PDA

View Full Version : Oleg Maddox Poll: P47 D27 Roll Rate Is Too Slow



LuftLuver
02-23-2004, 12:28 AM

LuftLuver
02-23-2004, 12:28 AM

hobnail
02-23-2004, 03:09 AM
http://www.afdc.com/activities/summer01/4.jpg
Go on, give it another whack. This time he's sure to do something.

http://users.on.net/apoulos/webbanner.jpg (http://www.jg11.com)

VW-IceFire
02-23-2004, 06:37 AM
Beating a dead horse eh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Yeah I don't know why the D27 is so slow at rolling and yet the D-10 and D-22 were fixed. I know the bubble canopy introduces some slight roll instability (thus the tail filet and taller tail later in the D-30 and N models) but roll rate was apparently one of the P-47's redeeming qualities. Reading the "how to fight with a P-47 posted last week" it mentioned that the P-47 would use its superior high speed aileron controls to correct lead on Japanese fighters which generally didn't have good high speed control (in general thats the same for the VVS - the La's and the Yak's). We don't really have that modeled...I'll take the P-47 either way...I love the D-27 and I have a great time using it to attack ground targets and even mixing it up with fighters online...but the job is much harder than it probably should be.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WOLFMondo
02-23-2004, 08:19 AM
I like the B&Z with the P47D-27 but If I make that mistake and loose the speed before climbing again I give up and run and expect to be picked off before long. I simply cannot compete with any other plane in a turning dogfight with it. Im sure the He111 in game has a better roll than the D-27.

Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

Aaron_GT
02-23-2004, 09:37 AM
The He111 DOES NOT have a better roll
rate than the P47D27 in the game. A few
months ago I tested this and posted the
results. The He111 roll rate is at most
about 36 degrees per second.

VW-IceFire
02-23-2004, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ALDEGA:
It's too slow because it really is, or it's too slow because it's your favorite aircraft in the game?

-------------
For news, irc, game info, missions/tracks/campaigns -&gt; http://lomac.gtacenter.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too slow because there have been numerous posts of official testing documents stating a much faster roll rate for the late D model P-47 than what we have. Infact if you go and fly the P-47D-10 and D-22 you'll notice that they roll fairly quickly...they aren't superb rollers but they are very good at most speeds. Then go and try the D-27 which is by all rights fairly similar to the D-22 (except with a bubble canopy) and it rolls not nearly as fast. Now I haven't seen any reason why the D-27 should roll so much slower than a slightly earlier model...I seriously doubt that the bubble canopy is the cause of a seriously degraded roll rate. I think this is a programming bug rather than a historical accuracy problem.

The P-47 is a big, fast, heavy brute of a fighter that had three things going for it:

1) Could out dive virtually anything flying against it.

2) It was tough as nails (that part is accurately modeled) and had excellent firepower.

3) It could generally outroll most of its opponents (except the FW190) to escape attack.

In a D-10 if you are in a defensive position with an enemy fighter you can succesfully Split-S or Scissors to avoid them. Similar to the FW190 in this way. In a D-27 you're roll rate is never close to the responsiveness and you have a much more difficult time to try and avoid the enemy.

If information is presented that tells me in an appreciable manner that the bubble canopy P-47's had a problem with roll rate that did not exist on the razorback versions then I will gladly accept that. As it stands right now...when I do fly the P-47 I just accept it...but if its not right (for better or worse) then it should be fixed.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

faustnik
02-23-2004, 05:44 PM
Maybe we could combine the P-47 roll and 190 view threads into one big dead horse beating thread.


Oh, and it rolls too slow. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Bull_Pup
02-23-2004, 06:30 PM
You could almost roll test half of the flyables in one night. Its a fairly quick and easy test. The real world data is readily available.

In the interest of historical accuracy I think an audit should be done.

Maple_Tiger
02-23-2004, 06:53 PM
There is something going on for shure.

Someone did post a roll rate chart not too long ago.

Each aircraft had its peek roll rate.

P-40 had a good roll rate but when looking at the chart the D10 actualy starts to out roll the P-40 at a higher speeds.

Funny thing though is that the P-40 can out roll the P-51 up to 650kmh TAS lol.

I would like to see this chart again. Everyone should take good look at it.

So oh ever has that chart then please post it here.. please..... pretty please.... thank you kind sir.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

SkyChimp
02-23-2004, 07:54 PM
There is a summary of a roll rate test for the P-47N in the book Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt: From Seversky To Victory by Warren Bodie indicates that the P-47N had a roll rate of 100 degrees per second "which was a 15 degree per second improvement over the P-47D-30."

100 - 15 = 85 degrees per second. That's what I've asserted all along.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

ElAurens
02-23-2004, 09:28 PM
And the early P40 was 135 dps. The later models we current have should be around 95dps. Both were faster rollers than the P39, which is totally wrong....

But, back to the subject at hand, yes, the P47 D27 needs to be corrected....

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

faustnik
02-23-2004, 10:39 PM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

Here's the one I colorized and added the P-38L to.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

LuftLuver
02-23-2004, 11:08 PM
From the UBI aircraft descriptions:

P47D10
Weight:
Empty: 4,520,3 kg
Loaded: 6129 kg


P47D27
Weight:
Empty: 4,630,2 kg
Loaded: 6583 kg

Which makes the D27 roughly 1,000lbs heavier in the loaded configuration. Much of this was additional pilot armor, and we all know that the more the weight is located near centerline, the less impact on roll it will have. The bottom line is the D27 rolls too slow. For those of you who don't fly the Jug, you will never understand and will be relegated to posting photos of dead animals on these forums.

For the rest of us fun loving chaps, have a go in the D27 and vote in our poll. Thanks for the responses so far everyone.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

[This message was edited by LuftLuver on Mon February 23 2004 at 10:19 PM.]

LuftKuhMist
02-23-2004, 11:28 PM
In the interest of realism, let's use a poll to know how fast the plane rolls.

Let's also use a poll to know what's the meaning of life since the OPINION of the common mass seem to be an absolute truth.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-23-2004, 11:41 PM
Salute

Faustnik, that is a doctored chart. No P-38L included.

Real chart:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif

Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-23-2004, 11:43 PM
Salute

In response to Luftluver's comments.

You need to do some research.

The extra weight was due the extra fuel in the new tank added beginning with the D25 series.

With the new tank empty, there was little difference between the early D and the late.

pourshot
02-24-2004, 12:15 AM
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/roll_chart_AHT.JPG

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Maple_Tiger
02-24-2004, 09:44 AM
So looking at the second chart i notice there are two P-40's and not one P-40 like in the first chart. I didn't realize there was a huge differance between the P-40F and P-40?.

But still when i look at the second chart i see that the P-47C has an all around better roll rate then the P-39D.

But isn't there a differance in the roll rate between the P-47C and D? Is there a differance in roll rate between the P-39D, N and Q?

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

robban75
02-24-2004, 09:55 AM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

This is the only chart I've seen portraying the rollrate of the Fw 190. There has to be more out there.

And BTW, I voted Nr:1. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

faustnik
02-24-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

Faustnik, that is a doctored chart. No P-38L included.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Buzzsaw. I mentioned that in the post. I did my best to add the P-38L in during the P-38 FM discussion thread. All the other curves are the same as the original chart only colorized for easier reading.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

LuftLuver
02-24-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

In response to Luftluver's comments.

You need to do some research.

The extra weight was due the extra fuel in the new tank added beginning with the D25 series.

With the new tank empty, there was little difference between the early D and the late.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. So "much" wasn't the correct word.

VW-IceFire
02-24-2004, 05:59 PM
I think a critical distinction about the P-39 does need to be made. The version listed there is the P-39D. The N and Q versions were much improved in stability and the Russians stripped much of their armor...plus the removal of wing guns definately made the plane ligher and more responsive. So I'll be willing to bet that the P-39Q's that we have aren't far off in roll rate. Nothings perfect of course but thats ok.

The charts show...the P-47's are average to very good in terms of roll rate. Its a C version mind you but I saw Sky Chimp's info and there shouldn't be a huge problem with the P-47 roll rate. As I say...D-22 and D-27 should be theoretically about the same. Even if the D-25's and on had more fuel...at 50% fuel the D-27 should roll and be as responsive as the D-22's (I say D-22 because of the bomb racks).

Again...I'm very happy to concede all of this if there is a compelling reason why its slow. Otherwise its a bug to be fixed.

I also think the whole 'bias' card is getting worn out. Everyone has bias...its kind of funny to be accused of having bias and I seriously doubt that its bias making a plane roll slow. There is data and perception that are the important parts. Ultimately everything is subjective.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

tttiger
02-24-2004, 06:38 PM
This is more of a bump than adding any new information.

I think the D-27 roll was improved a bit.

But I think the roll rate on all the P-47s still is lacking. The D-27 is just MORE lacking.

I disagree with the post that argues you should be able to turnfight with it. It's simply not a knife fighter. The best one-word description of the Jug's turn rate I've ever seen was "glacial." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But roll rate is another matter and one of the things all great B&Z planes had in common was a great roll rate, very effective ailerons.

The P-47s, especially the D-27 are flyable now but they still aren't as good as they should be.

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

PzKpfw
02-24-2004, 07:46 PM
I thought along time ago it was established Ie, the P-47C with 50lb stick rolled 85? per sec. @ 240mph IAS, and 65? per sec, @ 400mph IAS ?. as Dean put it in AHT; the roll rate was far from sensational. The role rate also dropped heavily if g's were being pulled at the same time.

What is the current rollrate of the D27 etc in FB ?.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

SkyChimp
02-24-2004, 07:56 PM
John:

The P-47D-27 rolls roughly equal to the bottom line on the chart below.

Hoever, it should roll more closely to the red line instead.

What Oleg appears to have done was to model roll to be consistent with a maximum 30lb stick input, while he did the other P-47s with a 50lb stick input.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/50lbs.jpg

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

LuftLuver
02-24-2004, 08:15 PM
Thanks very much Chimp, this was precisely the point / chart that hits the root of the bug. Great post tttiger, very well stated.

C'mon Oleg, the proof is here. Please fix this bug. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

PzKpfw
02-24-2004, 09:49 PM
Thx Chimp, i see that 30lb stick was apperently used for the D-27 now.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

CaptainGelo
02-25-2004, 09:44 AM
I agree that P47D-27 roll rate is to slow, so here u go "BUMP"

hey I'm the 1st oleg to answer and maybe to read this tread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

and maybe last 2, sad http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg

GR142_Astro
02-25-2004, 05:26 PM
So can you 43% who have voted "correct as is" show some data and charts to support your vote? Very interesting thread guys.

____________________________

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limosine anyway." ~TheClash~

[This message was edited by GR142_Astro on Wed February 25 2004 at 06:15 PM.]

Willey
02-26-2004, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
From the UBI aircraft descriptions:

_P47D10_
Weight:
Empty: 4,520,3 kg
Loaded: 6129 kg


_P47D27_
Weight:
Empty: 4,630,2 kg
Loaded: 6583 kg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You'd better compare the 27 to the 22. The 10 has no racks. That alone grants better roll rate. 22 and 27 should be quite similar in roll rate.
And, 10 and 22 got better in roll in one patch. 10 is even a tad better than 22. But the 27 didn't change at all. So it's actually not a "dead horse". Rather one that ran away http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

PS: Stop beating horses http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif.

PPS: Even as a dedicated luftwhiner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, I concur.

p1ngu666
02-26-2004, 04:46 PM
i think the d rolled better than the C had a slightly different aliron i think.
also the 27 should roll a lil better than 22 cos less side area, it was unstable and thats why u get the finlet in later versions

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-26-2004, 08:58 PM
Yeah...thats what I don't get. Initial roll on the D-27 should be better than the others even if sustained roll isn't as good...we don't see that.

Something is messed up on the D-27. I'd really just love for them to say...oops...the D-27 didn't get the values that the others did fixed and its not quite right. Infact, in RC02 I think the D-27 WAS fixed (it was actually probably uber at that point)...and then it was unfixed again. So I don't know what happened...but maybe the revised code was overwritten.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

PzKpfw
02-26-2004, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think the d rolled better than the C had a slightly different aliron i think.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their is no aileron design change from P-47D-1 - D-26. The The D-27 introduced a new dorsal fin. The P-47M introduced the revised aileron design.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Cajun76
02-27-2004, 01:55 AM
OK, imo several things need addressing here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

First of all, tests of a late D model against a P-47N showed 85 degrees a second at 250mph for the P-47D. It dosen't say that this was peak roll at 250mph, but that the -N had a definate advantage over an aircraft that was considered to have a very good rollrate.

http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html

Secondly, the cut down fuselage was not really a factor in roll. The fillet was not introduced to provide roll stabilty. The cut down fuselage reduced the side plate area allowing for an "over yaw" condition. This led to accidents, especially at low speed landing approaches.

Thirdly, the ailerons were not significantly modified on the P-47 series until the P-47N.* The P-47M used the P-47D-30-RE as the basis for it's airframe.


The P-47D-27 in the game feels almost twice as slow as the -10 that I usually fly.

* during developement the ailerons were changed several times, but during large scale production, the ailerons were not changed in a significant way until the new wings of the P-47N caused the need for a redesign, including the flaps.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

Cajun76
02-27-2004, 02:21 AM
Oh, and one other thing about P-47s in general, in the game. Has anybody had the fuel tanks reseal after getting a leak? I can't recall ever seeing the leak stop on my P-47. I've seen other planes fuel leaks stop during a fight, but not the P-47. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

1.JaVA_Razer
02-27-2004, 02:40 AM
I'll bump this one up for the importance of it to me.
I also feel P 47 D 27 is a bit undermoddeld when it comes to roll rate. I can't say how much but I know it should roll better. not because I like it(because I like the 22 more) but because it just was like that in real life.

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by razer3:
I'll bump this one up for the importance of it to me.
I also feel P 47 D 27 is a bit undermoddeld when it comes to roll rate. I can't say how much but I know it should roll better. not because I like it(because I like the 22 more) but because it just was like that in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It wasn't "like that" in real life, P-47 failed to meet USAAF requirements for rolling characteristics historically, I don't understand why so many are surprised with the bad roll. I'm quite amazed by how good are rolling D-10, D-22, are you all sure that peak roll is 80 deg per second? because it seems like 120 deg per sec.

And one very important point: D-10, D-22 and D-27 all had different roll rates and rolled slower than P-47C, because of heavier weight of the plane, which translates in flying at higher angle of attack for level flight, which translates in a slower roll. This is a simple relationship between angle of attack and roll performance. Do not expect that much heavier D-27 to roll as fast as a C model.

MandMs
02-27-2004, 05:04 AM
Can you elaberate on this failure to meet USAAF requirements for roll.

If what you say is true for the P-47, roll rate decreases because of increased weight and AoA, then so should the Fw190As. The 109 F to K-4 should show this decrease in roll rate.



I eat the red ones last.

Cajun76
02-27-2004, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by razer3:
I'll bump this one up for the importance of it to me.
I also feel P 47 D 27 is a bit undermoddeld when it comes to roll rate. I can't say how much but I know it should roll better. not because I like it(because I like the 22 more) but because it just was like that in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It wasn't "like that" in real life, P-47 failed to meet USAAF requirements for rolling characteristics historically, I don't understand why so many are surprised with the bad roll. I'm quite amazed by how good are rolling D-10, D-22, are you all sure that peak roll is 80 deg per second? because it seems like 120 deg per sec.

And one very important point: D-10, D-22 and D-27 all had different roll rates and rolled slower than P-47C, because of heavier weight of the plane, which translates in flying at higher angle of attack for level flight, which translates in a slower roll. This is a simple relationship between angle of attack and roll performance. Do not expect that much heavier D-27 to roll as fast as a C model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to see some kind of source to back these up, please. It's news to me. The P-47N was heaviest of all, and had a better rollrate than any other Jug. True, it had longer, clipped wings and redesigned ailerons, but it was also +3000lbs. heavier gross weight.

The biggest factor in weight between the -10 razorbacks and the -27 bubbletop is the 100 gallons more of fuel carried internally. This should not adversly effect roll in such a large, heavy, fast and powerful fighter like the T-bolt. 100 gallons in a smaller fighter would have a much greater effect on their performnce.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

PzKpfw
02-27-2004, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:

Thirdly, the ailerons were not significantly modified on the P-47 series until the P-47N.* The P-47M used the P-47D-30-RE as the basis for it's airframe.


Good hunting,
Cajun76

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dean states in the P-47 major model to model changes section*:

P-47M: New engine version, new turbosupercharger, automatic engine controls, dive flaps, automatic intercooler and oil cooler doors, revised aileron design.

No other entry in the lineage of changes includeing the P-47N mentions any aileron changes etc.

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred Thousand p.284

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

VW-IceFire
02-27-2004, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by razer3:
I'll bump this one up for the importance of it to me.
I also feel P 47 D 27 is a bit undermoddeld when it comes to roll rate. I can't say how much but I know it should roll better. not because I like it(because I like the 22 more) but because it just was like that in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It wasn't "like that" in real life, P-47 failed to meet USAAF requirements for rolling characteristics historically, I don't understand why so many are surprised with the bad roll. I'm quite amazed by how good are rolling D-10, D-22, are you all sure that peak roll is 80 deg per second? because it seems like 120 deg per sec.

And one very important point: D-10, D-22 and D-27 all had different roll rates and rolled slower than P-47C, because of heavier weight of the plane, which translates in flying at higher angle of attack for level flight, which translates in a slower roll. This is a simple relationship between angle of attack and roll performance. Do not expect that much heavier D-27 to roll as fast as a C model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its most definately not 120 degree's per second at any point that I can find. Thats in FW190 territory and no P-47 in the game rolls as fast as a FW190.

The D-10 and the D-22 roll fairly well. They are decent mid range rollers. The D-27 if you have flown it and compaired between the various types is down in A6M Zero and Typhoon territory (both of these types were slower at roll). I want to know why there is a huge discrepancy. As far as I know the only addition of weight between D-22 and D-27 was some more fuel. If thats the case then if I take a D-27 out with 25% fuel like I normally do...how come I'm still not rolling as fast as a D-22 or flying as stable through manuvers with a full tank?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

p1ngu666
02-27-2004, 07:05 AM
im fairly sure the alirons got blunt tips or something in the c to d transition, i could easily be wrong

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Cajun76
02-27-2004, 07:25 AM
Well, I did say significant. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The P-47N got the works when it came to that new, longer, clipped wings that were installed. America's 100,000 is a great resource, but it's possible this change was overlooked.

"The modifications to the existing YP-47M were considerable. Aside from simply installing the wing inserts and fuel tanks, the flaps were required to be redesigned, and the ailerons had to be modified to fit with the new squared-off wing tips. Due to spacing the wings out from the wing root, the landing gear track increased by more than 3 feet. The overall wing span had increased to just over 42 ft 6 inches."

http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Seversky-Republic8.html

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Xp-47n.jpg

I know several mods were done to the ailerons over time, including making them blunt-nosed and such. The P-47M might well have recieved slightly differant ailerons, but not redesigned/modified in the way the P-47N's were. The basic airframe of the production P-47M was the P-47D-30-RE. There's nothing that I can find that says the rollrate of the M was better or worse than the standard P-47D, but we do have sources stating the P-47N had significantly improved rollrate compared to the P-47D. However, this dosen't help our endeavor to improve the P-47D-27 in FB. Let's not let folks like Magister_Ludi deflect us from trying to fix this. Agreed? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Edit: From what I can tell, the ailerons were given the "blunt-nose" treatment when the C series came out. XP-47B's were reported having the ailerons "snatch and freeze" above 30,000 feet, the canopy could not be opened and control loads became excessive. P-47B's that the 56th trained with would develop aileron flutter when in a compressibilty condition. Operational P-47C's in the ETO didn't report these problems, to the best of my knowledge.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[This message was edited by Cajun76 on Fri February 27 2004 at 06:50 AM.]

LuftLuver
02-27-2004, 12:02 PM
Excellent Cajun76, thanks for posting this. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

PzKpfw
02-27-2004, 01:04 PM
b]<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
America's 100,000 is a great resource, but it's possible this change was overlooked.
[/b] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possible, but interesting as well in that AHT is a listed refrence for your URLs article http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. It's also a glareing research error if so as Dean lists every change to the P-47 in from the XP-47B thru the P-47N.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Edit: From what I can tell, the ailerons were given the "blunt-nose" treatment when the C series came out. XP-47B's were reported having the ailerons "snatch and freeze" above 30,000 feet, the canopy could not be opened and control loads became excessive.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought that the problem with the XP-47B ailerons was the reason they introduced metal covered ailerons in the P-47B?. The P-47C also introduced redesigned elevator and rudder balances.

Here is some P-47C/D rollrate data From Ed Wagamon off the P-47 Advocates Q&A Board @ http://www.p47advocates.com/wwwboard.html

The post is to large to post here so I have pasted his roll rate data:


@ 150 mph IAS: P-47C&D @ 50 lbs stick force = 57 deg/sec. P-47D with pilot pulling only 30 lbs stick force achieves 50 deg/sec;

@ 200 mph IAS: P-47C&D @ 50 lbs stick force = 73 deg/sec. P-47D @ only 30 lbs stick force = only 60 deg/sec.

@250 mph IAS: P-47C&D (@ 50 lbs force) = 85 deg/sec. P-47D @ only 30 lbs = 55 deg/sec

@ 300 mph IAS: P-47C&D @ 50 lbs stick force = 80 deg/sec. The P-47 @ only 30 lbs stick force is down to 42 deg/sec

@350 mph IAS, P-47C&D @ 50 lbs stick force rolls drops slightly to 75 deg/sec. P-47 @ only 30 lbs stick force are way down, to only 35 deg/sec.

@400 mph IAS, a P-47C&D @ 50 lbs stick force rolls at 65 deg/sec. P-47 @ 30 lbs stick force at only 25 deg/sec

Regards, John Waters
---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Fri February 27 2004 at 12:21 PM.]

SeaFireLIV
02-27-2004, 01:18 PM
This subject just won`t die, will it? The damn thing`s fine as it is! But the Hurri needs its ordnance.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/P47duck.jpg
Oh how they laffed at having all the ordnance!

VW-IceFire
02-27-2004, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
This subject just won`t die, will it? The damn thing`s fine as it is! But the Hurri needs its ordnance.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/P47duck.jpg
Oh how they laffed at having all the ordnance!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seriously...go fly the D-22 and then try the D-27. You'll see that the D-22 works just fine and the D-27 is very slow. This is a fairly clear cut issue...but I don't think alot of people have bothered to fly the P-47 and I'm sure a few have decided that its a wallowing pig of a fighter...which it isn't. Its not nible, but the D-22 isn't nible either...it just works. The D-27 doesn't and it seems like it was a mistake and not anything else so I think most people here would just love if if it were fixed.

I think a few are affraid that the D-27 will become some hideously powerful machine...it won't be. It'll be like fighting a D-22...the only difference is the view. Like the revi sights for German fighters that are being fixed the initial roll rate in 1.0 was likely an oversight. Two of three were fixed. We're going for three of three.

The data is available, the proof is available, nobody has contradicted it with any roll charts, performance specs, or anything of the sort. Thats all.

I also agree that the Hurricane needs ordinance. Count me in as a Hurri ordinance winer too! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Cajun76
02-27-2004, 02:37 PM
John, you could very well be right about the metal ailerons. Of course, those might be metal, blunt-nosed ailerons, too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I don't have the resources. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif The numbers you're posting from the Q&A board seem to be spot on with the charts already shown in the thread.

I don't want to come out and say AHT is wrong. If you look at the pic I posted, the shape of the ailerons seems to be unique compared to the previous models of the P-47 series, imo. I posted it so anyone can come to their own conclusion. If I had a really decent, similar pic of a P-47D-30 or P-47M to compare, I'd show it. Most have the wrong angle, or are too small. Or I could be looking at the photos wrong, and there is no real difference. The part I'm referring to that seems to be modified is the where the outboard edge of the aileron ends. Early models taper to a point, later ones seem to have a small, straight edge, and the very last versions seem to have the aileron ending with almost as big an edge on the end as the the inboard portion.

The confusion might lie with how the N was developed. Where exactly it got the aileron could be a bit complicated. The M was a modified production D-30, and the N was a modification of the YP-47M. So I could very well be wrong, or right. One thing is certain, putting an ordanace loadout on the Hurri will be even easier pickings for the Jug. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I want an ordanace loadout for the Hurricane, too!

Btw, love the pic, Seafire. There's a mudmover in all of us, just bursting to get out. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[This message was edited by Cajun76 on Fri February 27 2004 at 10:47 PM.]

necrobaron
02-27-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Oh, and one other thing about P-47s in general, in the game. Has anybody had the fuel tanks reseal after getting a leak? I can't recall ever seeing the leak stop on my P-47. I've seen other planes fuel leaks stop during a fight, but not the P-47. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've noticed this too. I'm fairly sure that Jugs had self-sealing fuel tanks. Has it always been this way? I've only noticed this little quirk post-1.22. I'd say it was an innocent mistake. Oh and the D-27 rolls too slow. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

LuftLuver
02-27-2004, 10:01 PM
Definitely another flaw in the P47 modeling. Fortunately @ 25% fuel the Jug will continue motating long after these annoying leaks. I suppose that's why this hasn't come up so often.

Fix the P47/D27 roll rate please, Oleg, ok? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Aaron_GT
02-28-2004, 02:25 AM
I think it might be possibly a flaw in the
graphical modelling as anything else. I got
my fuel tanks holed flying an He111 a few
weeks ago. Visually I was still losing fuel,
but I seemed to stop losing fuel. The visuals
sometimes seem to be only loosely coupled to
the physics engine.

Or it could be the P47 doesn't have self
sealing tanks modelled - more testing required.

p1ngu666
02-28-2004, 07:22 AM
pretty sure it had self sealing. ive run out of fuel but never thought much of it but your right..

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-28-2004, 07:24 AM
I haven't seen a P-47 fuel tank seal yet...I think its the same with the P-51 but I suppose that theory needs testing.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Recon_609IAP
02-28-2004, 08:13 AM
The point that gets missed over and over again - because this comes up every other week around here:

The only argument is the one that Skychimp has posted:
&gt; the roll rates of other aircraft are based on 50lb not 30lb.

What the Jug pilots are requesting is that the same that was used on the other p47 models, also be used on the D27.

Clear, simple, not abstract, precise debate. Leave the subjective out.

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

[This message was edited by Tully__ on Fri March 12 2004 at 05:16 AM.]

SkyChimp
02-28-2004, 09:24 AM
The P-47D-27 roll rate is not going to get fixed. There is more to the poor roll rate than just a simple error on Oleg's part.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-28-2004, 10:17 AM
What's this other thing to which you allude, SkyChimp?

ASH at S-MART
02-28-2004, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
There is more to the poor roll rate than just a simple error on Oleg's part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More? Do tell!!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

GR142_Astro
02-28-2004, 02:54 PM
I've never shouted bias on these forums and I won't start now. Must be something we are not being told.

I certainly hope the 1C crew is reading this thread. It is such an easy fix. Consider the German gun reticles. How long has this game been out and they are just now correcting it??? They said the modeler made an error. Hey, we don't mind errors-we are all human afterall. I disagree Chimp, Oleg could pop on here one day and say, "Hey, we used 30lb pressure instead of 50....our mistake."

____________________________

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limosine anyway." ~TheClash~

Recon_609IAP
02-28-2004, 03:07 PM
"Oleg could pop on here one day and say, "Hey, we used 30lb pressure instead of 50....our mistake."

For the D27 only. He doesn't need to say it's a mistake, just needs to clarify which he did - and by the testing I've seen it would say he did use 30lb for the D27 and not 50lb

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

VW-IceFire
02-28-2004, 07:01 PM
It really does seem like the 30lbs was used on the D-27 and the fix to 50lbs was made on the D-10 and D-22.

Like I said...I'm pretty certain that the RC02 or the previous Beta patch had a fixed D-27. It was great....and then it seems like it got overwritten because it was back to 1.11 again.

I really think it was an oversight. I'd love to hear some clairifcation. Also...look at the P-40's roll rate...which was neglected for a long time and then later fixed...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

AaronGT
02-29-2004, 02:45 AM
I tend to agree, IceFire, as the
same thing seemed to happen
with bomber gunner accuracy.
It suggests to me an error in
merging versions of code checked
out by the development team.
This may even be an error of the
source control software rather
than a failure of software
engineering procedures. You
would normally then QA the final
version but with the number of
things to check it is possible that
some things slipped through the
net in the rush to get the patch
out.

LuftLuver
02-29-2004, 06:32 AM
Exactly AaronGT.

I think this is just one thing that slipped through the cracks. They'll get to it eventually. I have confidence in the 1C boys.

MandMs
02-29-2004, 07:02 AM
It would be nice to think so BUT, the roll rates for all 3 models of the P-47 were 'off' and were supposidly corrected. That would mean that no one tested the final release to see if the roll rates were correct &gt; incompetence on someones part, for sure.

Or it is possible that it was tested and found to be out somewhat, but said so what, the other 2 are OK now and the b*t**en will stop. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif



I eat the red ones last.

VW-IceFire
02-29-2004, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
It would be nice to think so BUT, the roll rates for all 3 models of the P-47 were 'off' and were supposidly corrected. That would mean that no one tested the final release to see if the roll rates were correct &gt; incompetence on someones part, for sure.

Or it is possible that it was tested and found to be out somewhat, but said so what, the other 2 are OK now and the b*t**en will stop. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you probably missed what I said and what AaronGT added. The D-27 was fixed in a beta patch that some of us were playing before 1.21 was final. It was the same as the other P-47's (or almost). Then the roll rate was back to 1.11 standard all of a sudden.

Its possible that a code merge overwrote old code...its unlikely that they test every single plane with as much detail as a army of forum posters can in a matter of minutes. I don't believe it there fault...I think it was a mistake made.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

p1ngu666
02-29-2004, 03:05 PM
skychimp made a thread awhile ago about this...
thats how he knows
and i cant remmber so :\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Aaron_GT
03-01-2004, 01:17 AM
"Its possible that a code merge overwrote old code...its unlikely that they test every single plane with as much detail as a army of forum posters can in a matter of minutes. I don't believe it there fault...I think it was a mistake made."

Indeed. At the expense of repeating myself,
bomber gunners seemed to get toned down in the
same beta patch, and then return to full
ferocity in the final patch, which again
suggests a code merge issue. It may have been
the wrong code merged (error on the part of
Oleg's team) or a screw up by the revision
control tool being used (which I have seen
happen before).

The good news is that if it has been fixed
once (in the beta patch) then it can be
fixed again and it isn't some sort of
supposed anti-American bias by Oleg, but
simply a mistake. I don't know why it hasn't
been fixed again subsequently, but perhaps
the code that changed the behaviour has been
lost and it hasn't received a high enough
priority to get those changes done again.
Has anyone actually logged it as an official
bug? Or it might about to be fixed in AEP?

T_O_A_D
03-01-2004, 03:14 AM
The problem I have with all flight model threads is no one ever gives out there joystick config.

The config has alot to do with roll rate,and elevator,and rudder. You can shnge it to do alot worse or alot better, than the stock settings, for your sensitivety.

Till you set them the same or properley per aircrafts max ability how are you to know its correct or not?

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
131st_Toad's Squad link (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
2.11 drivers (http://home.mchsi.com/~131st-vfw/NaturalPoint_trackIR_2_11.exe)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

MandMs
03-01-2004, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Its possible that a code merge overwrote old code...its unlikely that they test every single plane with as much detail as a army of forum posters can in a matter of minutes. I don't believe it there fault...I think it was a mistake made.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes is a possibility, but...

Considering all the noise about the P-47's roll rates would it not seem logical to test the 3 models to make sure that they were correct before final release?



I eat the red ones last.

VW-IceFire
03-01-2004, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Its possible that a code merge overwrote old code...its unlikely that they test every single plane with as much detail as a army of forum posters can in a matter of minutes. I don't believe it there fault...I think it was a mistake made.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes is a possibility, but...

Considering all the _noise_ about the P-47's roll rates would it not seem logical to test the 3 models to make sure that they were correct before final release?



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes...but with deadlines approaching...sometimes stuff it supposed to have been checked and someone made a cursory glace at it without actually realizing that something was wrong. Does the P-47 roll at alll....yes good...next plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

GR142_Astro
03-02-2004, 12:06 AM
Did anyone keep the old patches to test this theory that the D27 rolled better in pre-1.22?

I've done away with my copies.

____________________________

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limosine anyway." ~TheClash~

Aaron_GT
03-02-2004, 01:31 AM
I should have the old patches somewhere.

Aaron_GT
03-02-2004, 01:31 AM
It was pre 1.21 I think, not pre 1.22 that
is the issue, anyway.

Aaron_GT
03-02-2004, 01:32 AM
I think in creating 1.21 the biggest issue
appeared to be fixing things such as the
sound problems, and the Me-262 dead engine
issues.

LuftLuver
03-02-2004, 09:43 AM
Interesting that Oleg is silent here, yet came down like an anvil on the 190 boys and their forward view. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Maybe this means the AEP in the next few days holds the answer. Is my optimism catching on yet? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

PzKpfw
03-02-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Interesting that Oleg is silent here, yet came down like an anvil on the 190 boys and their forward view.

I was thinking the same thing after seeing his reponces in the P-40, P-51 , etc threads, and none here.

Found an interesting comment on the P-47M roll rate in the JFC text from Paxuxent River* Ie,

Ailerons:

Remarks - Force: High at high speed. Recommend 30 pound force. Nice force curve gradient. Effectiveness: Rate of roll to slow.


*See: Report of Joint Fighter Conference NAS Patuxent River, MD 16 - 23 Oct. 1944 p.283

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

SkyChimp
03-02-2004, 05:45 PM
John, what you posted looks like a single statement when it is really three distinctly seperate remarks.

When it came to "Aileron Force", 4 pilots rated it "GOOD", 1 rated it "HIGH", and 3 rated it "LIGHT."

When it came to "Aileron Effectiveness", 7 rated it "GOOD," while none rated it "FAIR," "POOR," "HIGH," "MODERATE," or "LIGHT."

In the remarks section, one person said about force, "High at high speed." One person said, "Recommend 30lb force." One said, "Nice force curve gradient." I think that last one is actually a compliment.

One person said about effectiveness, "Rate of roll too slow."

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bull_dog_
03-02-2004, 08:05 PM
I just read that the rate of climb for the P-40 was reduced in AEP...to me that is good news since Oleg is still fine tuning flight models...and there is hope that the Jug will be fixed...maybe we'll know tomorrow.

PzKpfw
03-02-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
John, what you posted looks like a single statement when it is really three distinctly seperate remarks.



Chimp yes I meant to go back and edit that but RL got in the way, not to mention I need a magnifing glass to see those cards :D.......


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

LuftLuver
03-03-2004, 06:50 PM
Well how 'bout it?

Has AEP done anything for the wallowing D27?

SkyChimp
03-03-2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Well how 'bout it?

Has AEP done anything for the wallowing D27?

no

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Heuristic_ALgor
03-03-2004, 10:18 PM
D-27 roll rate seems better now :)

LuftLuver
03-08-2004, 04:54 PM
I could be dizzy with AEP excitement, but the D27 feels ever-so-slightly lighter on the controls now......

But the roll rate in the D27 is being measured on a different scale than the D10/22. It's an English to Russian translation, I'm sure.

Equality please Oleg, thanks! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Bull_dog_
03-09-2004, 02:42 PM
bump

dbuff
03-10-2004, 07:10 AM
SkyChimp -
Perhaps you get your wish - I think?
Oleg makes comment on p47 rollrate here.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=731107852&p=5

non solum armis

Aaron_GT
03-10-2004, 07:31 AM
What Oleg wrote:
"r P-47C there is curve for 50 Lb Stick force. Test with our on these speeds please!.
For D-30 ( that is equal to modelled in our sim
for roll rate) - make by a pencil the line of curve of 30 Lb for stick to 50 Lb and you will get very close... It will be visible that it is lower than for P-47C. The main reason - pilons. Nown when I explain test yourself. You will see that on critical speed we have it a bit better than should.... Just becaseu we ae tired of P-47 fans that think that they know everything.... Not all of cource, but many of them."

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dbuff:
SkyChimp -
Perhaps you get your wish - I think?
Oleg makes comment on p47 rollrate here.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=731107852&p=5

non solum armis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Confirm. We yesterday just tested again several times.
We get absolutely identical results for P-47D-22 and 27 (and in code it is IDENTICAL), so I don't know how some users get different result!

Bllow what I posted already and I really recommend to LOOK for the book that recommended for me as a best reference (sorry, but it is good book for novices... Sad I spend so much money on this one. There are better separate tech books for each aircraft and FLIGHT MANUALS That tells really excat didgits of a SERIAL aircraft....)

So:

3. Forget it. We have it BETTER than in so-loved and really _buggy_ book American Hundred Thousand.
There are curves for P-47 (really for XP-47!), P-47C, P-47D-30, and just a point of maximal rate for D-40.

For P-47C there is curve for 50 Lb Stick force. Test with our on these speeds please!.
For D-30 ( that is equal to modelled in our sim
for roll rate) - make by a pencil the line of curve of 30 Lb for stick to 50 Lb and you will get very close... It will be visible that it is lower than for P-47C. The main reason - pilons. Nown when I explain test yourself. You will see that on critical speed we have it a bit better than should.... Just becaseu we ae tired of P-47 fans that think that they know everything.... Not all of cource, but many of them.


Enough said.

PS... Look there in book on which speed is the maximal rated roll rate! Please learn the curve!!!!

Heart_C
03-10-2004, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

Confirm. We yesterday just tested again several times.
We get absolutely identical results for P-47D-22 and 27 (and in code it is IDENTICAL), so I don't know how some users get different result!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHAT? Now, I heard stuff like that about the P-38 rollrate (albeit I seem to be one of the lucky guys who gets the 5 second rollrate (w/o using rudder) instead of the 7 second rollrate.
Although I cannot believe it. How in the world can that be connected to the user? My joystick setup is fine, I get the maximum movement, but the D-27 rollrate is just off across the board and far worse than the one of the other Jugs. It is certainly not "absolutely identical" here, or on anyone elses computer from what I've heard. Actually, I'm wondering now if there might be differences regarding how you installed the different patches. If you used x over x patches or the full patches. And with AEP, if you installed it over 1.21 or 1.0 (or even 1.22 for that matter, albeit you should not do that according to the manual).

Very weird.

Regards
heartc

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heart_C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

Confirm. We yesterday just tested again several times.
We get absolutely identical results for P-47D-22 and 27 (and in code it is IDENTICAL), so I don't know how some users get different result!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHAT? Now, I heard stuff like that about the P-38 rollrate (albeit I seem to be one of the lucky guys who gets the 5 second rollrate (w/o using rudder) instead of the 7 second rollrate.
Although I cannot believe it. How in the world can that be connected to the user? My joystick setup is fine, I get the maximum movement, but the D-27 rollrate is just off across the board and far worse than the one of the other Jugs. It is certainly not "absolutely identical" here, or on anyone elses computer from what I've heard. Actually, I'm wondering now if there might be differences regarding how you installed the different patches. If you used x over x patches or the full patches. And with AEP, if you installed it over 1.21 or 1.0 (or even 1.22 for that matter, albeit you should not do that according to the manual).

Very weird.

Regards
heartc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDITED:

There is not differences if you install over 1.0, 1.11. 1.21 or 1.22. Because AEP contains all of this... It is included last changes in 1.22... The problems in install routine if it doesn't find registry in Windows. And it can't be related to what is in code. The code is inside AEP installation and it is simply overwrites all the patches, if such was installed, there with new files. Hope all understand it.

Forst of all I wrote that no differences beween D22 and D27. But with D-10 is the differences. This is right and correct. D10 had almost absolutely the same as C version - farter than later versions of D with pilons.

I think the user need a proper drivers for a Joystick or ask manufacturer why they do not put in driver full STANDARD deflection. Its about why 1 per 10 users has 7 sec instead of 5 sec. Please think about this statistic.

For these who don't trust - Write on Beta address the request for track for roll rate on proper table speed from American Handred thousand book for P-38 and you will get it. Sorry your post isn't valid.

[This message was edited by Oleg_Maddox on Wed March 10 2004 at 07:04 AM.]

[This message was edited by Oleg_Maddox on Wed March 10 2004 at 07:13 AM.]

VW-IceFire
03-10-2004, 08:06 AM
Thanks Oleg for your response. Definately needed to hear something so thank you!

In a test I did I find that the D-27 and D-22 are almost the same at slow speed (0.5 to 1.0 seconds difference) of 400 kph @ 1000 meters but a difference of upto 2 seconds at 500 kph @ 1000 meters. Both with 100% fuel in this instance.

Using MS Sidewinder Precision Pro 2. I wonder if that has an effect. Even so...wouldn't it do it for both? Another thought...if the D-27 is heavier than the D-22 would the engine then change the roll rate for the craft based on that? Just a thought http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(if so, the engine is even more detailed than I thought http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Thanks Oleg for your response. Definately needed to hear something so thank you!

In a test I did I find that the D-27 and D-22 are almost the same at slow speed (0.5 to 1.0 seconds difference) of 400 kph @ 1000 meters but a difference of upto 2 seconds at 500 kph @ 1000 meters. Both with 100% fuel in this instance.

Using MS Sidewinder Precision Pro 2. I wonder if that has an effect. Even so...wouldn't it do it for both? Another thought...if the D-27 is heavier than the D-22 would the engine then change the roll rate for the craft based on that? Just a thought http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(if so, the engine is even more detailed than I thought http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In code they are identical. They have identical values for all things. Real D22 and D-27 series were diffent mostly with cockpit equipment as I know. Even flight manual for them is identical.
So I think you simply has some irregularities in your tests.
And the peak of roll rate for P-47 is on lower spped according the book mentioned above.

VW-IceFire
03-10-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Thanks Oleg for your response. Definately needed to hear something so thank you!

In a test I did I find that the D-27 and D-22 are almost the same at slow speed (0.5 to 1.0 seconds difference) of 400 kph @ 1000 meters but a difference of upto 2 seconds at 500 kph @ 1000 meters. Both with 100% fuel in this instance.

Using MS Sidewinder Precision Pro 2. I wonder if that has an effect. Even so...wouldn't it do it for both? Another thought...if the D-27 is heavier than the D-22 would the engine then change the roll rate for the craft based on that? Just a thought http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(if so, the engine is even more detailed than I thought http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In code they are identical. They have identical values for all things. Real D22 and D-27 series were diffent mostly with cockpit equipment as I know. Even flight manual for them is identical.
So I think you simply has some irregularities in your tests.
And the peak of roll rate for P-47 is on lower spped according the book mentioned above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed...the peak roll rate is definately at lower speeds according to everything I've ever read. At higher speeds the roll rate tends to diminish.

Here's another thought of mine. The D-22 almost instantly picks up its peak roll rate. The D-27 takes its time getting there. I know this is totally subjective and utterly devoid of any numbers, books, or proof (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), but if I want to rapidly change direction...in a D-22 I can do it. In a D-27 I can't...if I throw the stick hard to the left or right the D-22 quickly responds while the D-27 does not. Subjective yes but there is something to it...I know it sounds impossible. If in the code its exactly the same then why the heck is it going to be different in game...

I don't have too much time (heavy essay season at University http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) but I can do a track for D-27 and D-22 and let you see what I see. I don't have AEP yet BTW. So I'm not sure if something is different there....

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Heart_C
03-10-2004, 08:27 AM
I want to thank you, too, Oleg. Especially for clarifying on the patch issue.

However, the rest confuses me: Since I do get the 5 second rollrate and not the 7 second rollrate on the P-38, I should assume that my joystick (and/or driver) works just fine, right? Yet the rollrate of the D-27 is considerably lower than that of the other Jug D versions (including the D-22), the more airspeed you pick up, the bigger is the difference. They (D-22 and D-27) are not identical at all, like you say it is for you. This does not make sense for me.

Further: You further say there have been no changes to gunnery/DM/weapon effectiveness whatsover (except for the refinement of the 190 DM). Yet I would bet my a$$ that there were significant changes done to weapon effectivness for all weapons / sturdness of the a/c.

Actually, it makes me wonder if you are testing the same AEP which has been released by UBI soft...

Regards and thank you for answering in this thread,

heartc

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Thanks Oleg for your response. Definately needed to hear something so thank you!

In a test I did I find that the D-27 and D-22 are almost the same at slow speed (0.5 to 1.0 seconds difference) of 400 kph @ 1000 meters but a difference of upto 2 seconds at 500 kph @ 1000 meters. Both with 100% fuel in this instance.

Using MS Sidewinder Precision Pro 2. I wonder if that has an effect. Even so...wouldn't it do it for both? Another thought...if the D-27 is heavier than the D-22 would the engine then change the roll rate for the craft based on that? Just a thought http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(if so, the engine is even more detailed than I thought http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In code they are identical. They have identical values for all things. Real D22 and D-27 series were diffent mostly with cockpit equipment as I know. Even flight manual for them is identical.
So I think you simply has some irregularities in your tests.
And the peak of roll rate for P-47 is on lower spped according the book mentioned above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed...the peak roll rate is definately at lower speeds according to everything I've ever read. At higher speeds the roll rate tends to diminish.

Here's another thought of mine. The D-22 almost instantly picks up its peak roll rate. The D-27 takes its time getting there. I know this is totally subjective and utterly devoid of any numbers, books, or proof (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), but if I want to rapidly change direction...in a D-22 I can do it. In a D-27 I can't...if I throw the stick hard to the left or right the D-22 quickly responds while the D-27 does not. Subjective yes but there is something to it...I know it sounds impossible. If in the code its exactly the same then why the heck is it going to be different in game...

I don't have too much time (heavy essay season at University http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) but I can do a track for D-27 and D-22 and let you see what I see. I don't have AEP yet BTW. So I'm not sure if something is different there....

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes send the track where D22 and D-27 on higher than peak speed are different. Both things roll rate and shrp changes of directions.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heart_C:
I want to thank you, too, Oleg. Especially for clarifying on the patch issue.

However, the rest confuses me: Since I do get the 5 second rollrate and not the 7 second rollrate on the P-38, I should assume that my joystick (and/or driver) works just fine, right? Yet the rollrate of the D-27 is considerably lower than that of the other Jug D versions (including the D-22), the more airspeed you pick up, the bigger is the difference. They (D-22 and D-27) are not identical at all, like you say it is for you. This does not make sense for me.

Further: You further say there have been no changes to gunnery/DM/weapon effectiveness whatsover (except for the refinement of the 190 DM). Yet I would bet my a$$ that there were significant changes done to weapon effectivness for all weapons / sturdness of the a/c.

Actually, it makes me wonder if you are testing the same AEP which has been released by UBI soft...

Regards and thank you for answering in this thread,

heartc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, we will check on higher speeds. This probably may happens. I don't remeber why and for which reason, but may happens. Need to ask programmers and look for develoment docs.

But I will repeat on low table speeds comparing to this book they are really identical in code.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heart_C:
I want to thank you, too, Oleg. Especially for clarifying on the patch issue.

However, the rest confuses me: Since I do get the 5 second rollrate and not the 7 second rollrate on the P-38, I should assume that my joystick (and/or driver) works just fine, right? Yet the rollrate of the D-27 is considerably lower than that of the other Jug D versions (including the D-22), the more airspeed you pick up, the bigger is the difference. They (D-22 and D-27) are not identical at all, like you say it is for you. This does not make sense for me.

Further: You further say there have been no changes to gunnery/DM/weapon effectiveness whatsover (except for the refinement of the 190 DM). Yet I would bet my a$$ that there were significant changes done to weapon effectivness for all weapons / sturdness of the a/c.

Actually, it makes me wonder if you are testing the same AEP which has been released by UBI soft...

Regards and thank you for answering in this thread,

heartc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you have just fine joy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and drivers for joy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Heart_C
03-10-2004, 08:46 AM
Thank you for your efforts Oleg, this is very kind.

And let me say that I overall enjoy FB and the AEP very much. Everytime I go back and give CFS3 another try, I feel all the more thankfull for your work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. FB is the Falcon 4.0 SP4 of propsims for me.

Aaron_GT
03-10-2004, 11:06 AM
I hear the way to test it to use the keyboard
rather than the joystick to take any effects
of stick performance or config out of the
equation.

IceFire: I did all my testing of roll rates
in 1.0 with a Precision Pro stick, although
I am using a MSFF2 now.

I might quickly test the D22 and D27 tonight
as I don't think I have the energy for a full
squadron practice tonight.

VW-IceFire
03-10-2004, 12:13 PM
I'll also do that tonight after an essay is handed in. A complete manuverability test and I'll record the tracks and then send them off.

Much appreciated that its being looked into!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

chris455
03-10-2004, 12:29 PM
Oleg,
Thank you for your response. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Would it be possible for you to publish an .NTRK showing the maximum roll rate your testers get when flying the D27? That way we can watch the track and compare the results against what we get when we are flying it. Then maybe we can begin to look at our speeds, techniques, or joysticks, and not the game code.

Do you feel this is a worthwhile idea?

Thank you again Oleg for speaking to us on this-
Chris


http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Wed March 10 2004 at 11:41 AM.]

LuftLuver
03-10-2004, 01:17 PM
Oleg, thank you very much for visiting this topic. We all appreciate this very much.

I will test D22 v D27 using KEYBOARD.

Again, thanks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
03-10-2004, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I hear the way to test it to use the keyboard
rather than the joystick to take any effects
of stick performance or config out of the
equation.

IceFire: I did all my testing of roll rates
in 1.0 with a Precision Pro stick, although
I am using a MSFF2 now.

I might quickly test the D22 and D27 tonight
as I don't think I have the energy for a full
squadron practice tonight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
FB 1.0? P-47 roll rates were fixed big time from that version. None of them could even effectively fight in combat in 1.0...not to mention that the .50 cals did only small amounts of damage. You might want to use 1.21, 1.22 or AEP. If thats what you mean...unless you mean Sidewinder 1.0 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

AaronGT
03-10-2004, 02:43 PM
Icefire:
I did a fairly extensive set of tests
when FB 1.0 came out, comparing
it against P47 performance in a
number of sims. When FB was
patched the contention was that
the D.27 didn't get changed.
Furthermore Skychimp suggested
that the roll rate was poorer
than the C model at 30 lb force.
I still had my tests of 1.0 to hand
so posted them. I've certainly
looked at the roll rates since then,
but didn't save the results.

VW-IceFire
03-10-2004, 02:51 PM
Gotcha. We'll both do some tests (and others are welcome - especially SkyChimp I would think) and we'll submit it to the beta e-mail and see what they can figure out.

Like before, I suspect this may be some kind of bug. There is definately a pronounced difference in the entire manuverability of the D-22 VS the D-27. Lets see if we can shake it out.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

BerkshireHunt
03-10-2004, 03:16 PM
If torque reaction is coded differently for the D22 and D27 it could affect peak roll rate at low speed. Low speed- torque reaction not counterbalanced by aerodynamic forces to the same degree as high speed. Is D27 torque lower than D22?
For what its worth I agree with my American cousins that there is most definitely a difference in- game.

VW-IceFire
03-10-2004, 03:33 PM
Here's the tests that I conducted.

P-47D-22
400 kph (three tests)
- 3.67 seconds
- 3.17 seconds
- 3.62 seconds

500 kph (three tests)
- 5.17 seconds
- 4.78 seconds
- 5.01 seconds

P-47D-27
400 kph (three tests)
- 4.84 seconds
- 4.88 seconds
-. 4.84 seconds

500 kph (three tests)
- 7.15 seconds
- 7.58 seconds
- 7.08 seconds

As I said to Oleg...I know virtually nothing about aeronautics and I won't profess to. Only what I can see and test. If things are accurate I am happy. I know however that if the two should be the same there is something different with the results that I have captured here. I did three tests for each aircraft at two airspeeds (400 and 500).

FYI: The two track files and these numbers have been submitted to il2beta@1c.ru.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

LuftLuver
03-10-2004, 03:42 PM
Outstanding Icefire.

Shall we just stand by these results and let Oleg & 1C run with it from here?

Maybe something will happen by the upcoming patch..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

VW-IceFire
03-10-2004, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Outstanding Icefire.

Shall we just stand by these results and let Oleg & 1C run with it from here?

Maybe something will happen by the upcoming patch..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd like it if at least two other people also did the same test to roughly the same parameters (1000 meters, 400 and 500 kph, crimea, 100% fuel etc.) and then posted it.

I also totally forgot something...my system specs:

Forgotten Battles 1.22
AMD 2700+
Asus A7N8X Deluxe (nForce 2)
512mb RAM (PC2700)
ATI Radeon 9700Pro
Sidewinder Precision Pro 2 joystick with default Microsoft drivers on a USB connection. Default FB joystick settings.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Bull_dog_
03-10-2004, 06:12 PM
I am soooo glad to see Oleg in this post...

Thank you Oleg...my virtual self will be complete with a few tweaks of the Jug's fm...at least until the next add-on which I will gladly pay the $30.00 for.

There is still hope...what I find intruiging is the contradiction and debate. I don't believe in contradictions...I read and later came to believe that when faced with contradictions, one must check ones premises because contradictions are, in fact, impossible and therefore one or more of the premises is false...

The contradiction: The code is the same but the the planes roll rates are different. Sounds like Oleg may have a contradiction too in that the roll rates are not different on his computer.

The premises:

The code is the same
The roll rates are different
Only the code affects the roll rate
It must be the computer
We're all imagining this (subjective reality)

I'm sure there are other premises I'm not seeing...this aught to be interesting...yes on my computer the D-27 rolls slower than the D-10. I hope we sort out the false premise because I just want my Jug to fly like it did in WWII and it doesn't based on what I know today....which of course I don't know for certain since I never flew a Jug for real http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good luck and happy hunting...I've got my fingers crossed.

SkyChimp
03-10-2004, 06:36 PM
Oleg:

First, there is nothing wrong with America's Hundred Thousand. Despite your assertions, it is not buggy. And if you read the bibliography, you will see that the data in the book comes from some of the reports YOU used to develope the flight models in this game. Yes there are better single sources on individual planes, and I own a lot of them. But America's Hundred Thousand is the best single book on all of US production fighters in WWII - period.



Second, I don't think you understand the complaints made about the roll rate of the P-47D-27 in FB.

You say you made it to roll like the P-47D-30 chart. Great! And for the most part it does! Since you referenced the chart in Americas Hundred Thousand, I've graphed the P-47D-27 roll in AEP against it for comparison:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/p47d27roll.JPG

In fact, at low speed the D-27 is better than the chart. But at useful combat speeds, it isn't. And please don't say I have a problem with my joystick, I've tested it on 2 seperate Logitech sticks and a Saitex X45. It's always the same.

Now...

...You assert this chart shows maximum roll rate. Well, it doesn't. It only shows the maximum roll rate with a 30 pound stick force.

Oleg, you have the P-47D-10 and the P-47D-22 to roll pretty close to the 50lbs chart. I have no complaints with them. But why do you think that 30lbs was the maximum force a pilot could exert in the D-27 when he was obviously capable of 50lbs in the D-10 and D-22?

That's sort of silly.

Look at the P-47D-30 roll chart in that NACA report. I know you have it. On that chart, best roll rate was achieved at 210-220 mph IAS with a 30lbb stick force. That's because 30lbs of force was sufficient to fully deflect the ailerons up to that speed. Above that speed, 30lbs was no longer sufficient to fully deflect the ailerons and the roll rate started to drop.

So, all the pilot had to do is exert more than 30lbs of force at 210-220mph to keep the ailerons fully deflected.

What would happen if the pilot exerted 50lbs of force? Well, nothing up to 220mph IAS since the ailerons were already fully deflected with just 30lbs of force - so 50lbs would have been a wasted effort.

BUT, 50lbs of force would have KEPT THE AILERONS FULLY DEFLECTED LONGER above 220mph with an ever-increasing roll rate UNTIL even 50lbs was no longer sufficient to keep the ailerions fully deflected.

Here is the NACA chart. The green line is how your P-47D-27 rolls in AEP. The black line is how it rolled in real life with a 30lb stick force. The red line, which I placed there, indicates how it would have rolled with a 50lb stick force:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/rollcompare.jpg

Get it?

You think the D-27 could roll no faster than the black line. And you are right if the pilot applied no more force than 30lbs. But if he applied 50 lbs, it would have continued to roll faster beyond 220mph until 50lbs was no longer good enough.



If you have a problem with my chart or method, then reflect on this:

Here is a roll chart for the P-39. You can see the difference in roll rates between a 30lb force and a 50lb force:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/p39roll.jpg

In this chart, you can precisely see the benefits of applying 50lbs of force instead of 30lbs of force. The plane rolls the same with either 30 or 50 pounds of force at low speeds since 30lbs is enough to fully deflect the ailerons. But at that speed where 30lbs is not enough, the roll rate begins to fall off. 50lbs of force keeps the ailerons deflected LONGER, thus achieving higher roll rates.

---

So, in short, you don't have it right with the P-47D-27. Sorry.

You have the D-10 and the D-27 rolling with roughly a 50lb force, but the D-27 rolling with just a 30lbs force. You need to have the D-27 rolling with a 50lbs force, too.

Please don't tell me about your code. I know nothing about your code. If it's the same for all planes, great. All I know is is that the D-27 is rolling a lot slower than it should over about 240 mph IAS.

You've made the best combat flight simulator in history. And I don't profess to be an expert at anything. But I do know this subject. And for the sake of accuracy, I think you need to fix the D-27 roll rate.


Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Wed March 10 2004 at 05:44 PM.]

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sun March 14 2004 at 07:39 AM.]

GR142_Astro
03-10-2004, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oleg:

You've made the best combat flight simulator in history.....And for the sake of accuracy, I think you need to fix the D-27 roll rate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to this, and I think we're inching closer all the time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/kinetic/SigImages/LockheedLightningMed.jpg

____________________________

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limosine anyway." ~TheClash~

Aaron_GT
03-11-2004, 01:29 AM
Skychimp - there &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; something odd about your
figures from in the game. I don't have AEP
so I can only compare with FB without AEP.

Rates in degrees/sec
&lt;table&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;speed&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;My rate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Skychimp&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;30lb rate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;300&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;72&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;45&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;340&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;45&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;400&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;36&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;31&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;

I am using either a Precision Pro or MS FF2.

My processor is an AMD XP 2000.

Aaron_GT
03-11-2004, 01:33 AM
Ok - still no HTML code on the new board...

Rates in degrees/sec

speed - My rate - Skychimp - 30lb rate
300 - 72 - 35 - 45
340 - 45 - 33 - 38
400 - 36 - 31 - n/a

Given the figures you are seeing I can see
where you were coming from in saying that the
rates are less good than the rates for a 30lb
stick force (I apologise for getting shirty
about that). However I see rates much better
than a 30lb stick force.

Maybe this is another version of the bug which
is plauging P38 roll rates?

Aaron_GT
03-11-2004, 01:37 AM
Ice Fire - I didn't get chance to do an
extensive test last night - but I'll try
to replicate your tests on my PC tonight,
as I seem to be getting faster rates than
SkyChimp does, so it might be a good test
on my PC in that case (This will be with
FB 1.22, not AEP, though).

Aaron_GT
03-11-2004, 01:39 AM
P.S. the figures I just posted above are
in mph IAS, but I'll replicate ice fire's
tests in kph for both models.

VW-IceFire
03-11-2004, 06:15 AM
Yeah this is the point where I'm totally confused and I really can't seem to sort out an answer.

If Oleg and SkyChimp are reading the same data tables then there should be some kind of argeement in the end there.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Aaron_GT
03-11-2004, 10:18 AM
Well Oleg has said that the D27 should
perform the same as the D22, but that
he would doublecheck. It doesn't seem
to be any misunderstanding of the charts
if the D-22 is broadly correct, but might
be another bug like the difference in
roll rate fro the P38 on some PCs.

I'll go and test now, though, on my PC.

Aaron_GT
03-11-2004, 10:25 AM
Actually before I do that, I just looked
at the red line from Skychimp's chart showing
the performance he gets.

Speeds are kph IAS

Speed - VW time - Skychimp time (360/rate)
400 - ~4.8 - ~7.2
500 - ~7.25 - ~10.2

So Skychimp is getting a roll rate of
about 30% less than VW IceFire. Now
this is odd, as we have the same planes
at the same speed, just two different
people/setups.

Aaron_GT
03-11-2004, 10:48 AM
model - time at 400kph - time at 500kph
D22 - 4 - 5.5
D27 - 4.5 - 7

So pretty much the same as Icefire's (to
within the limits of experimental accuracy).

Smolensk map, 1000m, 100% fuel, trimmed for level
flight, roll done via keyboard only.

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Here is the NACA chart. The green line is how your P-47D-27 rolls in AEP. The black line is how it rolled in real life with a 30lb stick force. The red line, which I placed there, indicates how it would have rolled with a 50lb stick force:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Chimp! Nice work! One question, about that chart.. You say the *black* line.. Im assuming it is the *big dashed* one above and not the *small dashed* or *solid* ones below... Just curious.. what are those two below? The smooth gradual, no spike ones?

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

On this topic.. the NACA like to *test* things in such a manor so they could *compair* things.. Which is why they would sometimes pick a *force* to do testing at.. That is to say they might have been interested in what the roll rate of the P47 was at 30lb.. and had the pilot do it at 30lb.. So they could compare it to other aircraft done at 30lb.. Which does NOT mean you could not apply 50lb!! Just that they my have considered 30lb to be what the *average* pilot could apply.

As with the P39 data Chimp posted.. Sometimes they were looking for other things, ie MAX ROLL RATE independed of force applyed.. Thus, this they did at severl different forces.

All in all, I think Chimp is onto somthing here.. And I can not tell you how happy I am to see Oleg posting here.. Oleg is a reasonable guy, and in the past, when someone presents valid data he is willing to consider it.. Or at least explain to us why it was not considered.. Thus Im very interested in the outcome of this thread!!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-11-2004, 02:48 PM
So SkyChimp...that one chart of yours with the curve from AEP overlayed on the other one is your tests? How many did you do to get each point? Was it an average of them? They look significantly lower than mine.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Aaron_GT
03-11-2004, 03:24 PM
We need more tests from more people. While
for Skychimp the roll rates might look like
they are modelled with 30lb stick force, his
roll rates measured in the game are about 30%
lower at 400 and 500 kph than myself or Ice
Fire are getting. So first I think we need
to survey roll rates over a wider spectrum of
speeds, and from a number of people. Then it
might reveal if there is a bug like the P38
roll rate bug first. Then given the modal
roll rates, we can then see if they are too
slow. In other words there may be two issues
overlaid.

I suggest using the Smolensk map, with the
D-27, 100% fuel. Plane trimmed to fly level,
and then the keyboard used to roll the plane
to ensure that there is no rudder input.
Best of three rolls to the right, at
300, 400, 500 and 600km/h IAS. This covers
pretty much the whole area of the D-30 30lb
roll rate graph. (The last one is 375mph, so
might need diving down to 1000m to get the
required speed).

Aaron_GT
03-11-2004, 03:25 PM
P.S. The maximum band in the stick config
should presumably be 100%. As I understand
it using the keyboard immediately moves
the aileron to maximum deflection, but the
stick config probably needs to be at 100% to
get a consistent baseline.

And then also most FB/AEP version, OS, and
processor type and speed to see if there
is a dependence there.

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I suggest using the Smolensk map, with the
D-27, 100% fuel. Plane trimmed to fly level,
and then the keyboard used to roll the plane
to ensure that there is no rudder input.
Best of three rolls to the right, at
300, 400, 500 and 600km/h IAS. This covers
pretty much the whole area of the D-30 30lb
roll rate graph. (The last one is 375mph, so
might need diving down to 1000m to get the
required speed).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm I saw somewhere recently that.. maybe.. the different PC's might get different results.. In a way.. It kind of makes sense.. In that a DOG would not be able to process the fm let alone the video fast enough.. Where as a top of the line PC might do better?

What we should do is get a POOL of people with varing aspects of PC..

Come up with a PROCEDURE document for all to follow... like you said, remove any unknows here, use the KEYBOARD instead of a JS and roll the ac. Make a track of it. Then watch the TRACK afterwards and TIME the roll rates.. Then share the TRACK with someone else and see if they get the same TIMES

But if differnt PC's give different results.. We may have a problem...

Hmmmm CALIBRATION!!

What we need is ONE guy to make ONE track.. Share that ONE track with eveyone and have them watch it and report the TIMES..

Once that is done, we might be able to come up with some way to scale the results..?

Hmmmmm Im game! Lets do it!!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

ASH at S-MART
03-11-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I suggest using the Smolensk map, with the
D-27, 100% fuel. Plane trimmed to fly level,
and then the keyboard used to roll the plane
to ensure that there is no rudder input.
Best of three rolls to the right, at
300, 400, 500 and 600km/h IAS. This covers
pretty much the whole area of the D-30 30lb
roll rate graph. (The last one is 375mph, so
might need diving down to 1000m to get the
required speed).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm I saw somewhere recently that.. maybe.. the different PC's might get different results.. In a way.. It kind of makes sense.. In that a DOG would not be able to process the fm let alone the video fast enough.. Where as a top of the line PC might do better?

What we should do is get a POOL of people with varing aspects of PC..

Come up with a PROCEDURE document for all to follow... like you said, remove any unknows here, use the KEYBOARD instead of a JS and roll the ac. Make a track of it. Then watch the TRACK afterwards and TIME the roll rates.. Then share the TRACK with someone else and see if they get the same TIMES

But if differnt PC's give different results.. We may have a problem...

Hmmmm CALIBRATION!!

What we need is ONE guy to make ONE track.. Share that ONE track with eveyone and have them watch it and report the TIMES..

Once that is done, we might be able to come up with some way to scale the results..?

Hmmmmm Im game! Lets do it!!

ASH at S-MART
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We will need a PROCEDURE for timming the rolls! ie when to star, when to stop.. What could we do VISUALLY to indicate the time to START and STOP the timming of the roll?

I GOT IT!! have the ONE guy making the CALIBRATION TRACK turn on the landing light at the start and stop.. That way we could all sync up to the ligh regardless of wings level.. kind of level.. near level..

The goal is to see how much the RR varies between different PCs..

It may or may not exist.. But we should establish that before we goto the next step of every joe making a track.. without knowing if all PC produce near same results, the later would be useless

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
Hey Chimp! Nice work! One question, about that chart.. You say the *black* line.. Im assuming it is the *big dashed* one above and not the *small dashed* or *solid* ones below... Just curious.. what are those two below? The smooth gradual, no spike ones?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I mean the black one between the green and red line. There are actually two black curves there, one for right, and one for left hand roll.

The big, dashed inverted V at top is the USAAF roll requirement for 30lbs force. It's sort of irrelevant here.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
So SkyChimp...that one chart of yours with the curve from AEP overlayed on the other one is your tests? How many did you do to get each point? Was it an average of them? They look significantly lower than mine.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've tested the P-47D-27 ad nauseum. Those points are averages from several tests.

I'm on my 3rd joystick since FB came out, and I've also tested it with all three sticks. The roll is always the same.

(BTW, there was nothing wrong with any of the sticks. I used to have a Logitech digital extreme, but I replaced it with a Saitek X45. I didn't like the X45 too much so I replaced that with a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. But all 3 sticks were in perfect working order.)

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 04:57 PM
OK, here are my D-22 test results (blue line) plotted on the AHT chart, along with the D-27 test results (red line).

Test done on same map, same speed, same altitude, same joystick:

//members.cox.net/us.fighters/d22roll.JPG

Quite a difference.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sun March 14 2004 at 07:41 AM.]

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 04:58 PM
Let's just hope Oleg pops back in.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
03-11-2004, 05:40 PM
S! All

Thanks SC for all information on the subject.

I got an email from Oleg stating the P47D-27 roll rate would be changed with the patch to reflect the P47D-30 roll rate.


Oleg--We corrected roll rate to the values without pylons. It will be higher than in American Hunded thousand book for D-30.

(Has this already been done? Could you elaborate please? )

Oleg----This will be in a patch - add-on.

I still dont know if this is the 30lb stick force or the 50lb stick force though.

Just waiting to hear like the rest of you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



________________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 05:46 PM
I'd be happy if the D-27 rolled the same as the D-22.

==============

BTW, pylons did not make the plane roll slower, just accelerate into the roll slower. So peak roll rate was the same, just at a higher speed.

The D-10's peak roll rate was not higher than the D-22. They both had a max roll rate with 50lbs of stick force of 85 degrees per second. The D-10 just reached it's max roll rate at a lower speed, because it could acclerate into its roll faster without pylons.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

chris455
03-11-2004, 06:03 PM
Major news, and good news!
Way to go gang! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-11-2004, 06:42 PM
Yeah I've sent some e-mails back and forth with Oleg since yesterday. I don't think the jury is out on this issue but this seems to be a difficult plane to get the physics in the flight engine to agree on.

I think this is probably a concession since nobody can exactly agree on things but if the final values are relatively close to what the charts and everyone seems to think they are then I'd feel that its close enough to historical for me. Nothing is perfect and we see this both ways.

Just out of curiosity SkyChimp. Whats the specs on your system and how is your joystick connected. We've got some seriously different results.

I've got Athlon 2700+, A7N8X (nForce 2), MS Preicision Pro 2 on a USB connect.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

SkyChimp
03-11-2004, 07:01 PM
P4 2.26 gig
1024 meg ddr
TI-4600
Logitech Extreme 3D Pro (USB)

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

LuftLuver
03-11-2004, 11:11 PM
Great news Oleg.

We are glad you care so much about your creation.

Now, about this 7-year plan.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BigKahuna_GS
03-12-2004, 03:22 AM
S! All

It's official, got it from Oleg himself:

P47D-27 to have 50lb stick force for roll rate!

Thanks so much for responding about the P47 roll rate. What will be the roll rate then in degrees/time ?

Oleg--At the piack will be higher than for P-47C, at 400 mph will be the same as P-47C. By other way is impossible

What source will you be using ? Will the new roll rate be in the patch to fix bugs in the current AEP?

Oleg--American Hundred thousand. See attach. By pencil drawn by me the curve that should be for 50lb for P-47D-30.
It will be a fix with coming addon with flyable Spitfires 9 and AI B-25s.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\2L0REBCT


Salute Oleg!

Thanks for fixing the Jug we appreciate it !



_______________


________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

Aaron_GT
03-12-2004, 04:32 AM
Good news!

I still think there is something odd about
what you are getting in terms of results,
Skychimp. Not that I am blaming you or
your joysticks, but your D22 roll rate looks
similar to what I and IceFire get for the
D27.

I think ASH_SMART's suggestion is a very good
one - do one track, time on many PCs. The
same goes as a good way to test the P38.
If there is a PC-dependent component it is
well worth looking at to try and track down
any residual bugs. Getting a possible PC-
dependent bug out of the system is going to
be good for everyone's sanity, mine, yours,
and Oleg's!

ShVAK
03-12-2004, 05:54 AM
Now to work on the paddle props - lol.


"If you want full realism, join the military!"

VW-IceFire
03-12-2004, 06:53 AM
Cool beans.

See what some evidence, some effort, and some serious discussion (rather than flaming and yelling at everyone in sight) can do. Oleg is a great guy...he will listen, but he like many people will not listen when the people making the argument have shot themselves in the foot by not expending the effort to actually go out, do the tests, compair the results and question everything.

I'm not beating my own chest here...all I did is sent some e-mails, suggested some things, plenty of other people in this thread did that as well. But it just goes to show that a proper effort, no matter what it is, is far better than yelling and screaming about it.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Diablo310th
03-12-2004, 06:56 AM
~S~ to Oleg for listening and making the changes to our beloved Jug. Another big S!! to IceFire and SkyChimp and everyone involved in getting the badly needed roll rate changes made. LOL like ShVAK said now the paddle prop..I know being greedy here but look out for the Jug now. She will be awsome now. Again..I really want to thank Oleg for putting up with all of us Jug drivers and for listening and looking at the data. This is THE best WW2 sim on the planet.

http://www.wellspringmarketing.biz/310th/Diablos20Sig.jpg

ShVAK
03-12-2004, 08:20 AM
Anyone with paddle prop data? I think it primarily affected low level performance.

Regardless, I once hoped that a future expansion would also be the genesis of the P-47M. I don't want this now, as then everyone would be flying it.

I'll stick to my trusty D10 (or soon D27), since they're already the best planes in the game!


"If you want full realism, join the military!"

Eagle_361st
03-12-2004, 08:45 AM
OMG http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Excellent work gents, I had given up on this months ago, your persistence has really paid off. And just when I was starting to feel myself slip over to the P-38 a bit more than my beloved Jug. Now I can return with good reason. Great, awesome, wonderful and cheers. Now how about those paddle blade props for the D-22 and D-27? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

BuzzU
03-12-2004, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
OMG http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Excellent work gents, I had given up on this months ago, your persistence has really paid off. And just when I was starting to feel myself slip over to the P-38 a bit more than my beloved Jug. Now I can return with good reason. Great, awesome, wonderful and cheers. Now how about those paddle blade props for the D-22 and D-27? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
http://www.361stvfg.com
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. This has given me enough hope to fire up The Jug again. I loved the plane, but the roll rate drove me crazy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-12-2004, 12:02 PM
I think the paddle blades were only issued to USAAF aircraft...could be wrong. But its probably like the Spitfire, its modeled by the version that the Russians got as part of lend lease.

Plus its probably more trouble than worth to setup the model with the paddle props. Lets not push our luck eh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

PzKpfw
03-12-2004, 12:44 PM
The Paddle blade was retro fitted to all P-47 in the ETO after entering service with the D-20 series P-47.

The Paddle offered a small speed advantage but gave a huge climb performance boost. Ie, in tests with earlier P-47 the Fw 190A-5 readily outclimbed the P-47.

After instalation of the new prop & Water Injection system the P-47 reportedly outclimed the Fw 190A-5 to 15000ft.

Anyway AHT has 2 P-47 speed and climb charts (30 & 31) that show pretty clearly the advantages of the later Paddle prop & WI advantages in climb, I believe Chimp has posted scans of them before.

As to what paddle is on the D's in FB I believe it is the Paddle as 1) WI was only IIRC added on planes built with the new prop, 2) I cant see Oleg makeing 2 models of each P-47 for the game Ie, an East front & West front version. Also remeber the Soviets were not impressed with much about the P-47 anyway.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Fri March 12 2004 at 01:41 PM.]

VW-IceFire
03-12-2004, 02:34 PM
VVS probably wasn't impressed because their air power doctrine was totally different than the Americans. Theirs called generally for small, fast, low altitude, highly manuverable fighters. Generally this also meant that they had centerline cannon and machinegun armament. The Jug is a full 180 from that. Its big, its heavy, its fast in a dive and at high speeds, its tough as nails, its not a turn fighter, and its got eight .50 cal machine guns outboard on the wings. Its like night and day http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For escort missions in the ETO in 1943 the Jug was pretty good for the time. Its range was quite good and probably better than the VVS fighters it was compaired to. In the PTO, the reliability of the radial engine that was in it, which would perform despite some serious battle damage, was beneficial when you had to fly over vast expanses of water.

In general...this is why the VVS didn't like many of the lend lease aircraft (except the P-39 and the P-63)...they were totally unsuited to their needs. And if the Russians had been lending aircraft back it surely would have been the same.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

PzKpfw
03-12-2004, 02:43 PM
The below are snippets from Ed Wagamon's posts off the P-47 board on P-47 climb listing max TRUE airspeed and rate of climb ratings.

P-47C thru -D-22 @ COMBAT power, 13,500 lbs.:

S/L - 335mph TAS = 2,800fpm
5000ft - 355mph TAS = 2,750fpm
10000ft - 275mph TAS = 2,500fpm
15000ft - 390mph TAS = 2,450fpm
20000ft - 408mph TAS = 2,050fpm
25000ft - 422mph TAS = 1,800fpm
30000ft - 425mph TAS = 1,350fpm.


P-47D-23-plus climb rates @ COMBAT power, 14,500 lbs.: = USAAF results: Republic test results in ( )'s


S/L = 3,150fpm (3,350)
5000ft - 3,150fpm (3,300)
10000ft - 3,100fpm (3,250)
15000ft - 2,900fpm (3,050)
20000ft - 2,700fpm (2,900)
25000ft - 2,300fpm (2,500)
30000ft - 1,600fpm ( NA)

'The max speeds are about 5-10 mph greater than the earlier versions at almost all altitudes, with about 10 mph at low altitudes, to about 5 mph greater at medium & higher altitudes = 345 mph @ S/L to 430 mph @ 30k'


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Fri March 12 2004 at 02:31 PM.]

PzKpfw
03-12-2004, 03:06 PM
Lend Lease sent 203 P47 to the USSR. of which 195 were accepted for service.

The following models were sent to the USSR:

3 - P-47D-10-RE serials 42-75201 to 42-75203
100 - P-47D-22-RE serials 42-2553975201 to 42-25638.
50 - P-47D-27-RE serials 42-27015 to 42-2706.
50 - P-47D-27-RE serials 42-27115 to 42-27164

The below is from the NII VVS evaluation of the P47:

POSITIVE:
- Good for the fast ground attacks with bombs or rockets

- Good flight performance above 7-8,000 meters, where this plane can out-turn German fighters

- Excelent range
- Very good cockpit view and radio equipment

NEGATIVE:

- Fire power does not meet VVS standards, it should have at least one cannon

- Very low maneuverability and bad acceleration at low altitudes compared to Soviet two engined bomber Pe-2

- Many engine failures

- Takes too long to Re-arm/Re-Fuel in between sorties

- Does not behave well in cold weather, with the fatal damages of cooling radiators

SUGGESTED USE:

- Ground and naval attack fighter-bomber

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT:

- Replace weapons to two ShVAK or VYa cannons
- Set 6-8 rocket rails for RS-132 rockets

P47s operated with the following units:

- 2 GIAP
- 255 IAP
- 15 ORAP

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Bull_dog_
03-12-2004, 05:45 PM
Oh I'm as happy as a pig in poop!

Paddle blades...hummmm imagine what on-line play would be like with 5 mph more and 30% better climb rate after your boom and zoom attacks....

Oleg...please, pretty please...just the D-27 even...You'd never hear a jug whine from me again.

SkyChimp
03-12-2004, 06:08 PM
I'm not sure which block of P-47D gets credit for being the first to be produced with a paddle-bladed prop. America's Hundred Thousand says it was introduced with the D-20. But Warren Bodie's Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt: From Seversky To Victory, which is a more in-depth study than that presented in AHT, say the paddle prop was introduced on the D-22.

It probably doesn't matter much, because at any rate, the P-47D-22 was serially produced with the Hamilton Standard Hydromatic paddle-bladed prop - the same prop that's on the P-47D-27 in the game. That it has instead a Curtiss Electric prop in the game doesn't mean much. Retro-fits occurred all the time, and Hamilton and Curtiss props were interchangable. Bodie's book has several pictures of D-22s with both props. As long as the D-22 is climbing better than the D-10, I really don't care which it has.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

LuftLuver
03-12-2004, 09:52 PM
You guys are greedy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.airventure.de/riat2002/Thunderbolt.jpg

SkyChimp
03-13-2004, 06:02 PM
So that's it, huh? We just waity for the patch and the D-27 should be twirling like the D-22?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

VO101__Kurfurst
03-13-2004, 06:41 PM
Just bumped in, congrats for convincing Oleg about the roll stuff.

S ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

chris455
03-13-2004, 08:49 PM
Skychimp, I think you deserve big praise for you perseverence with this. Thanks.
And Ice-fire also. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I'm just hoping that it will be as it was in reality now, Oleg has stated that the change will occur in a patch "when we get AI B-25s".
(So I've heard).

And maybe someday the Curtis Electric 13' prop!!
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-13-2004, 09:19 PM
Thanks but I did nothing special...just a kind word, an apt phrase, and a stopwatch.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

chris455
03-13-2004, 11:53 PM
Well, just the same Ice-fire, when you finally get your beloved Tempest, I hope it is everything to you that the Jug is to me and more-
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-14-2004, 08:27 AM
Thanks! I hope to see the Tempest in the game for starters but I think I have a pretty good idea of what kind of performance she's going to give. It'll be blazing fast and I half expect people to complain about her rediculous firepower (4xMk 5 Hispanos according to several gun sites is only just short of a MK108 equipped FW190 in power) and some degree of higher speed manuverability.

First thing I want to do when I get a Tempest is to take it up against Zen and a Ta-152 or a FW190D-9 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Aaron_GT
03-14-2004, 08:48 AM
I hope the Tempest roll
rate is realistically poor
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm looking forward to
flying the Tempest. For
RAF and USAAF we could do
with different octane
options for scenarios.

A souped up Tempest V1
for V1 tipping would be
fun too.

Koohullin
03-14-2004, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I'm looking forward to
flying the Tempest. For
RAF and USAAF we could do
with different octane
options for scenarios.

A souped up Tempest V1
for V1 tipping would be
fun too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tempests of 150 Wing used 150 grade fuel from early July. At 500ft, this gave the Tempest a speed of 415mph, IAS.

VW-IceFire
03-14-2004, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I hope the Tempest roll
rate is realistically poor
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm looking forward to
flying the Tempest. For
RAF and USAAF we could do
with different octane
options for scenarios.

A souped up Tempest V1
for V1 tipping would be
fun too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You must be confusing the Tempest with a Typhoon. Typhoon had a roll rate comperable with the Zero which is really quite poor. The Tempest on the other hand was in the same range as the P-51. It could generally outroll Spitfires and 109's at higher speeds (350mph). At lower speeds it wasn't quite as fast.

I think the peak roll rate of the Typhoon was about 45-50 degrees per second while the Tempest peaked around 85 degrees per second. It was more like 95 with spring roll tabs but I can't find them being fitted to anything except for a few test planes. Apparently there may have been some squadron service as well but I can't find any pictures (but they have to be specific pictures to actually see if the spring tabs have been fitted or not).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Aaron_GT
03-14-2004, 04:19 PM
Right you are IceFire - it was the tiffie rate I was remembering.