earned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree. I have to snicker at guys bragging about the kills they get in some uber plane.

CUJO_1970
04-27-2007, 05:13 PM
I like the looks of the Razorback Jugs the best, really cool looking IMO. I fly the P-47 above 5-6000m like I fly the FW190s above 3-4000m. Great BnZ and structuraly strong for high-speed attacks.

I really wish Oleg would have given us some 1943 P-47s! It really wouldn't be hard to add them...there is a gaping hole in the 1943 US planeset in this sim.

We need Allison powered Mustangs, P-38F,G and H and some 1943 P-47 T-bolts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

tools4foolsA
04-28-2007, 12:13 AM
?????

Just don't get it.

OK, you say his gunnery is fine. Then why he posts stupid stuff like this:


In this game, ONE 20mm can do better than the 8 50's the P-47 is "armed" with.


It's absolute nonsense!
+++++

Daiichidoku
04-28-2007, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
We need P-38F,G and H http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


we do....called P38 "late" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

HellToupee
04-28-2007, 01:17 AM
i still perfer a single 20 over the 50s, since well its more concentrated firepower, 8 .50s are only better in the rare moments u can get all guns to hit, plus 1 20 is easyer to hit with, more visable tracer and hit effects.

HellToupee
04-28-2007, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
?????

Just don't get it.

OK, you say his gunnery is fine. Then why he posts stupid stuff like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In this game, ONE 20mm can do better than the 8 50's the P-47 is "armed" with.


It's absolute nonsense!
+++++ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why would someone with poor gunnery perfer one gun over many?

Infact if i was a poor shot ild take the 8 .50s, but i find cannons even a single one rewards a good shot more.

JG53Frankyboy
04-28-2007, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:

I really wish Oleg would have given us some 1943 P-47s! ...................

and what should be the difference to the ingame 47D-10 ?

GR142-Pipper
04-28-2007, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
?????

Just don't get it.

OK, you say his gunnery is fine. Then why he posts stupid stuff like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In this game, ONE 20mm can do better than the 8 50's the P-47 is "armed" with.


It's absolute nonsense!
+++++ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In the real world, you're right...it is nonsense. In the realm of this little game, it's the painful truth. As far as punch is concerned, I would much prefer 1 or 2 20mm cannons to the 8 50's of the P-47. You feel otherwise....and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

Diablo310th
04-28-2007, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I flew the JUG exclusively online in FB 1.0 when it sucked at everything is was pose to be good at. How many of you bandwagon hoppers can claim that one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ME!!!!!!!!!! Oh wait..I'm not a bandwagon hopper. ~S~ Havok to us few that have always liked the fatlady.

Diablo310th
04-28-2007, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Oleg Maddox-"the P47 is NOT a fighter" Well, there you have it folks. If Maddox actually said that it's clear he doesn't know much about the P-47. One need only look at its war record regarding the number of aircraft destroyed in air-to-air combat to quickly dispell the notion that it wasn't a fighter. It's sort of like saying the F-4 Phantom wasn't really a fighter. Both aircraft were...in the truest sense of the word.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pipper...he actually did say that. That was back when the Jug was back in the 1.0 days. It was his explanation for it's poor performance.

Diablo310th
04-28-2007, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Yeah I flew the Jug once or twice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It's and ok bird. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-28-2007, 09:33 AM
Ya a big fat S! to those old school lovers that stuck with the ole girl through those painful days. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I spent a few hours in the D model last night. It was actually the first time in awhile because I have not been online much since baseball started and when I do fly it is usually in ZvW. Man was it a treat to fly I still can not get over how far this aircraft has come...and it has been improved thanks to all of us here who sent Oleg countless facts to get her corrected.

zugfuhrer
04-28-2007, 11:46 AM
Quite an improvement the earliest P-47:s where dogs, perhaps the worst plane eaver programmed in this game. (Forgotten battles early patches)
Suddenly the P-47 became better and better.

Give me the source-code and I can make the I-16 topdog in this game.

fordfan25
04-28-2007, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
?????

Just don't get it.

OK, you say his gunnery is fine. Then why he posts stupid stuff like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In this game, ONE 20mm can do better than the 8 50's the P-47 is "armed" with.


It's absolute nonsense!
+++++ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In the real world, you're right...it is nonsense. In the realm of this little game, it's the painful truth. As far as punch is concerned, I would much prefer 1 or 2 20mm cannons to the 8 50's of the P-47. You feel otherwise....and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

lowfighter
04-28-2007, 01:05 PM
It takes 3-4 seconds to saw a FW190 wing when aimed well in a P47D27. I'm quite content with that.

LStarosta
04-28-2007, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by lowfighter:
It takes 3-4 seconds to saw a FW190 wing when aimed well in a P47D27. I'm quite content with that.

Say it with me now...

1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi, 4 Mississippi.


That's forever and a half. Good luck getting a plane in your sights for that long during boom n zoom.

BuzzU
04-28-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
It takes 3-4 seconds to saw a FW190 wing when aimed well in a P47D27. I'm quite content with that.

Say it with me now...

1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi, 4 Mississippi.


That's forever and a half. Good luck getting a plane in your sights for that long during boom n zoom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what makes the Jug such a pleasure to get a kill. No one shot noob wonder plane.

M_Gunz
04-28-2007, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
On a link below you can see a track of me obliterating a 109 with the P47 ONLINE ON WC_WF in game version v405 I seriously recommend it as the effect is stunning, the plane is cut in half and set on fire with a short burst.
LINK: http://www.esnips.com/nsdoc/4ff24d07-986f-4af5-ac8f-f511e0a1e272

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ROFL!

GOOD ONE! You posted a track in the middle of a whinefest! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Of COURSE that's NOT THE POINT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

You're NOT SUPPOSED TO SHOW THE OPPOSITE WAS EVER POSSIBLE! It spoils the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

hejbrigade
04-28-2007, 03:20 PM
Not only in the air but also on the ground looks great!
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8004/p47dpi2.th.jpg (http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p47dpi2.jpg)

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-28-2007, 04:45 PM
That's what makes the Jug such a pleasure to get a kill. No one shot noob wonder plane.

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

Cajun76
04-28-2007, 06:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Ohh baby.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/RazorbackP47.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/hpim0976.jpg

BillyTheKid_22
04-28-2007, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Ohh baby.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/RazorbackP47.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/hpim0976.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/image/43887911/original.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif



http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c130/hdspray/pic0210.gif







www.planesoffame.org/menu.php (http://www.planesoffame.org/menu.php)

lowfighter
04-28-2007, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
It takes 3-4 seconds to saw a FW190 wing when aimed well in a P47D27. I'm quite content with that.

Say it with me now...

1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi, 4 Mississippi.


That's forever and a half. Good luck getting a plane in your sights for that long during boom n zoom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if you have him 1s in your crosshairs when him doing defensive stuff, that guy will be out of combat or sufficiently lamed for various damage coming from the "poor" 8 .50s.
Anyway I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif too the P47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HerrGraf
04-28-2007, 10:27 PM
Nice shot from Chino of the flight of P-47s.

GR142-Pipper
04-28-2007, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Oleg Maddox-"the P47 is NOT a fighter" Well, there you have it folks. If Maddox actually said that it's clear he doesn't know much about the P-47. One need only look at its war record regarding the number of aircraft destroyed in air-to-air combat to quickly dispell the notion that it wasn't a fighter. It's sort of like saying the F-4 Phantom wasn't really a fighter. Both aircraft were...in the truest sense of the word.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pipper...he actually did say that. That was back when the Jug was back in the 1.0 days. It was his explanation for it's poor performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm honestly sorry to hear that...but it explains a lot.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-28-2007, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
It takes 3-4 seconds to saw a FW190 wing when aimed well in a P47D27. I'm quite content with that.

Say it with me now...

1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi, 4 Mississippi.


That's forever and a half. Good luck getting a plane in your sights for that long during boom n zoom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So true. 3 to 4 seconds of uninterrupted trigger pull is an eternity. I think I can say that I've never had that opportunity during the entire time I've played IL-2 (fighter-vs-fighter, of course).

GR142-Pipper

Diablo310th
04-28-2007, 10:50 PM
Pipper...it explains why it has taken so much work and time to get the Jug where she is now and we still need a few changes. To the Soviets it was not a fighter. To the US it was "the best be sure"

BuzzU
04-28-2007, 11:59 PM
Forget sawing a wing off. Kill the pilot.

lowfighter
04-29-2007, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
Forget sawing a wing off. Kill the pilot.

Yes, of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif whatever takes him out of action will do, mentioned the sawing a wing as an extreme case of aircraft damage...also mentioned the FW because it's tougher to BADLY damage than a BF for example.

GR142-Pipper
04-29-2007, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Pipper...it explains why it has taken so much work and time to get the Jug where she is now and we still need a few changes. To the Soviets it was not a fighter. To the US it was "the best be sure" Yes, I'm familiar with the Soviet's opinion of the P-47. They didn't like it at all. However, that view should by no means impact how a particular aircraft is modeled...but it does...and it's pretty obvious. Based on my five years playing this game, my perspective regarding the flight/weapons/damage modeling (real life facts notwithstanding) is as follows:
1. If the Soviets liked an aircraft, it's modeled favorably.
2. If the Soviets didn't like an aircraft, it's modeled poorly.
3. If the Soviets couldn't build something as good, it's modeled poorly.

Now if you apply this template to the U.S. mid/late war fighter aircraft, it's easy to understand the current state of affairs. By the way, I fully agree with you that the P-47 definitely needs some more work to better represent its real life counterpart.

However, it is what it is...and here we speak. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper

HellToupee
04-29-2007, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
1. If the Soviets liked an aircraft, it's modeled favorably.
2. If the Soviets didn't like an aircraft, it's modeled poorly.
3. If the Soviets couldn't build something as good, it's modeled poorly.


I think if the soviets liked an aircraft its because it has attributes that make it suitable for the low level fighting that is online play, and if its not well then its just not.

P47 for example earned its rep as a high altitude fighter, then later as a fighter bomber. Online in servers as a low level fighter its going to suffer, its low level performance was not good, Russian planes climbed turned and were faster at low level, hell even a contemporay spit was.

In the aspect of high alt performance well u dont have to look to hard for blue whiners claiming its too good at alt :P

Brain32
04-29-2007, 03:35 AM
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 Brain32:
On a link below you can see a track of me obliterating a 109 with the P47 ONLINE ON WC_WF in game version v405 I seriously recommend it as the effect is stunning, the plane is cut in half and set on fire with a short burst.
LINK: http://www.esnips.com/nsdoc/4ff24d07-986f-4af5-ac8f-f511e0a1e272

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ROFL!

GOOD ONE! You posted a track in the middle of a whinefest! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Of COURSE that's NOT THE POINT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

You're NOT SUPPOSED TO SHOW THE OPPOSITE WAS EVER POSSIBLE! It spoils the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The funny thing is, that if such thing was an exception rather than a rule I wouldn't even mention it, but dozens of my kills looked like that. 3-4sec on target is complete and utter bullsh1t if one is actually hitting a target and ofcourse if you are not hitting a FW that is flying over Berlin from your base in England http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I used to fly P47, not because it was easy, but because it was hard, this does not hold true now unless one is flying a Razorback, having lot's of fun flying P51D theese days, it's faster and much more dynamic than the Jug, and with cincere apologies to Juggernauts it looks much better than the FatLady *ducks and covers from the mad Jug pilots* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BTW: Very nice pictures Cajun and Billy, thx http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

lowfighter
04-29-2007, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
The funny thing is, that if such thing was an exception rather than a rule I wouldn't even mention it, but dozens of my kills looked like that. 3-4sec on target is complete and utter bullsh1t if one is actually hitting a target and ofcourse if you are not hitting a FW that is flying over Berlin from your base in England http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

What was the percentage of those dozens from the total kills in a P47? Here's a simple test, set say two flights of FW190 with no amo against you (just to make them very mild defensive). How many from the 8 FW's will you terminate with 1s bursts and b&z? The percentage matters...

La7_brook
04-29-2007, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
The funny thing is, that if such thing was an exception rather than a rule I wouldn't even mention it, but dozens of my kills looked like that. 3-4sec on target is complete and utter bullsh1t if one is actually hitting a target and ofcourse if you are not hitting a FW that is flying over Berlin from your base in England http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

What was the percentage of those dozens from the total kills in a P47? Here's a simple test, set say two flights of FW190 with no amo against you (just to make them very mild defensive). How many from the 8 FW's will you terminate with 1s bursts and b&z? The percentage matters... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>dont see the point in this ?try that a there way round too, how many p47,s can ya kill with a 1sec burst using 20mm , or will that say the 20mm is under mod too? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
04-29-2007, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
1. If the Soviets liked an aircraft, it's modeled favorably.
2. If the Soviets didn't like an aircraft, it's modeled poorly.
3. If the Soviets couldn't build something as good, it's modeled poorly.




not so loud! they might hear you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

WOLFMondo
04-29-2007, 04:47 AM
Well the Spitfire certainly wasn't liked by the Soviets and couldn't build something as good either, when it comes to a high altitude interceptor.

Xiolablu3
04-29-2007, 04:56 AM
Soviets must have loved the Tempest you know, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

ALso the Zero, they loved that plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Dora, best prop plane in the game, Soviets loved that one too?

Its all a big conspiracy.

I am not sure what you are expecting from the .50 cals, they are not 20mm's.

DO we really need to go through all the guncams again? Its not worth it, the people complaining have already seen the evidence - but always choose to forget it....

How many hits does the Bf109 take>? (its the same one with the glycol leak all the way through)
http://raincoaster.com/2006/06/25/p47-guncam-footage-from-wwii-in-colour/
Note he still manages to get his wheels down and probably lands. Compare to the game.

Point blank shots give fuel leak :-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aG05Zu5YQtc&mode=related&search=

Point Blank shots another fuel leak:-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1vo_krN4DfI

Note : Even tho the damage look unspectacular, All of the planes probably went down eventually, just like they would in the sim from similar shots.



Guys, seriously, rather than keep complaining about this biased, anti American, POS sim, why not go play something else?

tools4foolsA
04-29-2007, 05:22 AM
Its not worth it, the people complaining have already seen the evidence - but always choose to forget it....

Am with you there.

And if someone need 3-4 sec of fire with eight 0,50's to down a plane then he either thinks EVERY plane he shoots at has to dissappear in a big bang or back to my first staement - he's a lousy shot.

Out of here, waste of time, hope Oleg will never listen to such whiners.

1 20mm better than eight 0,50's on my Jug, wuhahahahha, poor me....

Get a grip - or learn shooting. One of the two.
*****

grist
04-29-2007, 05:58 AM
Looks good to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3774/p47headoniw3.jpg

Ratsack
04-29-2007, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
...
1. If the Soviets liked an aircraft, it's modeled favorably.
2. If the Soviets didn't like an aircraft, it's modeled poorly.
3. If the Soviets couldn't build something as good, it's modeled poorly.

Now if you apply this template to the U.S. mid/late war fighter aircraft, it's easy to understand the current state of affairs.

...

GR142-Pipper

Complete and utter garbage. Take off your red white and blue glasses for a tic and you'll see that you're not the centre of the universe, and that there are other planes that have modeling issues other than the US ones.

I'd suggest you get a grip if it wasn't so clear that you're gripping it too much already.

cheers,
Ratsack

lowfighter
04-29-2007, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
The funny thing is, that if such thing was an exception rather than a rule I wouldn't even mention it, but dozens of my kills looked like that. 3-4sec on target is complete and utter bullsh1t if one is actually hitting a target and ofcourse if you are not hitting a FW that is flying over Berlin from your base in England http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

What was the percentage of those dozens from the total kills in a P47? Here's a simple test, set say two flights of FW190 with no amo against you (just to make them very mild defensive). How many from the 8 FW's will you terminate with 1s bursts and b&z? The percentage matters... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>dont see the point in this ?try that a there way round too, how many p47,s can ya kill with a 1sec burst using 20mm , or will that say the 20mm is under mod too? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brook, first I don't care about the 8 .50 versus one 20mm comparison, I didn't start that. I merely stated a 3-4 s for SAWING a FW190 wing off, that is extreme damage. I also stated there that I'm SATISFIED with that. I have mentioned the FW190 as target in my example because it's a pretty strong AC, stronger than the Bf109 for example.
Now for my request to Brain:
That you can down a FW with 1s burst I have no doubt, I did it too sometimes, sometimes they exploded with a 1s burst etc, and I'm not a sniper, no http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. So then an interesting question is how often one can produce bad damage with short bursts, I admit it's a pretty hazy question...
So I was replying to Brain because I had the impression he's saying that the "1s and boom" is for him more the rule. So I'm quite curious to see a track (from him or somebody else who can aim well) with 4 or more FW's damaged badly (wing off, explosion etc) in the same mission with 1s, ok 1-2s, burst from his P47. Or if anyone has already done that or something similar please provide the link.

Brain32
04-29-2007, 08:20 AM
That you can down a FW with 1s burst I have no doubt, I did it too sometimes, sometimes they exploded with a 1s burst etc, and I'm not a sniper, no . So then an interesting question is how often one can produce bad damage with short bursts, I admit it's a pretty hazy question...

Very often, do not expect explosions and wings coming off though, PK's, complete control damage, instant engine stoping, magic fuel leaks etc. 109's however are so ridiculously weak that you can even saw their wings off or completely explode them even with the mustang3 but thank God that is more an exception than a rule, however with 6 or 8 .50's you are in there again consistently.
Day before yesterday I shot a Dora down, in P51D, bounced it with insanely high speed but moronic angle, I did not even know I've hit it because I had to pull violently not to ram the darn thing, few secs later the guy bailed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I lost the habbit of recording tracks while flying but I'll try record again, too bad I lost my old collection http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
All in all I think some people here(not you lowfighter) expect for 6 .50's to make damage of 6 Hispano cannons, heck to he11 with hispano, 6 Vulcan cannons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

249th_Maico
04-29-2007, 10:02 AM
I have enjoyed this sim since day one. However like everyone else I go in spurts of liking this A/C or that A/C. I tried the '47 again a week ago. I could not believe how lame I was at it. 109s and 190s just tore me up. I read this post last night then spent all day putting to use the good advice. On my last mission I killed three 109s and two 190s. I remember during a stright down vertical moment I got lucky and put some ruounds in a 109s engine. Immediate fire resulted. Tore a 190s wing off at low alt too. Thing is I never slowed down. One I stoped flying it like a Zero or Ki43, I became succesfull. Thanks for the advice, I had a great time today. Offline of course.

GR142-Pipper
04-29-2007, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Guys, seriously, rather than keep complaining about this biased, anti American, POS sim, why not go play something else? Xio, why not have a look at what's being presented and why.

GR142-Pipper

DKoor
04-29-2007, 07:14 PM
I just checked the game. It quite possibly is the best fighter in the game.
One must respect a fighter that has ability to catch ACE Ai FW-190D9_EARLY reasonably fast.
It's fast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Of course we all know that machine guns don't really work as they do in real life - damage wise. But still 8x.50 is quite fearsome power even in game.

GR142-Pipper
04-29-2007, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
...
1. If the Soviets liked an aircraft, it's modeled favorably.
2. If the Soviets didn't like an aircraft, it's modeled poorly.
3. If the Soviets couldn't build something as good, it's modeled poorly.

Now if you apply this template to the U.S. mid/late war fighter aircraft, it's easy to understand the current state of affairs.

...

GR142-Pipper

Complete and utter garbage. Take off your red white and blue glasses for a tic and you'll see that you're not the centre of the universe, and that there are other planes that have modeling issues other than the US ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's probably very true. However, the U.S. fighters planes are simply the weakest of the lot. The P-39 is certainly overmodeled while the rest are rather grossly undermodeled.

If that isn't painfully obvious, then it's you who needs to get a grip.

GR142-Pipper

han freak solo
04-29-2007, 07:50 PM
.

Ratsack
04-29-2007, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
...
1. If the Soviets liked an aircraft, it's modeled favorably.
2. If the Soviets didn't like an aircraft, it's modeled poorly.
3. If the Soviets couldn't build something as good, it's modeled poorly.

Now if you apply this template to the U.S. mid/late war fighter aircraft, it's easy to understand the current state of affairs.

...

GR142-Pipper

Complete and utter garbage. Take off your red white and blue glasses for a tic and you'll see that you're not the centre of the universe, and that there are other planes that have modeling issues other than the US ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's probably very true. However, the U.S. fighters planes are simply the weakest of the lot. The P-39 is certainly overmodeled while the rest are rather grossly undermodeled.

If that isn't painfully obvious, then it's you who needs to get a grip.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pathetic.

How about a Fw 190 A that doesn't turn even as well as the Soviet data says it should?

How about a Spit V that is too slow but climbs too fast?

How about the rear view in the Tempest?

How about the lack of a rear view or second crewman in the Beaufighter?

How about you come out of your every-body-hates-the-USA victimhood for a moment and look at the rest of the sim? There are problems globally. The US planes suffer, too, just like many others.

cheers,
Ratsack

GR142_Astro
04-29-2007, 09:01 PM
Ratsack,

May I suggest that you not add words, phrases and spins that nobody is saying. It would help keep the thread closer to focus, plus it's kind of tiresome to wade through.

Just a thought.....

Ratsack
04-29-2007, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Ratsack,

May I suggest that you not add words, phrases and spins that nobody is saying. It would help keep the thread closer to focus, plus it's kind of tiresome to wade through.

Just a thought.....

Well, might I suggest to you that you actually read what Pipper wrote. It is THAT to which I am responding.

Fact: he has said the US planes are pessimistically modeled because the Soviets didn't like them. Look above in his posts.

Fact: while he admits there are wider issues in modeling of aircraft, he insists the US planes are the 'weakest of the lot'.

I suggest to you that I'm adding no spin at all, but responding to the ridiculous and highly nationalistic bias that Pipper is displaying.

No embellishment required.

cheers,
Ratsack

Daiichidoku
04-29-2007, 09:49 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Ratsack
04-29-2007, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
...


Why!!!!

Why what?

BillyTheKid_22
04-29-2007, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
...


Why!!!!

Why what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



NOT worry!! That is ok!! I am sorry!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I forget it!!!

GR142-Pipper
04-30-2007, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Ratsack,

May I suggest that you not add words, phrases and spins that nobody is saying. It would help keep the thread closer to focus, plus it's kind of tiresome to wade through.

Just a thought.....


Well, might I suggest to you that you actually read what Pipper wrote. It is THAT to which I am responding.

Fact: he has said the US planes are pessimistically modeled because the Soviets didn't like them. Look above in his posts. You need to reread the post. There were three conditionals in my remark of which this was but one. If you're going to quote me, I'd ask you to please quote me accurately and don't take one component and run with it as though it was a standalone statement (which we both know it wasn't).


Fact: while he admits there are wider issues in modeling of aircraft, he insists the US planes are the 'weakest of the lot'. Because (with exception, P-39) they are, relative to their opposing peers.


I suggest to you that I'm adding no spin at all, but responding to the ridiculous and highly nationalistic bias that Pipper is displaying. Actually, you're just not reading the post. You're responding to words that you've taken out of context and arriving at a meaning which you yourself have derived.


No embellishment required. I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from on this so allow me to clarify just to bring the volume level down a bit. It has nothing to do with nationalistic bias whatsoever on my part. To be clear, if ANY plane is off then it should be fixed. Again, my specific contention is that U.S. mid/late war fighters have been and continue to be so pi$$-poorly modeled AS A GROUP that it would have been far better if they had been omitted entirely. In short, they're crippled junk. On the other side of the coin, the P-39 is definitely overmodeled in this game and it's not to tough to figure out why. Anyway, I wish it weren't so at this date in the game's life cycle for these and many other aircraft (on both sides!) but it is.

Aircraft representation (and their respective systems) should be a straightforward and clinical flight/weapons/damage modeling issue. No more, no less. I'm hopeful on this issue we're in violent agreement. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper

Insuber
04-30-2007, 09:39 AM
Sorry to interrupt your quarrels ... A short dive into historical facts ... I'm just finishing Don Caldwell's book about JG26 history (btw thanks to the guy in this forum that suggested this excellent book, I'm really enjoying it), and the most impressive thing to myself is how successful were the P47 escorts in smashing down a great number of 190's and 109's at almost every encounter, with relatively few losses.

Reading the book it looks like the kill/loss ratio of P47's was much better than the yet excellent's JG27 Geschwader.

Caldwell seems to attribute it mostly to the superior training of American pilots, but the plane itself should have been not so bad as most of us tend to think.

That's it, now you can continue to eat out each other's face ... good appetite!

Regards,
Insuber

AKA_TAGERT
04-30-2007, 09:45 AM
Pass the salt

BuzzU
04-30-2007, 09:47 AM
So what if the Jug is a little porked? You all need a little edge in your one shot wonder planes.

We Yanks need a bit of a challenge, and if we had an accurate Jug it would be boring.

AKA_TAGERT
04-30-2007, 09:48 AM
Good point

faustnik
04-30-2007, 09:53 AM
Wait....... what???????? The Jug is undermodeled again????

Cr4p, I just flew it Friday and it seemed great, climb, dive, level speed, firepower, all were great. They must have porked it on Saturday. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Diablo310th
04-30-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Wait....... what???????? The Jug is undermodeled again????

Cr4p, I just flew it Friday and it seemed great, climb, dive, level speed, firepower, all were great. They must have porked it on Saturday. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Daiichidoku
04-30-2007, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
So what if the Jug is a little porked? You all need a little edge in your one shot wonder planes.

We Yanks need a bit of a challenge, and if we had an accurate Jug it would be boring.


methinks the P 38 is TOO MUCH FUN in this game then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Blutarski2004
04-30-2007, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
I have enjoyed this sim since day one. However like everyone else I go in spurts of liking this A/C or that A/C. I tried the '47 again a week ago. I could not believe how lame I was at it. 109s and 190s just tore me up. I read this post last night then spent all day putting to use the good advice. On my last mission I killed three 109s and two 190s. I remember during a stright down vertical moment I got lucky and put some ruounds in a 109s engine. Immediate fire resulted. Tore a 190s wing off at low alt too. Thing is I never slowed down. One I stoped flying it like a Zero or Ki43, I became succesfull. Thanks for the advice, I had a great time today. Offline of course.


..... Thank you, sir.

That was the very point that I was at such pains to make earlier. The P47 is a different kind of animal that requires a different kind of fighting tactic. It's deadly if you fly to its strengths; it's a dog if you don't.

BuzzU
04-30-2007, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
I have enjoyed this sim since day one. However like everyone else I go in spurts of liking this A/C or that A/C. I tried the '47 again a week ago. I could not believe how lame I was at it. 109s and 190s just tore me up. I read this post last night then spent all day putting to use the good advice. On my last mission I killed three 109s and two 190s. I remember during a stright down vertical moment I got lucky and put some ruounds in a 109s engine. Immediate fire resulted. Tore a 190s wing off at low alt too. Thing is I never slowed down. One I stoped flying it like a Zero or Ki43, I became succesfull. Thanks for the advice, I had a great time today. Offline of course.


..... Thank you, sir.

That was the very point that I was at such pains to make earlier. The P47 is a different kind of animal that requires a different kind of fighting tactic. It's deadly if you fly to its strengths; it's a dog if you don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who in their right mind would look at a Jug and fly it like a Zero?

fordfan25
04-30-2007, 12:02 PM
three things abought the jug that i think are not up to snuff. #1 and by far the worst offender is the DM, far to easy to rip in half, saw off a wing, catch on fire and insta kill the motor. #2 wich may be more to do with other planes being over done in tbhis area rather than the 47 being under done is dive rate. not top speed but ecelaration. #3 is it at least for me is a very unstable gun platform. has a lot of wobble to it. i spend more time fighting the plane than the enemy lol.the jug had a rep of being extreemly stable in flight the coment from jug vets of the jug fling like it was "on rails" has been stated many times. And that the plan was leaps and bounds more stable and easy to hand at high alt than most other planes is widely reported in vids.

249th_Maico
04-30-2007, 01:20 PM
quote "Who in their right mind would look at a Jug and fly it like a Zero?

Buzz"


A guy who has been flying too much MC200, Zero and Oscar. You know, you stop flying something for a few months and you cant come back to it expecting to be the MAN. For those who think the .50s are weak get in close. I saw big chunks flying off my targets. No, they dont blow up like when using the VonderVeapons. The .50s just tear things up and make swiss cheese out of planes. I do beleive they are VERY distance dependant. Use them from 300 meters or more and you will not see much result. I beleive this is caused by the modeling of dispersion and muzzle velocity. You cant expect something half an inch wide to be too fast after 300 m.
I had another good day after setting the convergeance to 200 meters. I got in real close. Got me 3 190s and two AAA on the way home to boot. I think after a couple of good bursts from the Jug most aircraft are useless. I try to judge when an adversary has had enough then move on to the next enemy a/c. Or else you just wasting ammo waiting for that big explosion.
Loving the JUG!

GR142-Pipper
04-30-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Wait....... what???????? The Jug is undermodeled again????

Cr4p, I just flew it Friday and it seemed great, climb, dive, level speed, firepower, all were great. They must have porked it on Saturday. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Nah, I'm just making this whole thing up. Nothing better to do at the moment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, all the discussion (pro or con for any plane) really doesn't matter much if Maddox won't implement corrections.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

BuzzU
04-30-2007, 03:18 PM
The only thing that bothers me about the Oleg Jug is the little damage the engine can take. I can live with the rest.

Cajun76
05-01-2007, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
three things abought the jug that i think are not up to snuff. #1 and by far the worst offender is the DM, far to easy to rip in half, saw off a wing, catch on fire and insta kill the motor. #2 wich may be more to do with other planes being over done in tbhis area rather than the 47 being under done is dive rate. not top speed but ecelaration. #3 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">is it at least for me is a very unstable gun platform. has a lot of wobble to it</span> . i spend more time fighting the plane than the enemy lol.the jug had a rep of being extreemly stable in flight the coment from jug vets of the jug fling like it was "on rails" has been stated many times. And that the plan was leaps and bounds more stable and easy to hand at high alt than most other planes is widely reported in vids.

Try this. You can copy it directly into the "conf" file, or input the numbers in the game itself. I use a tiny amount of damping in game on the elevator and rudder (that's the "10" at the end, IIRC) I have a X-52, but this is very similar to my old TM Top Gun ABII, which had a shorter throw than the X-52. Btw, I still use the rudder rocker on the TM, but use the stick on the Saitek, so my my rudder input may be very different than what you need.

The main reason I've curved the roll is for flying the FW, and to make the elevator and roll inputs more harmonious. Play with it a bit and find what feels natural to you. Most of my "stability" comes from the first few numbers, and then just "follow" the curve with the rest of the sliders.

1X=0 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 83 100 10
1Y=0 3 9 16 23 32 43 55 69 83 100 0
1RZ=0 1 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 80 100 10

Ratsack
05-01-2007, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
three things abought the jug that i think are not up to snuff. #1 and by far the worst offender is the DM, far to easy to rip in half, saw off a wing, catch on fire and insta kill the motor. #2 wich may be more to do with other planes being over done in tbhis area rather than the 47 being under done is dive rate. not top speed but ecelaration. #3 is it at least for me is a very unstable gun platform. has a lot of wobble to it. i spend more time fighting the plane than the enemy lol.the jug had a rep of being extreemly stable in flight the coment from jug vets of the jug fling like it was "on rails" has been stated many times. And that the plan was leaps and bounds more stable and easy to hand at high alt than most other planes is widely reported in vids.

1. DM: I'm with you on the engine. Not the rest.

2. Dive: global issue. The divers don't enjoy their advantages in this game to extent they did in reality. Whether it's a 109 diving from a Spit, or a P47 diving after a 109, it's just something we all live with. It's probably a game engine issue since it seems to be across the board.

3. Wobbly gun platform: not for many patches. This is not something I see in the P47.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
05-01-2007, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
...For those who think the .50s are weak get in close. I saw big chunks flying off my targets. No, they dont blow up like when using the VonderVeapons. The .50s just tear things up and make swiss cheese out of planes. I do beleive they are VERY distance dependant. Use them from 300 meters or more and you will not see much result. I beleive this is caused by the modeling of dispersion and muzzle velocity. ...

I agree that the 0.50s aren't under modeled. I disagree about the problem being muzzle velocity and dispersion. I think it's just dispersion due to distance (i.e., inverse square rule) applying to a gun that many have trouble aiming.

The tracers are hard to see. Compare them to the big bright mothers coming from the 4 x 20 mm on the Tempest. I think this is the problem for many people.

I checked my hit rates after having very little success with the P51D online. I find that plane a joy to fly. I'll happily dogfight anything in that and be confident I'll be the one getting the firing solution. It's like an Fw 190 that can turn. Problem is, I never hit a bloody thing with the 0.50s.

I did some tests and found my hit rate with 0.50s was typically less than half of my hit rate from a Fw 190 A. I don't generally fly 109s a lot online, but when I do I take the G-6 Early with a 20 mm engine gun. My hit rate with that trio of guns is three times higher than my hit rate with the four 20 mm in the Fw 190 A!

This disparity in hit rate accounts, in my case at least, for the disparity in apparent effects from the 0.50s. They don't work because I miss. Doh!

There are a number of reasons for this that I'm not going to go into now, but for me it's a fact. I would suggest that those finding the 0.50s without punch do some off line tests with coop missions and see what they see. For me, it's because I can't see the phucking tracers in any useful way. For others it may be just that they're used to aiming fuselage guns and they're cr@p at aiming wing guns. It could be something else, too.

cheers,
Ratsack

tools4foolsA
05-01-2007, 01:54 AM
far to easy to rip in half


I did some testing a while back when there was a topic about this.

Indeed the tail would come off a P-47 at a time...

Deliberately shooting 20mm cannon shels into the tail/rear fuselage section of a P-47 did rip it in half however
- it was the strongest plane of all compared with!

Most planes needed just about 2-3hits (the more fraglie ones rather at 2 hits, the stronger ones more at 3, but only the P-47 was above 3 hits (3-4 hits).

So it is the strongest of the lot.
Graphic represntation might be another problem - there seems to be no other way to down a Jug the ripping in half if exclusively shooting in rear fusealge section.
(But then what you expect?)
No fires, didn't get any PK, etc...

The way the BoB planes are modeled with all the internal structure should allow for a far more detailed damage model and I'm hoping there will be much improvement in this matter as currently a lot of plane suffer from the simplified damage model.

+++++

DKoor
05-01-2007, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
Graphic representation might be another problem You think they'll get it this time? I doubt.

WOLFMondo
05-01-2007, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Wait....... what???????? The Jug is undermodeled again????

Cr4p, I just flew it Friday and it seemed great, climb, dive, level speed, firepower, all were great. They must have porked it on Saturday. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Nah, I'm just making this whole thing up. Nothing better to do at the moment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, all the discussion (pro or con for any plane) really doesn't matter much if Maddox won't implement corrections.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1C's record on the Jug is pretty good, as it is with the P51, they've made every change the community has sent to them, as long as there was evidence to back it up. Both the P47's and p51's are very different beasts from when they were first put in this sim.

You can argue otherwise but your wronghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

BuzzU
05-01-2007, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Wait....... what???????? The Jug is undermodeled again????

Cr4p, I just flew it Friday and it seemed great, climb, dive, level speed, firepower, all were great. They must have porked it on Saturday. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Nah, I'm just making this whole thing up. Nothing better to do at the moment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, all the discussion (pro or con for any plane) really doesn't matter much if Maddox won't implement corrections.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1C's record on the Jug is pretty good, as it is with the P51, they've made every change the community has sent to them, as long as there was evidence to back it up. Both the P47's and p51's are very different beasts from when they were first put in this sim.

You can argue otherwise but your wronghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of evidence that the P-47 engine could take tons of damage. Why isn't Olegs version that way?

JtD
05-01-2007, 09:26 AM
I honestly thing taking a dozen 20mm hits without dying makes a pretty strong engine. It may, of course, go unnoticed, because it doesn't die.

WRT to diving performance, I think most people around here are more off than FB actually is.

Daiichidoku
05-01-2007, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I honestly thing taking a dozen 20mm hits without dying makes a pretty strong engine. It may, of course, go unnoticed, because it doesn't die.

WRT to diving performance, I think most people around here are more off than FB actually is.


ive never taken 12 20mm hits all to the R2800

the problem is, those 2 or 3 .303 or 7.7mm hits

BuzzU
05-01-2007, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I honestly thing taking a dozen 20mm hits without dying makes a pretty strong engine. It may, of course, go unnoticed, because it doesn't die.

WRT to diving performance, I think most people around here are more off than FB actually is.

Show me a track, because that's bull.

drose01
05-01-2007, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
I agree that the 0.50s aren't under modeled. I disagree about the problem being muzzle velocity and dispersion. I think it's just dispersion due to distance (i.e., inverse square rule) applying to a gun that many have trouble aiming.

The tracers are hard to see. Compare them to the big bright mothers coming from the 4 x 20 mm on the Tempest. I think this is the problem for many people.

This disparity in hit rate accounts, in my case at least, for the disparity in apparent effects from the 0.50s. They don't work because I miss. Doh!

There are a number of reasons for this that I'm not going to go into now, but for me it's a fact. I would suggest that those finding the 0.50s without punch do some off line tests with coop missions and see what they see. For me, it's because I can't see the phucking tracers in any useful way...

cheers,
Ratsack
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

DKoor
05-01-2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I honestly thing taking a dozen 20mm hits without dying makes a pretty strong engine. It may, of course, go unnoticed, because it doesn't die.

WRT to diving performance, I think most people around here are more off than FB actually is.

Show me a track, because that's bull. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>He surely ment RL, because in game 47 engine may happily die from 1x12,7mm (http://www.speedyshare.com/763300740.html) it's not common but it happens.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

BuzzU
05-01-2007, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I honestly thing taking a dozen 20mm hits without dying makes a pretty strong engine. It may, of course, go unnoticed, because it doesn't die.

WRT to diving performance, I think most people around here are more off than FB actually is.

Show me a track, because that's bull. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>He surely ment RL, because in game 47 engine may happily die from 1x12,7mm (http://www.speedyshare.com/763300740.html) it's not common but it happens.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, i'll accept RL. Although that might be pushing it a bit. It seems the whole world knows the P-47 engine was tough except Oleg. WTF?

JtD
05-01-2007, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I honestly thing taking a dozen 20mm hits without dying makes a pretty strong engine. It may, of course, go unnoticed, because it doesn't die.

WRT to diving performance, I think most people around here are more off than FB actually is.

Show me a track, because that's bull. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>He surely ment RL, because in game 47 engine may happily die from 1x12,7mm (http://www.speedyshare.com/763300740.html) it's not common but it happens.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, i'll accept RL. Although that might be pushing it a bit. It seems the whole world knows the P-47 engine was tough except Oleg. WTF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I wasn't talking IRL. I was referring to situation like this one:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/p47deng.jpg

It's only half a dozen 20mm hits into the engine, but I don't feel I want to go great lenghts here. Whine as you please.

AKA_TAGERT
05-01-2007, 01:53 PM
Be interesting to see the track to see if damage was enabled?

BuzzU
05-01-2007, 02:12 PM
No arcade stuff. Lets see the track.

BillyTheKid_22
05-01-2007, 02:24 PM
P-47 Thunderbolt is very good!!! No plm !!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BM357_Sniper
05-01-2007, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
quote "Who in their right mind would look at a Jug and fly it like a Zero?

Buzz"


For those who think the .50s are weak get in close. I saw big chunks flying off my targets. No, they dont blow up like when using the VonderVeapons. The .50s just tear things up and make swiss cheese out of planes. I do beleive they are VERY distance dependant. Use them from 300 meters or more and you will not see much result. I beleive this is caused by the modeling of dispersion and muzzle velocity. You cant expect something half an inch wide to be too fast after 300 m.

You could've made this post much shorter by just saying you've never fired or seen a .50 fired. lol Lose velocity at 300 meters? They are just getting up to velocity there. The max effective range is 1800 meters. I won't even get started with API not being modeled

Aaron_GT
05-01-2007, 03:09 PM
You could've made this post much shorter by just saying you've never fired or seen a .50 fired. lol Lose velocity at 300 meters? They are just getting up to velocity there

Huh? The bullets only get slower after leaving the muzzle - they don't 'get up to velocity' at 300m!

BuzzU
05-01-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You could've made this post much shorter by just saying you've never fired or seen a .50 fired. lol Lose velocity at 300 meters? They are just getting up to velocity there

Huh? The bullets only get slower after leaving the muzzle - they don't 'get up to velocity' at 300m! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shoot down hill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BM357_Sniper
05-01-2007, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You could've made this post much shorter by just saying you've never fired or seen a .50 fired. lol Lose velocity at 300 meters? They are just getting up to velocity there

Huh? The bullets only get slower after leaving the muzzle - they don't 'get up to velocity' at 300m! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what body part you pulling that info from, but the rounds are not at full velocity just after leaving the muzzle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Well, unless every school I've been to is wrong, in which case I taught I don't know how many soldiers the wrong thing about anything from the M4, M24 and M2 wrong. lol Seriously though, rounds are not losing velocity at 300 meters and actually are still speeding up when they leave the barrel.

Ratsack
05-01-2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
... Seriously though, rounds are not losing velocity at 300 meters and actually are still speeding up when they leave the barrel.

No, they isn't. Not unless they have little rockets attached.

cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
05-01-2007, 04:52 PM
I think you are wrong Sniper, bullets ar at their most powerful right out of the barrel and then get progressively slower.

A .50 cal round is much more powerful at 50 metres than 300m unless you factor in 'tumbling' but this is a pretty random occurance and you cannot predict it. Also if a bullet 'tumbles' then it will lose a lot of its penetrating power.

I think all engines in the game are weak - its not just the P47. Spitfire, Bf109 and P51 engines 25-50% of the time die after one .303 or .50 cal hit. I know it was POSSIBLE that these engines could be diabled by a single shot, but I am sure the probability should be toned down a bit on this.

Its not just s problem with the P47, although that engine IS much tougher than the inline powered planes in the game. The P47 eningine seems to be on a par with the FW190 in that it can take a few hits from dead front and still be OK. - Not so with the liquid cooled planes.

Davinci..
05-01-2007, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
Well, unless every school I've been to is wrong.
Yeah... you might want to look into that.


Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
lol Seriously though, rounds are not losing velocity at 300 meters and actually are still speeding up when they leave the barrel.
The expanding gases might still be accelerating the bullets an inch or 2(if that) after they leave the barrel, but after a foot or so after they leave, you can be sure its all downhill from there.

Round still speeding up at 300m??? yikes...

LStarosta
05-01-2007, 05:17 PM
Rounds do accelerate at 300m, just in the opposite direction they're moving.

M_Gunz
05-01-2007, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I honestly thing taking a dozen 20mm hits without dying makes a pretty strong engine. It may, of course, go unnoticed, because it doesn't die.

WRT to diving performance, I think most people around here are more off than FB actually is.

Show me a track, because that's bull. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>He surely ment RL, because in game 47 engine may happily die from 1x12,7mm (http://www.speedyshare.com/763300740.html) it's not common but it happens.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We read war stories written by the ones that made it back and from witnesses of those.
How many downed Plane X's are documented as to what caused them to go down? Who took the time
to pick through even the smashed up wrecks?

So if you don't have the whole real story unless the number of engine shot Plane X's that
returned is large compared to the number of Plane X's that did not return... how do you say
how often Plane X should take an engine shot and return?

If demonstrations and exceptions were field case certainties it would have been a very
different war as would all wars have been.

M_Gunz
05-01-2007, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You could've made this post much shorter by just saying you've never fired or seen a .50 fired. lol Lose velocity at 300 meters? They are just getting up to velocity there

Huh? The bullets only get slower after leaving the muzzle - they don't 'get up to velocity' at 300m! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shoot down hill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That will add 32ft/s to the velocity which in the first second drops over 1000ft/s due to drag.

I think that someone here has posted WWII Browning .50 ballistics. In 1 second the bullet will
fall 32 feet drop from a horizontal boresight, however far that is and no I dunno and dunt care
about from the sight line which varies anyway -- you can't take the range the bullet drops
below the sightline 32ft as the 1 second range, have to count the loft time as well.

Just studying ballistics tables I see all bullets losing more speed the faster they go so how
does a round just get into stride at 300m? It has just lost more energy than it will in the
next 300m.

M_Gunz
05-01-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
I'm not sure what body part you pulling that info from, but the rounds are not at full velocity just after leaving the muzzle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Well, unless every school I've been to is wrong, in which case I taught I don't know how many soldiers the wrong thing about anything from the M4, M24 and M2 wrong. lol Seriously though, rounds are not losing velocity at 300 meters and actually are still speeding up when they leave the barrel.

What, you got ROCKET BULLETS?

Seriously champ, the power to beat so much friction the bullet heats up to where lead ball ammo
does soften... that has to come from *somewhere*. The gases from the powder end at the barrel
so what is driving YOUR wonder bullets harder than that friction to actually speed them up?

Not that your trainers really care what you believe as long as you can hit that target and
operate/maintain the weapon.

fordfan25
05-02-2007, 07:36 AM
rounds are at there fastest when thay leave the barrel how ever even at 100m or 500m it would make little deff IRL. the .50 round is still powerfull enough to go threw a 318 small block dodge motor at 800 yards useing FMJ's. iv seen this.

tigertalon
05-02-2007, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
Well, unless every school I've been to is wrong, in which case I taught I don't know how many soldiers the wrong thing about anything from the M4, M24 and M2 wrong. lol Seriously though, rounds are not losing velocity at 300 meters and actually are still speeding up when they leave the barrel.

Would you be so kind and enlighten us on what is accelerating bullets after they leave the barrel?

BuzzU
05-02-2007, 10:31 AM
Would a bullet accelerate at 300 yds in space?

FluffyDucks2
05-02-2007, 10:39 AM
I think its time that Raaid entered this discussion...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

fordfan25
05-02-2007, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
Would a bullet accelerate at 300 yds in space? depends.

M_Gunz
05-02-2007, 07:31 PM
Here is a link to an image of a .50 cal ballistics table with added penetration curves.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/MaxGunz/50calballistics.jpg

The ballistics, velocity at range for two different length barrel M2's are the two curves from
the upper left to lower right. Range is on the bottom and velocity is on the left edge. You
pick a range and trace up to the curve then left to the edge to get velocity and yes with that
grid it is a pain.

Then please tell me how at any range beyond muzzle the bullet goes faster than at muzzle please.

I see for 45" barrel with MV 2935 f/s at 200 yds just under 2700 f/s, 400 yds just over 2450 f/s.

Yes it has a lot of kick but penetration is by velocity squared, at 200 yds and zero angle
I see rolled homogenous armor penetration at a shade over 1 inch (looks about 1.02") while
same angle, same armor penetration at 400 yds looks like .86 inch. 1 inch being 25.4 mm.

IMO it's best to print with less ink (draft on some printers) so you can see darker lines
you might draw unless you go with computer graphic to draw on, then good luck lining it up.

LStarosta
05-02-2007, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
Would a bullet accelerate at 300 yds in space? depends. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only 20mm Hispano

white12
05-02-2007, 09:07 PM
Gosh I sure hope you have a set of hooters.. because I want to marry you!

drose01
05-03-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by JtD:


No, I wasn't talking IRL. I was referring to situation like this one:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/p47deng.jpg

It's only half a dozen 20mm hits into the engine, but I don't feel I want to go great lenghts here. Whine as you please.

Shouldn't there be holes in the wings and at least a bit of engine smoke if this photo is from a damage-enabled track?

white12
05-03-2007, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:


No, I wasn't talking IRL. I was referring to situation like this one:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/p47deng.jpg

It's only half a dozen 20mm hits into the engine, but I don't feel I want to go great lenghts here. Whine as you please.

Shouldn't there be holes in the wings and at least a bit of engine smoke if this photo is from a damage-enabled track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No soap doc- The Jug can easily handle a few little ******.

JtD
05-03-2007, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:


No, I wasn't talking IRL. I was referring to situation like this one:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/p47deng.jpg

It's only half a dozen 20mm hits into the engine, but I don't feel I want to go great lenghts here. Whine as you please.

Shouldn't there be holes in the wings and at least a bit of engine smoke if this photo is from a damage-enabled track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are holes in th wing (port, inner section) and the engine cowling. Hard to see because jpg doesn't produce highest quality images.

DKoor
05-03-2007, 10:12 AM
Yes damage was on look at the 47 nose, there is one small hole with a smoke trail.... but I'd really like to see that track. Engine must have suffered considerable damage.
If not, then this is just some weird occasion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 10:13 AM
Agreed 100%

Xiolablu3
05-03-2007, 11:19 AM
Another point about the 'P47 is not a fighter' comment from Oleg.

I was watching a Doc about Canadian pilot, one of them flew Typhoons and was talking about it, he said

'Some people called the Typhoon a fighter....it really wasnt a fighter, it could not fly high enough, at high alts you were barely hanging on'

Most people would say that the Typhoon was a fighter, yet this pilot said it wasnt.

Its all about what you expect from a fighter. The Canadian guy had flown Spitfires before the typhoon and was obviously comparing it to the nimble light Spitfire. The Russians needed light, high performance at low altitude, fast turning planes for fighters. The P47 doesnt fit into any of these categorys. Its not surprising they didnt see it as a fighter.

Its simply about different doctrines. The P47 isnt a fighter in the Russian sense of the word. ie. a light, manouvrable, fast climbing, tight turning plane. If it had been used in the RUssian Army in WW2 it would likely have been used like a Sturmovik.

M_Gunz
05-03-2007, 12:47 PM
If the Russians had used them right then they wouldn't have had to contend with Germans
overflying their bombers and escorts. P-47's make good free hunters and top cover.
IMO it is best to have planes with mixed capability and combat style so each can cover
enemies flying in ways the other is not good against. One for speed, one for turn,
each to complement the other.

Xiolablu3
05-03-2007, 02:15 PM
Yes I agree Max, however I am, just making suggestions on why the Russians didnt see the P47 as a fighter.

One look at it and it certainly doesnt look like its going to perform as fighter for the conditions on the Eastern Front. I am sure they took one look and saw the vulnerable Sturmovik with no rear gun once again.

The Russians saw the BF109 as much more dangerous than the FW190 apparantly, it was lighter, tighter turning and very fast climbing, IE a classic fighter. The P47 is much more a fighter in the FW190 mould.

The views of the RUssians on receiving the P47 would most likely be like the EAgle squadrons when they transeferred from Spitfires to P47s, except that the Russian guys had many alternatives, and the US guys had to 'make it work' with the P47. And of course they did very successfully, but I think mainly at much higher altitudes, and they always had time to gain height before engaging battle, allowing them to use the P47 great diving capabilites.

(Same in game, as long as you have time to get the P47 up to alt, shes deadly. But to be caught down low, its a nightmare.)

Alaskan_Viking
05-03-2007, 05:10 PM
Wha...I thought the P47 was gimpped, cuz I can hardly get it into the air...

Daiichidoku
05-03-2007, 05:15 PM
Its simply about different doctrines. The P47 isnt a fighter in the Russian sense of the word. ie. a light, manouvrable, fast climbing, tight turning plane. If it had been used in the RUssian Army in WW2 it would likely have been used like a Sturmovik.

i think you should look into the P47 in russian service............ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

249th_Maico
05-05-2007, 10:13 AM
Its a sad thing to have to eat my words. Today I decided that I had not flown a Yak in Waaaaay too long. I took a Yak 9D up against two 109F2s. The AI and I were booming a zooming and I was having a ball. I slowly started to gain on a messer. He then performed a couple of turns and he was far away again. In frustration I squeezed off a couple of short MG (12.7 I think) bursts from Waaaay to far (3-400m) to my amazement the darn 109 burst into flames and desintegrated. I never even used the cannon!!! It made me feel so silly after sitting there not 100m from a 109 with all eight guns ripping at the wings only to see him fly away. That is some serious difference in hitting power.

BuzzU
05-05-2007, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
Its a sad thing to have to eat my words. Today I decided that I had not flown a Yak in Waaaaay too long. I took a Yak 9D up against two 109F2s. The AI and I were booming a zooming and I was having a ball. I slowly started to gain on a messer. He then performed a couple of turns and he was far away again. In frustration I squeezed off a couple of short MG (12.7 I think) bursts from Waaaay to far (3-400m) to my amazement the darn 109 burst into flames and desintegrated. I never even used the cannon!!! It made me feel so silly after sitting there not 100m from a 109 with all eight guns ripping at the wings only to see him fly away. That is some serious difference in hitting power.

Wrong thread.

lowfighter
05-05-2007, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
Its a sad thing to have to eat my words. Today I decided that I had not flown a Yak in Waaaaay too long. I took a Yak 9D up against two 109F2s. The AI and I were booming a zooming and I was having a ball. I slowly started to gain on a messer. He then performed a couple of turns and he was far away again. In frustration I squeezed off a couple of short MG (12.7 I think) bursts from Waaaay to far (3-400m) to my amazement the darn 109 burst into flames and desintegrated. I never even used the cannon!!! It made me feel so silly after sitting there not 100m from a 109 with all eight guns ripping at the wings only to see him fly away. That is some serious difference in hitting power.

If you're in a P47 and shooting at a Bf109 6 o'clock, rather aim at the body, it's a pretty flamable AC and with so many bullets you have per second it's almost impossible not to damage him badly. Even with bad aiming which I do pretty often it's enough to weaken him enough to finish him with the next pass...

249th_Maico
05-05-2007, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
Its a sad thing to have to eat my words. Today I decided that I had not flown a Yak in Waaaaay too long. I took a Yak 9D up against two 109F2s. The AI and I were booming a zooming and I was having a ball. I slowly started to gain on a messer. He then performed a couple of turns and he was far away again. In frustration I squeezed off a couple of short MG (12.7 I think) bursts from Waaaay to far (3-400m) to my amazement the darn 109 burst into flames and desintegrated. I never even used the cannon!!! It made me feel so silly after sitting there not 100m from a 109 with all eight guns ripping at the wings only to see him fly away. That is some serious difference in hitting power.

Wrong thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How do you figure???? I am pointing out how the Yak's little pea shooter got a 109 from 3-400m and the '47 could not do it from 100. Just FYI Buzz, I am beyond winding up.

Cajun76
05-06-2007, 08:58 AM
Depending on convergence, when aiming at dead six with the T-bolt, aim a tad to the left or right of the fuselage. 50 rds a sec will do the rest, although, as been stated, the fifties should start more fires.

Note: "Tad" is more than a "smidgen", but less than "a bit"

BuzzU
05-06-2007, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
Its a sad thing to have to eat my words. Today I decided that I had not flown a Yak in Waaaaay too long. I took a Yak 9D up against two 109F2s. The AI and I were booming a zooming and I was having a ball. I slowly started to gain on a messer. He then performed a couple of turns and he was far away again. In frustration I squeezed off a couple of short MG (12.7 I think) bursts from Waaaay to far (3-400m) to my amazement the darn 109 burst into flames and desintegrated. I never even used the cannon!!! It made me feel so silly after sitting there not 100m from a 109 with all eight guns ripping at the wings only to see him fly away. That is some serious difference in hitting power.

Wrong thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How do you figure???? I am pointing out how the Yak's little pea shooter got a 109 from 3-400m and the '47 could not do it from 100. Just FYI Buzz, I am beyond winding up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't trying to wind you up, or I would have. Since there was a Yak thread going on I missed your referance to the eight guns, and thought you posted in the wrong thread.

249th_Maico
05-06-2007, 09:49 AM
Sorry, My Bad. But back to the subj at hand. I get behind the 109 and fire from 100meters. The wings are sheding chunks and then the darn thing turns away and continues flying like nothing. I fly a lot of MC-200. I dont know why but I like that ugly duckling. If you time it right, you come in from four o'clock or 8 o'clock and you can light a fighters engine on fire with a couple of well placed rounds. I do the same with the 109 relegating its cannon to last ditch effort or bomber duty. And I guess I expect a little more when I multiply my firepower x 4.

Uhmmm... Maybe I just try harder with the little pea shooters...

Korolov1986
05-06-2007, 09:53 AM
The 12.7mm gun on the Yak types is a completely different weapon than the BMG .50. It has a higher velocity and so the projectile is more accurate and faster.

If you haven't, try a deflection shot - more rounds will hit the target because it's a larger profile than from direct six.

249th_Maico
05-06-2007, 10:55 AM
Deflection.... Is that what firing from 4 o'clock or 8 o'clock is? :-) Thanks for the clarification on the .50s. I should know all "guns" are not the same. Ever seen a 7.62 AK round? Now go look at a 7.62 Nato.... M-60 MG makes the AK look like a joke. Thing is that I have fired an M2 .50 cal MG. It is NO JOKE and I cant even immagine what 8 would sound like much less the damage that a one second burst would do. I guess my final analisys is this. If the 8 .50s on the Tbolt were not undermodeled, then it would be unfair to everyone else.
Please, no more refrences at what a louzy shot I am. I been in this game for five years and I may have flown a bomber a couple of times. Fighters is my thing.

Korolov1986
05-06-2007, 11:02 AM
Well, the Tbolt's guns hit a square area in front of it, even at convergence. From dead six, you aren't hitting as much as you might think; from above or below, you're hitting a lot more.

If you want a more accurate comparison, try the P-38 or P-39 with their nose mounted guns. They still throw lead in a area, but less dispersed due to being fired from the centerline.

lowfighter
05-06-2007, 11:24 AM
For average deflection shots like me those 8 0.5s are pure gold. I simply can't remember not hiting when in a P47 deflection shot. And I can remember many times not hitting when deflection shooting from many others planes. It's simply the sheer density of fire which accounts for that.
Another plus, the excelent forward view, that makes deflection matters easier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aaron_GT
05-06-2007, 11:26 AM
Ages ago JtD did some testing and the number of hits to damage a target with M2 and UB 12.7mm guns seemed to be the same, I think. It's easier to hit with nose guns, plus there are lucky hits and unlucky hits.

Korolov1986
05-06-2007, 11:30 AM
I always enjoyed showing this vid I made, even if it doesn't show a lot of detail - clocks in at almost 900kb, so beware!

P-47D-27 vs Bf-109G-6 Late (http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/P-47%20Guncam%202.gif)