PDA

View Full Version : patched p-47



XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:51 AM
does it seem to any one the 9-47s roll rate hasnt changed? and to me it seems that its not as manuvrable. it loses speed in turns as well as stalls in turns more now. not to long ago i read a book wrighten by a pilot of a p47 and the way it was discribed it was a good dog fighter not as nimbel as a p51. im not trying to complain to much so dont nobody start yelln at me im very sinsative lol.the name of the book was AN ACE OF THE EIGHTH by Norman "bud" Forter. not the best book iv ever read more facts and acounts than a story.

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:51 AM
does it seem to any one the 9-47s roll rate hasnt changed? and to me it seems that its not as manuvrable. it loses speed in turns as well as stalls in turns more now. not to long ago i read a book wrighten by a pilot of a p47 and the way it was discribed it was a good dog fighter not as nimbel as a p51. im not trying to complain to much so dont nobody start yelln at me im very sinsative lol.the name of the book was AN ACE OF THE EIGHTH by Norman "bud" Forter. not the best book iv ever read more facts and acounts than a story.

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:55 AM
I think everything about the P-47 is changed for the better(and dare I say...ACCURATE?) BUT it's roll rate is too slow and the 47 is still to fragile(engine especially)...

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:55 AM
I dunno but for me it feels just right.Not as good as a fighter but very dangerous.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:56 AM
Im pretty anxious to get off work and have some fun with it.


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:57 AM
I think speed retention is the biggest improvement. It turns much better, loses less speed, dives like a lead brick, and zooms like a banshee. Roll rate is still off.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 12:59 AM
Does no-one in America bother with spelling or grammar now??? I have to say the standard of both grammar and spelling is bloody appalling on this web site. It's forgivable from those that have English as a second language,but my god people that profess it as a mother language and can't even spell or write grammatically.... where's it all going to end??
Just my tuppence worth...... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

]http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif (http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif[/img)

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:02 AM
eh, i have to watch spelling and grammar all the time at school, so I let it slide here, we arent too formal on this board if you have noticed/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:02 AM
I'm sorry you feel this way,but....why in this thread?

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:11 AM
Have you noticed the awful spelling and bad grammar in this thread...?? if not there's the answer.

]http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif (http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif[/img)

RichardI
08-13-2003, 01:12 AM
OK, kids, let's get back on topic.......

Anybody take the Jug up high enough yet to notice the >15000 ft. performance? Does the turbosupercharger work?

Rich

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:14 AM
I have to admit, it is important to me, having been educated by so-called "christian brothers", who would beat the crap out of any child that spelt anything wrong or used bad grammar...... so there.
What's the world coming too........bad spelling and crap grammar.... lol.



http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:38 AM
the roll rate is still mixed up with a b17 i see

and its seems too fragile, speicially when it blows into a million little pieces, which happend 3 outta like 5 times i got shot down in it, before i fired up the p40 to shoot dowm a 190a9 and a 109k4 in the same flight

man, i really hope they dont screw up the mustangs

about the the spelling and gramar, well does it really matter on here, its just easier this way and the point still gets across, most of the time

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

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:16 AM
I agree totaally with Sky Chimp's assessment of the P-47. It seems to turn and dive better, but roll-rate and DM on engine (too fragile) seems off.

All the best, Don

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:30 AM
for the DM, i don't agree with you... i tried to fly it tonight, and found it quite sturdy, and especially, it was able to continue flying for a long time despite some engine damage and oil leak...

This seem according to what is known about that plane... It wasn't invulnerable, but it could operate even if damaged, and return base even with heavy engine damage... Oil leak is considered heavy engine damage in FB, and most planes quickly break engine, or even catch fire when they have an oil leak, but the p47 can continue flying without too much hindrance...

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:43 AM
it seems to take pretty good amount of hits but after flying it for about an hour it still seems to poor in a turn. i think the 50.s seem a littel more relistic and sound better to. has any one heard a 50 go off my step fathers dad has a bolt action 50 that hes had for a long time i finaly talked him into shooting it a few weeks ago you can hear that thing in the next town over lol.

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:48 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I think speed retention is the biggest improvement.
- It turns much better, loses less speed, dives like a
- lead brick, and zooms like a banshee. Roll rate is
- still off.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
Do you have the stats compared to the Dora, or any of the 190's cuz I swear the Roll Rate of all the 190's is 3 x's as fast as the P-47, I'm not gonna argue whether that or not that is correct without the facts, but it just doesn't seem correct.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:51 AM
TurboCrotch wrote:

- Do you have the stats compared to the Dora, or any
- of the 190's cuz I swear the Roll Rate of all the
- 190's is 3 x's as fast as the P-47, I'm not gonna
- argue whether that or not that is correct without
- the facts, but it just doesn't seem correct.


For me, the Dora 9 rolled 360 degrees in 3 seconds at 863 km/h! That's TAS, not IAS!!!



Seems a wee bit fast.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:55 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- For me, the Dora 9 rolled 360 degrees in 3 seconds
- at 863 km/h! That's TAS, not IAS!!!
-
-
-
- Seems a wee bit fast.
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-


Please explain the difference (Meaning) between TAS and IAS.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:02 AM
TurboCrotch wrote:

- Please explain the difference (Meaning) between TAS
- and IAS.

TAS: true air speed - the actual speed of the aircraft

IAS: indicated air speed - the speed indicated by the insturments


Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:15 AM
well guys i just tested the jug at high alt. when thay say this thing is a high alt. escort. thayr right if by high alt. escourt thay mean a flying school bus. i bet a 747 with a pellet gun taped to its nose could take down this plane lol

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:17 AM
This is a purely subjective reaction, and I haven't flown the P-47 enough in any of these versions to claim any expertise; but it seems to me, on the basis of a few experiments, that it actually rolls worse now than it did in Beta 8. The roll rate per se probably is about the same, but the WAY it rolls is worse - you have to fight to keep it level, it sort of wallows around. Try a flick roll and it turns into almost a barrel roll.

Beta 8 improved the roll a good deal, though not nearly enough; it seemed to me that the Beta 8 version was somewhere between the stock FB flight model and the correct one. In this new patch, though, it feels more like the first edition, maybe a little improved but not as much. It's as if they took a step forward and then went back.

But as I say that's just a casual opinion. I don't fly the P-47 anyway, and wouldn't even if they got the FM perfect. Because they haven't done anything at all to fix those horrible cockpit graphics, and no way in hell could I stand to look at that Etch-a-Sketch gunsight for the length of an entire mission.





Blind Joe Death

aka
inada
Mulla Stondaa
Hugh G. Rexion
Heywood Jablomi
I.P. Innuendo
mogilshchik
bezumniy

(Don't tell me you didn't know.)

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:27 AM
Thanx for the info.

BTW I just ran a very informal test, here are my results after 2 tests per plane, 360' roll @ about 10,000 meters



P-47 D-22 at about 500 Kph 10 sec and 9.5 sec

P-47 D-27 " " " " 11 sec and 10.4 sec


FW190 F-8 " " " " 3.1 sec and 2.8 sec

FW190 D-9 " " " " 3.1 sec and 2.7 sec



That seems pretty screwy to me.

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


Message Edited on 08/12/03 06:28PM by TurboCrotch

Message Edited on 08/12/0306:55PM by TurboCrotch

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:45 AM
yes i just tried the 190 at high alt. just to copare to the jug it crazzy thayrs no way thar would be any p-47 pilots alive to day if thats the diff. between the jug and a 190. the 190 rolls like something off star wars lol wile the jug rolls like a fat lady in a tub of ice cream lol. and at high alt. the jug cant hardly turn i mean i almost fell asleep waiting to turn that thing around the only thing that keep me awack was the sound of bullets hiting me lol

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:57 AM
The improvements to the Jug are nice indeed. But I agree with most when they say the rollrate is unchanged and still way too slow. All the data I have seen shows the Jug having an excellent rollrate. I doubt it will ever change though. I also think the engine doesnt take enough damage. I anxious to see how the P-51 is treated by Oleg and his team.
-----------------------------------------------------------P47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 04:24 AM
Hey BlackWulf,

Referring to your first post in this thread.......there should be a space between your comma and the word "but" in your third sentence after the word language. Also, your third sentence would read more properly with a comma between god and people....or are we "god people"? Just a bit of ribbing from a true blue American.....

mucker



Message Edited on 08/13/0303:28AM by mucker

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:35 AM
Salute

Actual rollrates at 50 lbs stickforce:

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

Does that look like what we've got in IL-2 FB 1.1?

In real life, at low and medium speeds, the 190 rolls at twice the rate of the P-47. It was better.

HOWEVER, the FB 1.1 P-47's roll at between 1/4 and 1/3 the rate of the 190.

Note the rate at speeds over 350 IAS on the real life chart.

There the difference becomes quite small, only around 15 degrees, lessening as speeds approach 380 IAS. If you follow the lines off the chart, they intersect at around 400 IAS and the Jug takes the lead.

There is another chart out there which details rollrate at 30lbs force.

For anyone who cares to read the complete test:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/

They will see the test was actually about directional stability, not rollrate. The figure of 30 lbs stickforce was arbitrarily assigned as a benchmark for the stablity testing. It was not a maximum appliable force. In fact other pages in the test clearly show that more than 30 lbs can be applied.

The P-47 rollrate needs to be fixed. There is absolutely no reason for it to be what it is now.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 08/13/0304:47AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 06:51 AM
Hey what if it's political i mean, they didn't get it right the first time or the second time. There not idiots, they are good at what they do. I bet they have all this info and then some.

Whats going on? I bet the P-51 when it comes out will be just as usles.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 08:32 AM
Sounds like I am going to be Jugging it Tonight!

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 09:11 AM
I agree.


JG77BlackWulf_2 wrote:
- Does no-one

That should be "no one" without the hyphen

-in America

I believe you mean the United States. Does no one bother with geography these days?

-bother with spelling or
- grammar now???

One question mark is sufficient.

-I have to say the standard of both
- grammar and spelling is bloody

spelled correctly and a grammatical usage, but "bloody" might be considered rather strong language and therefore not the best choice for a public discussion forum.

-appalling on this web
- site.

Top marks for spelling Web site as two words, though capitalising Web is preferred.

- It's forgivable from those that

"who" not "that"

- have English
- as a second language,but my god

Capitalise "God." This should be followed by a comma between "God" and "people"

-people that

"People who" not "people that."

-profess it as a mother language

The idiom is "mother tongue."

-and can't even spell or
- write grammatically....

The ellipses might be better replaced by an em-dash. It would probably be better to rewrite this as two separate sentences.

-where's it all going to
- end??

One question mark will do.

- Just my tuppence worth......

Please end your sentence with proper punctuation.

That certainly improves the tone of the board, doesn't it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Yes, I'm talking to you.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 10:07 AM
LOL Mild Bill!

Has anyone ever posted those (note plural) roll rate data on ORR?

It would be a good thing to have Oleg make his position clear on roll rate. 1.1b is a beta after all so you'd think they're open to offers on that.

BTW I hope my grammar is broadly acceptable; I have always enjoyed speling as well.

.02

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 10:14 AM
TurboCrotch wrote:
- FW190 F-8 " " " " 3.1 sec and 2.8 sec
-
- FW190 D-9 " " " " 3.1 sec and 2.7 sec
-
-
-
-
- That seems pretty screwy to me.

It's about right for the 190s, not so the P47.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 10:44 AM
From what little info I can find other than pilot interviews claiming it was good, I would think it should be about 1/2 of what it is, still leaving it slower than the 190's still, but not the dog that it is. Also I think the Dora should be a bit slower, everything I've read says the the D9 had a slower roll rate than previous 190's.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 10:59 AM
The sound of the eight .50's has changed, but what about the punch? Is it weaker now?

<center>http://members.ams.chello.nl/pgkiljan/il2/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 01:42 PM
MildBill wrote:
- I agree.
-
-
- JG77BlackWulf_2 wrote:
-- Does no-one
-
- That should be "no one" without the hyphen
-
--in America
-
- I believe you mean the United States. Does no one
- bother with geography these days?
-
--bother with spelling or
-- grammar now???
-
- One question mark is sufficient.
-
--I have to say the standard of both
-- grammar and spelling is bloody
-
- spelled correctly and a grammatical usage, but
- "bloody" might be considered rather strong language
- and therefore not the best choice for a public
- discussion forum.
-
--appalling on this web
-- site.
-
- Top marks for spelling Web site as two words, though
- capitalising Web is preferred.
-
-- It's forgivable from those that
-
- "who" not "that"
-
-- have English
-- as a second language,but my god
-
- Capitalise "God." This should be followed by a comma
- between "God" and "people"
-
--people that
-
- "People who" not "people that."
-
--profess it as a mother language
-
- The idiom is "mother tongue."
-
--and can't even spell or
-- write grammatically....
-
- The ellipses might be better replaced by an em-dash.
- It would probably be better to rewrite this as two
- separate sentences.
-
--where's it all going to
-- end??
-
- One question mark will do.
-
-- Just my tuppence worth......
-
- Please end your sentence with proper punctuation.
-
- That certainly improves the tone of the board,
- doesn't it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool
- than to speak and remove all doubt.
-
- Yes, I'm talking to you.



I guess you didn't know that, not every one is good at spelling or grammer. There are things that your not very good at also. Hence some of the people you put down; like myself, can do some things better than you.

Also some people, including myself cant or couldn't affored a secondary education.

I try my best to right in a manner that is understandable, if you or someone els dislike, then to bad!

Silent out...

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:10 PM
VF_310thSilent wrote:
I guess you didn't know that, not every one is
- good at spelling or grammer. There are things that
- your not very good at also. Hence some of the people
- you put down; like myself, can do some things better
- than you.
-
-
- Also some people, including myself cant or
- couldn't affored a secondary education.
-
-
- I try my best to right in a manner that is
- understandable, if you or someone els dislike, then
- to bad!
-
-
- Silent out...


I'am in the same boat as you Silent,I try but I know I make plenty of stuff up's.Why does it even rate a smart *** comment from you folks lucky enough to have gone to school?


No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

How many people think this is a p-51/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:39 PM
Buzzsaw....great job. Please submit this chart and info as a bug report. This should clearly show a problem with teh rollrate.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 02:59 PM
FG-56th_Lamb wrote:
- Buzzsaw....great job. Please submit this chart and
- info as a bug report. This should clearly show a
- problem with teh rollrate.
-
-

If I'm not completely screwed then I'm pretty damn sure that SkyChimp has submitted this very same NACA chart to Oleg at least one time. This was short after FB was out. Oleg was well aware of it. Look what the result is. The developer once has commented that the VVS pilots considered the P-47 as "not a fighter at all". They thought about the 190 in a similar way (I guess only those who came back home after an 190 encounter). Frankly, I don't give a flying fneb about this assumption from pilots who didn't like it because they were used to "Spitfire-type" a/c before and after, as long as the Jug is modelled to the specs.
And pls guys, think again before you talk altitude. Of course the Jug was a great performing craft at high alt and superior to most other a/c in this realm, but this doesn't mean it has the rollrate close to a He111 at low alt. If I'm not mistaken, rollrate has very little to do with altitude. The whole thing is a stick force issue, which has been screwed up. Try something: Roll the Jug from on medium speeds while looking out onto one aileron, and tell me you didn't laugh.


=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:06 PM
- I guess you didn't know that, not every one is
- good at spelling or grammer. There are things that
- your not very good at also. Hence some of the people
- you put down; like myself, can do some things better
- than you.
-
-
- Also some people, including myself cant or
- couldn't affored a secondary education.
-
-
- I try my best to right in a manner that is
- understandable, if you or someone els dislike, then
- to bad!
-
-
- Silent out...


I'm pretty sure you know that I was just ripping JG77BlackWulf_2 a new one because he/she complained about the grammar and spelling in this thread and the forum in general. I've been too busy working to install the patch (but I have downloaded it). If I start flying, I'll never get any work done. This is the only fun I get to have right now.

MB



It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Yes, I'm talking to you.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:22 PM
- I guess you didn't know that, not every one is
- good at spelling or grammer. There are things that
- your not very good at also. Hence some of the people
- you put down; like myself, can do some things better
- than you.
-
-
- Also some people, including myself cant or
- couldn't affored a secondary education.
-
-
- I try my best to right in a manner that is
- understandable, if you or someone els dislike, then
- to bad!
-
-
- Silent out...

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:24 PM
I'm pretty sure you know that I was just ripping
- JG77BlackWulf_2 a new one because he/she complained
- about the grammar and spelling in this thread and
- the forum in general. I've been too busy working to
- install the patch (but I have downloaded it). If I
- start flying, I'll never get any work done. This is
- the only fun I get to have right now.
-
- MB


I thought you did a great job showing BlackWulf his a$$ was showing in this post.

http://faussyorktown.homestead.com/files/grab0006.jpg


Fight to fly, fly to fight, fight to win.
Motto, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School
(TOPGUN)

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:31 PM
lol, Sorry Mildbill,

I guess i cant read eather, no im kidding. I ment to reply to who ever wrote that. So I sent a reply to JG77BlackWulf_2.

I bet i will or others will get put down again lol. I cant whait to find out what his/ or her next thread will say.


Silent out...

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 03:50 PM
Heart_C wrote:
-
- If I'm not completely screwed then I'm pretty damn
- sure that SkyChimp has submitted this very same NACA
- chart to Oleg at least one time. This was short
- after FB was out. Oleg was well aware of it. Look
- what the result is. The developer once has commented
- that the VVS pilots considered the P-47 as "not a
- fighter at all". They thought about the 190 in a
- similar way (I guess only those who came back home
- after an 190 encounter). Frankly, I don't give a
- flying fneb about this assumption from pilots who
- didn't like it because they were used to
- "Spitfire-type" a/c before and after, as long as the
- Jug is modelled to the specs.
- And pls guys, think again before you talk altitude.
- Of course the Jug was a great performing craft at
- high alt and superior to most other a/c in this
- realm, but this doesn't mean it has the rollrate
- close to a He111 at low alt. If I'm not mistaken,
- rollrate has very little to do with altitude. The
- whole thing is a stick force issue, which has been
- screwed up. Try something: Roll the Jug from on
- medium speeds while looking out onto one aileron,
- and tell me you didn't laugh.
-
-
-
- =38=OIAE
-
- 47|FC=-



I think Oleg's practice of using and trusting only Russian research material opens possibilities of gross inaccuracy. Wouldn't it be more accurate to consider data from every side and deduct an average? Every side exegarated in their own favour, making their aircraft look better and the enemy's worse (propaganda). Russia even more than others, well in my experience with them anyway. This could be the reason why so many aircraft seem to be a little off! I don't mean this in a nasty way, maybe if I was a Russian game developer I would do the same. All I'm saying here is that there could be a problem of human error on the part of the developers, that cannot be rectified as it stems from our very nature as humans. Such as national pride ,etc.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 04:09 PM
Black Wulf
Excuse my vulgarity but it seems as thou you just got torn a new A**hole. Your post about punctuation would have been better suited in a English Forum. Sorry we just want to talk about Planes. We are rude crude and socially unacceptable. (I missed the comma on poipuse)



Kaptain Maico
249th I.A.P.
Group II
Trng Officer

"We take the Boom out of your Zoom"

The_Blue_Devil
08-13-2003, 04:16 PM
I admit..not going into a flat spin or wing over in a turn is something fixed since patch 8 and version 1.0 respectively.

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


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

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 04:39 PM
will afer many hours of play my opinion on the jug hasnt changed i could be wrong but i dont think this is even close to what iv read about the jug at all i beat you could pull of tighter turns in a b17 lol the only thing worth a flip is the guns i can take out tanks easy with them now....mabie to easy and i hate to sound like a broken record but i hope thay dont screew up the stang this bad. its still a good game but im starting to wonder if thay dont have it out for the U.S aircraft lol

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 04:48 PM
Doesn't say much for the primary education system from where ever you, as well some others, are from./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VF_310thSilent wrote:
-
-
- I guess you didn't know that, not every one is
- good at spelling or grammer. There are things that
- your not very good at also. Hence some of the people
- you put down; like myself, can do some things better
- than you.
-
-
- Also some people, including myself cant or
- couldn't affored a secondary education.
-
-
- I try my best to right in a manner that is
- understandable, if you or someone els dislike, then
- to bad!
-


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

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:06 PM
I found a way to get the P-47's roll rate to exceed the Fw190's!

Begin a steep climb, reduce power to idle, and as the airspeed drops near stall speed, kick a rudder to the floor, and watch that puppy spin like a top!

ROFL it looks like the spin rate might be a weee bit on the quick side.

*grin*

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:06 PM
That is the best explanation that i have herd yet.

PLeas post more and also post it in Olegs ready room.


Silent out...

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:13 PM
I honestly can not give my opionion on the P-47's performance. I never flew the full scale version. I was never in combat with the full scale or damaged while in battle.


P.S. My flight instrucor, a little over 10 years ago now, was a P-47 pilot. He loved to do acrobatics while teaching me how to fly. Never could keep his wings level.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:13 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Actual rollrates at 50 lbs stickforce:
- There is another chart out there which details
- rollrate at 30lbs force.
-
- For anyone who cares to read the complete test:
-
It also details interesting criticism on stability hope that gets noted too.

- They will see the test was actually about
- directional stability, not rollrate. The figure of
- 30 lbs stickforce was arbitrarily assigned as a
- benchmark for the stablity testing. It was not a
- maximum appliable force. In fact other pages in the
- test clearly show that more than 30 lbs can be
- applied.
-
- The P-47 rollrate needs to be fixed. There is
- absolutely no reason for it to be what it is now.
-

That NACA report also said that P-47 _did not_ fulfill the roll requirements! Bububut it wawawawas only 30 lb...well sorry there is no 50 lb for ailerons, not even with both hands...

Now this is from Bernard Etkin's "Dynamics of Flight". Human control restrictions, 50 lb applies to elevator not to aileron. Additionally so often advertized P-47 long stick is advantageous for elevator but disadvantageous for aileron power input.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/Hpim0224.jpg


If there is going to be 50 lb ailerons for P-47 howabout a 100 lb elevator for Bf-109? Oleg, pleasepleasepleaseplease...

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:14 PM
They proubly to in some sort of way, i mean they messed up twice, I also think there is't any northamericans on his team. I guess all we can do is keep ranting till we get what we want'.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:30 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Doesn't say much for the primary education system
- from where ever you, as well some others, are
- from./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Have you ever seen the canadain flag?


Also we are not a huge country population wise, Hence less money to spend. The people who run are government pay themselfs redicuiles salaries.
These people also give them selfs huge raises every year or two. The guy who runs Canada post for example makes just over 200,000 a year. He jsut gave himself about a 25% rais and to boot a 30% Bonus.
What did the employeis get? about a 4.5% rais.

This sort of thing happens all the time. Just think what will happen if it keeps going the way it does.

Oh beleive me some of us Canadians are geting sick of it and we should do somting about it.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:54 PM
S!
Well this stuff about the p47 is definately getting as bad as the 190 guys. I guess with the constant complaining someday the jug will get modeled to its truer self. Im my opinion Oleg made a mistake ever putting in the american planes, except the ones flew by the russians. If he would have been smart, not putting in US planes would have saved everyone grief.I liked the sim cuz it took place in an area where american involvemnt was minimal. Now after this patch i have to hear nothing about complaints about a plane that was barely used in the eastern front. I think you jug pilots should be happy that he even put this plane in the game. I cant wait to hear the moans about the p51 when it comes out. Go fly European Air wars if you want the jug that can roll like a keg down hill, blow up planes wings in 2 second bursts. It has got to the point that nothing will ever make people happy. Just fly the plane as is, i flew the 190 that way, now i have to relearn it to adjust to the new flight model. If the Jug is that bad, then dont fly it.
Trying not to flame but just posting my view, i felt the same way with all the people complaining about the 190.
Watsup

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:23 PM
Salute Ugly

Did you actually read the entire report on the D30 as I suggested?

No you obviously didn't. Instead, you start insisting on false conclusions.

If you looked over all the charts and the ENTIRE report you would have seen these charts:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/0053.gif


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/0054.gif


What do they, in particular the second one show?

That the aircraft was tested up to a stick force of 50 lbs for the purpose of determining: "Variations in in Helix Angle pb/2V and change in aileron stick force with change in total aileron angle."

Your post is complete nonsense and based on nothing but ill informed speculation.

In fact in regards to the 109, the fact is, that IT is the aircraft where a pilot could not generate lateral stick force, as a British AFDU report on the 109E clearly states:

>>>>>>>>

Ailerons

At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees banbk, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:

Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.

Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.

Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.

Deduced balance factyor Kb2 - 0.145

<<<<<<<<<

And please don't tell me the 109E was different from later models it cockpit layout. It wasn't. The cockpit and stick throw were exactly the same.

Next time you get into a discussion, you better check your facts.


RAF74 Buzzsaw







Message Edited on 08/13/0306:27PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:34 PM
Not durable!! I used all of my 109G2 with gunpods ammo on the thing and it didn't come apart!!!

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:48 PM
hay wassup nobody is makeing you read this thread if you dont like what were talking about dont read it thayrs plenty of other post for you to read. im not trying to be rude im just saying let us talk about how we think the jug sucks if thats what we wanna talk about as far as olge or any one else reading this i dont care. thats not why im here i just like to talk about this kinda stuff with pepole. and as far as any one makeing a fuss about spelling if you know its misspelled then you know what it was ment to read so just let it go if we want a spelling lesson we wouldnt be here we would be in school lol. "and i is not gonna be going to back school skhoull suxx. lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:51 PM
Ford,

You might want to put who your talking to at the top of your post. It's less confusing sometimes.

Buzz_25th
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/images/imglib/Vfa25.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:54 PM
sorry i was talking to watsup of course i misspelled his name as wassup lol ironic hu?

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 10:54 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

- It also details interesting criticism on stability
- hope that gets noted too.

Huck, re-read the report. At extremely LOW speed. That's the purpose of the test.



- That NACA report also said that P-47 _did not_
- fulfill the roll requirements!

Irrelevant. Focus on the result it did produce. That's the issue. An by the way, Oleg didn't even get it right for 30lbs.



- Bububut it wawawawas
- only 30 lb...well sorry there is no 50 lb for
- ailerons, not even with both hands...

So I suppose we should just throw out any notion that 50lbs of lateral stick force was THE standard for testing. Nevermind that the USAAF and NACA, as well as the British, used this standard. I suppose they used it because it couldn't be achieved.





- Now this is from Bernard Etkin's "Dynamics of
- Flight".

I see the forces are average for the "5 percentile" man. Impressive. Anyone lower than him would no doubt be handicapped, or dead.



- Human control restrictions, 50 lb applies
- to elevator not to aileron. Additionally so often
- advertized P-47 long stick is advantageous for
- elevator but disadvantageous for aileron power
- input.

Again, 50lbs was the standard. To suggest it was not achievable is beyond wrong, it's moronic.



- If there is going to be 50 lb ailerons for P-47
- howabout a 100 lb elevator for Bf-109? Oleg,
- pleasepleasepleaseplease...

Funny argument. We already have 50 lb ailerons for all German planes. In fact, I suggest we have pretty close to 100 lb aileron forces for the Fw-190 at very high speeds now (3 second roll at 863 km/h TAS). Yet you are perfectly content to have a P-47 modelled at 30 lbs. Your argument smacks of unfairness.





Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 01:14 AM
The P47 was a very good escort/ground attack fighter.. its cooling system was FAR more surviveable than the liquid cooled contemporaries.. It had firepower, speed at alt, and rugged surviveability..

But, its roll rate was slower than most of its contemporaries.

Also remember that for testing, TAS and IAS are DIFFERENT..and roll rate is categorized by speed..

Think about this.. Spitfires were very poor rollers because of their wing design.. hence the clipping to increase performance..

P47's roll worse than most spits at combat speeds..

That doesn't mean the P47 is a bad fighter, it just means its style of fighting is not similar to an angles fighter..

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 01:29 AM
jtasker wrote:

- But, its roll rate was slower than most of its
- contemporaries.

The point is, the roll rate for the P-47 in FB does not correspond to actual roll rates, whatever they may have been.

That it rolled fast or slow is NOT the issue, the issue is whether or not the plane rolls at a rate consistent to its historical performance.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 02:11 AM
I'm not trying to hijack a post here ,but the spelling thing has forced a reply lol.


MiloMorai wrote:
- Doesn't say much for the primary education system
- from where ever you, as well some others, are

This is a true statement as sad as it may be. I knew people who graduated high school that could not spell or read very well. That my friends is your politically correct liberal school systems at work. ie: If they fail how would that make them feel? They do not encourage success or reward progress. We are all supposed to be equal in thier minds. Does that sound familiar?

And I hope they fix the roll rate on the P47. There, that gets me back on topic lol. I love a good challenge, be it of mind or body. Good thing we have flight sims lol.

...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been and there you long to return.
~leonardo de vinci

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 02:17 AM
S!
well ford i think you got me confused with some one else, since i have never critizied anyone for thier spelling on these forums. So before you come at me for critizie your spelling keep in mind i never did.
Watsup
fordfan25 wrote:
- sorry i was talking to watsup of course i misspelled
- his name as wassup lol ironic hu?
-
- "life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look
- around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris
- Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 03:54 AM
I don't think anybody is claiming that it had the best Roll Rate, we're just saying that the Roll Rate it has in FB is wrong, in fact it's allmost twice as slow as it should be, which would still make it about 80% slower than the Roll Rate of the 190 at 500 kph.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 05:51 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Irrelevant. Focus on the result it did produce.
- That's the issue. An by the way, Oleg didn't even
- get it right for 30lbs.
-
That chart I posted is a design criterion for aircraft, go figure, as you might see there isn't even 30 lb for aileron there. You see it also says that it applies o unrestricted movement, if you're buckled up it is even _lower_.

- Again, 50lbs was the standard. To suggest it was
- not achievable is beyond wrong, it's moronic.
-
Why was the 30 lb explicitly mentioned in the report as air force requirement and furthermore that P-47 did not fullfil it. So where is your standard? Etkin applies as a modern standard as well. It is moronic to claim that you have 50 lb usable as a static and continued reserve. It is also not that you have effectively two hands available all the times. Why? should there be a script disabling all the other control inputs throttle flap you name it while rolling. Actually your and your friends continued multiplethread campaign to account for bodybuilders in control force requirements is moronic.

- Funny argument. We already have 50 lb ailerons for
- all German planes. In fact, I suggest we have
- pretty close to 100 lb aileron forces for the Fw-190
- at very high speeds now (3 second roll at 863 km/h
- TAS). Yet you are perfectly content to have a P-47
- modelled at 30 lbs. Your argument smacks of
- unfairness.
-
Then you should be whining to get them lowered, from what I've understood Oleg has checked P-47 and corrected it. So, consider it corrected. If FW is too fast at high speeds then it should be lowered. Up to now the elevator response of the FW was dead wrong, did you see such a tirades? You make luftwhiners look like well behaving gentlemen, keep up the good work.

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 06:37 AM
I found something interesting....when inducing a roll (left or right) with full rudder pedalling (left or right, respectively), the P-47 rate increased by 2 seconds. 8 seconds with no rudder, 6 seconds with full rudder. The aircraft was in very good control too. Speed 440 to 490 kph.......

mucker

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 01:13 PM
Heart..I ahve done just that. It is a joke. I'm not asking for the roll rate to be uber..just realistic. According to the roll chart shown the FW 190 sould roll about 2 times faster than the jug...not 3 to 4 times as in game. I think they did a great job with the improvements they did make on the Jug....we just need the rollrate to be accurate. Overall I am pleased with the patch....other than the sound issue.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 02:09 PM
The biggest improvements on the jug are the weapons effectiveness and the energy retention.

The worst inaccuracy (IMHO) is the lack of SPEED!

I flew the D22 and the D27 and just massacred some he111's last night two in one sortie that were flying formation. My plane must've gotten hit 50 times and still made it home to land.

Screw the roll-rate (not that it's unimportant mind you), but it should be faster.

I'll check my sources for comparison.


http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/_uimages/p47atm.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 03:16 PM
i take my words back.. imo the p-47 guns does not seem to become any more efficient.. and Roll rate makes it a pig.. and hard to use it as B&Z, when enemy can quickly use their superior rollrate and pull to other direction.. and Jug can't follow.. Roll rate Should be fixxed! (as like the FW-190 gunsight ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The energy retention is fine now luckily.. Don't know about speed.. is it faster at high altitude in FB now?

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 03:40 PM
Watsup wrote:
- S!
- Well this stuff about the p47 is definately getting
- as bad as the 190 guys. I guess with the constant
- complaining someday the jug will get modeled to its
- truer self. Im my opinion Oleg made a mistake ever
- putting in the american planes, except the ones flew
- by the russians. If he would have been smart, not
- putting in US planes would have saved everyone
- grief.I liked the sim cuz it took place in an area
- where american involvemnt was minimal. Now after
- this patch i have to hear nothing about complaints
- about a plane that was barely used in the eastern
- front. I think you jug pilots should be happy that
- he even put this plane in the game. I cant wait to
- hear the moans about the p51 when it comes out. Go
- fly European Air wars if you want the jug that can
- roll like a keg down hill, blow up planes wings in 2
- second bursts. It has got to the point that nothing
- will ever make people happy. Just fly the plane as
- is, i flew the 190 that way, now i have to relearn
- it to adjust to the new flight model. If the Jug is
- that bad, then dont fly it.
- Trying not to flame but just posting my view, i felt
- the same way with all the people complaining about
- the 190.

First, I want it to be known that the P-47 is my absolute favorite fighter of WWII. That said, I must say that I basically agree with Watsup. Introducing planes like the Jug, the P-51 and the Spit only opens up a Pandora's Box. This sim is about the Eastern Front. Historically speaking, these planes had little or nothing to do with that theater. And IL2 brought a refreshing change to the sim world from the usual Western ETO by bringing the Eastern front to the wider world.

Of course, I understand why these planes get included. They have a broad appeal in the most lucrative markets in the world. It's only sound business practice (afterall, they're in this to make money). And now that it's here, I'm amoung those who want it's performance to accurately reflect that of RL (BTW, Watsup, those eight 50's could tear a plane apart with a two second burst if well aimed).

But it really would have saved a lot of grief had it not been included. Don't get me wrong, I'm gonna give it a try again (and especially after the roll rate is fixed, whenever that will be). So, stay tuned Jug fans.

Oh, by the way. It's one thing to nit-pick about spelling. But some of the stuff I saw following that first pedantic spelling post has been appauling. I make my fair share of spelling mistakes to be sure. But, dang! If those subsequent posts are supposed to be jokes, then they're sort of funny. If not, then it's pretty sad.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 03:46 PM
Give that 47 another run through...it isn't my favorite aircraft of all time but its definately one of those classic aircraft for us westerners and I've had MUCH more success with it online than before. I've also tried to shoot them down with 190's and had quite a bit of difficulty in mortally wounding the plane so its damage model seems very good.

You can't bank and crank...you need team tactics more often then not...but any 109 or 190 that crosses into your crosshairs for a few seconds is going to be going away with half a wing, or a dead engine, or a severe oil and fuel leak with fires streaming out the back.

Plus I find it to be the undisputed king of close air support.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 03:52 PM
Ugly Kid,


All the theoretical speculations about how much stick pressure could be applied by pilots versus "body-builders" apart, how do you explain the P47 tactic of cutting inside opponent turn radius by vector rolling? Shaw describes this tactic in FIGHTER COMBAT. Without a crisp roll rate, this maneuver is not possible in FB.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 04:08 PM
P-47 roll rate is definately too low.. hopefully Oleg will fix it in Official 1.1.. and FW-190 roll rate at High speeds (>500kmh) is definately bit too high too! But Only a couple of seconds!



____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:56 AM
Blutarski, the P47 NEVER had a "Crisp" roll rate... And Roll rate is NOT the only issue in that maneuver.. at all..

The P47's roll rate in FB may be wrong, may be BADLY wrong, but many many people in this thread seem to be of the opinion that the ROLL RATE of a P47 was a strong point for the plane..and that is simply NOT TRUE.. It rolled slower than most of its contemporaries..

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 04:43 PM
jtasker wrote:
- Blutarski, the P47 NEVER had a "Crisp" roll rate...
- And Roll rate is NOT the only issue in that
- maneuver.. at all..
-
- The P47's roll rate in FB may be wrong, may be BADLY
- wrong, but many many people in this thread seem to
- be of the opinion that the ROLL RATE of a P47 was a
- strong point for the plane..and that is simply NOT
- TRUE.. It rolled slower than most of its
- contemporaries


jtasker,

Do you know what I meant by the term "crisp"? No. Perhaps your idea of the phrase "crisp roll rate" differs from mine; my definition of the term is simply better than average. Why do I think so? For starters, the recorded performance test data certainly seem to indicate so. Secondly, Robert Johnson, who flew the P47 with some degree of success, considered roll as one of its significant performance features. Thirdly, the "vector roll" maneuver has been commonly associated with the P47 - see Eric Brown's AIRCRAFT versus AIRCRAFT, IIRC.

As for "vector rolls", again perhaps you and I are thinking about different maneuvers. I define the maneuver as follows - when the target a/c commences a hard turn, the pursuer zooms, rolls/rotates with ailerons and rudder about 270deg in a direction opposite to the direction of the target's turn, and comes down upon the target from above and more or less in line with the target's new heading. I( never said that roll was "the only issue" in executing such a maneuver, but it IS an important and necessary component thereof.

You and I will just have to disagree that P47 roll rate was "slower than most of its contemporaries".

Otherwise, thanks for your interest in my posting.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 05:43 PM
I'm really diggin the P-47 now. I think it handles alot better now. I was blacking out when I was horizontally chasing a Dora. Its also a great BnZer, had alot of fun with it yesterday.

http://www.stuartairshow.com/images/p51mustangs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 05:53 PM
Salute Ugly Kid

Yeah actually we saw much worse tirades regarding the view and the elevator response.

People were downright insulting and resorted to name calling.

I seem to remember some posts from yourself.

To the contrary, I have made a point of presenting my facts objectively.

Maybe its time you looked at those facts instead of badmouthing allied planes at the first chance. It's clear your agenda is simply to encourage Oleg to give the P-47 the worst possible FM, rather than the correct one.

Why don't you actually read this report for instance:

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

Which includes the table we have seen so often and which is clear on the abilities of the P-47:

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

But no, it seems you and the others who post derogatory comments about the P-47 prefer to resort to innuendo instead of facts.


RAF74 Buzzsaw






Message Edited on 08/15/0304:56PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

The_Blue_Devil
08-15-2003, 06:57 PM
jtasker wrote:
- Blutarski, the P47 NEVER had a "Crisp" roll rate...
- And Roll rate is NOT the only issue in that
- maneuver.. at all..
-
- The P47's roll rate in FB may be wrong, may be BADLY
- wrong, but many many people in this thread seem to
- be of the opinion that the ROLL RATE of a P47 was a
- strong point for the plane..and that is simply NOT
- TRUE.. It rolled slower than most of its
- contemporaries..
-
-

I think you have that reversed m8. The Jugs roll rate was a strong point. It's turn rate was it's weakest point, not the roll rate. It was actually known as a good all around roller, just slightly under the LW planes.

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


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



Message Edited on 08/15/0306:01PM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 07:31 PM
Watsup wrote:
- S!
- Well this stuff about the p47 is definately getting
- as bad as the 190 guys. I guess with the constant
- complaining someday the jug will get modeled to its
- truer self. Im my opinion Oleg made a mistake ever
- putting in the american planes, except the ones flew
- by the russians. If he would have been smart, not
- putting in US planes would have saved everyone
- grief.I liked the sim cuz it took place in an area
- where american involvemnt was minimal.

Hear, hear. If they won't model US aircraft right (note I didn't say "can't" is said "won't"), they shouldn't include them.

We all wanted US A/C included in the game because the game was so good. We assumed the makers of the game would model them somewhere near their true capabilities. It appears we were wrong on this assumption. B

asically, I think we should just forget about US A/C being modelled correctly, Just forget about it, you aren't going to change the game developer's mind on this. It was hard enough getting the 190 fixed.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 09:21 PM
OT in this thread,
contrary to other a/c's beautiful cockpits, why P-47's cockpit is so cartoonish? Especially throttle box part. (I was shocked because it's so much different from photos. All other cockpits satisfied me. )

Sluggishness and cartoonishness(..) keep preventing me from riding jug.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 09:44 PM
judexdrap wrote:
- Hear, hear. If they won't model US aircraft right
- (note I didn't say "can't" is said "won't"), they
- shouldn't include them.

Oh, stop the silly conspiracy theory rubbish!

The P47 has some definite issues in its FM. There
are three other US fighters in the game, though.
They seem to be modelled much more closely to their
historical performance. I haven't done any detailed
testing, but it feels like the P40 roll rate is
a little low, but the P39 roll rate is a tad over
modelled. The B239 seems to be pretty much spot on
if the reports on the board are anything to go by.
This suggests inaccuracies in the models,
rather than some deliberate policy of mismodelling.


After all, many of the aircraft have gone through
adjustments - the 190 was off, the Hurricane was off,
and now people are complaining that the Lagg3 and La5FN
have been castrated. That doesn't suggest a deliberate
bias to me, but perhaps not a 100% success rate in getting
all the behaviours of all of the aircraft correct.

Hopefully there will be a 1.2 patch, and I hope the
P47 gets the correct roll rate in it. As to why it isn't
correct now, I don't know. Maybe there is an issue in
the game code that somehow prevents it from being corrected
currently. Given that a number of aircraft, including
US ones, are now closer to historical performance than
they were, it suggests a problem, rather than some sort
of deliberate policy to do down the P47, but not do down
the other 3 US fighters. It doesn't seem likely.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 07:01 AM
I think you forgot to ad that the DM needs some work also, but besides that and the roll rate the 47 seems too handle a little better.



Silent out...

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2003, 06:32 PM
Blutarski,
Look at the NACA testing data, then compare the P47 to the other Major western front aircraft types. Its going to be at the bottom of the list of the P51D, P38, P40, some Sptifires, Fw190's, and 109's (at lower speeds) Its not an opinion, its a fact of life. Look at the hard data, there is no disputing the roll performance data (not just in the one chart posted)

The P47's simply did NOT have a strong roll rate compared to other AC if flew with or against.. it was competitive (except against boosted P38's or any Fw) but it was usually the tail end charlie on any comparisin chart.

Also, the P47's turn rate when compared to the 109 or the Fw it flew against wasn't all that bad actually.. the massive engine and careful use of flaps combined with the barn door sized wing area allowed the P47 to be at least a reasonable turner.. But slowing a P47 down in that way was a last gasp scenario.. usually speed and dive were used as the means to keep safe..

As for the vector roll, you don't need a "strong" roll rate to complete it.. You can certainly ROLL faster than planes can TURN (dramatically faster actually), and the maneuver allows you to take advantage of that by going out of plane.. which was especially effective against the Lw AC types whose horizontal turning radius was large for fighter combat..

The P47's roll rate was NOT outstanding by any means. The plane was not nimble either. But when it was flown by pilots who used its strong points and avoided its weak points it was a very lethal plane that got its pilots home alive.

Lastly, the P47's roll rate in FB is wrong.. its not off by a small margin either.. at common combat speeds its off by more than 50% or more which is a MAJOR performancec problem. So hopefully that will get corrected.. Accuracy should be the goal of everyone who plays FB.. And the P47's roll rate needs to be increased in some areas of the curve, but even if it was dead on, it would be below average as a turner at combat speeds..