P47N Perk Debate

[Pooface]

i think that HTC have chosen a great plane to add, because it is one that is a big heavy bastage, and not easy to fly. keeping this in mind, im wondering about the perks. the whole point in pricing is too keep the numbers down, but i think that after the first week, the 47's will only be used a little bit more than usual. considering the weight and handling of a big bus lke these things, does it really need perking??? i was wondering whether we could possibly try it as a non perked plane for a bit, and if that doesnt work, we can just perk it. we will definitely see a lot of 47's in the first week, but im willing to put a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money that the usuage will return to a rather low level, and that after everyones had a go, people will move back to lala's and spits.

this is what i think might happen, and i would like to see the n free for a little bit, and just give it a trail. if that doesnt work, possibly a low perk price, because it certainly isnt a dogfighter. anyones thoughts on this?

[StarOfAfrica2]

You obviously havent flown the AH version of the P47.  That "big bus" out turns everything but a spitfire down on the deck.  I hope they perk it like a 262 lol.

[killnu]

out turns everything but a spitfire down on the deck

you must be joking...

[Kweassa]

While an obvious exaggeration, it does turn remarkably good for such a heavy, large plane killnU. The stability increase of just a few notches of flaps is absolutely incredible.

 I'll dig up and repost the testings I've done some time ago.

[Kweassa]

Tests and Conclusions about 109 turns

 Did the tests again under new settings.

In the previous thread, Hitech explained that the stall limiter doesn't take into account factors such as slats. Thus, he has recommended that the stall limiter(hereafter SL) setting be altered on some planes that cannot handle full stick defelction on minimal settings.

Thus, the new test criteria is as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------
* Tested planes: Bf109G-6, P-47D-11, P-51D
* All planes have maximum internal fuel load.
* Fuel burn set to minimum
* Test altitude at 200ft ASL
* P-51D and P-47D uses SL setting of 0.05
* Bf109G-6 uses SL setting of 1.0
* All planes were turned to its left
* All planes use full military power, no WEP
* The turns were stabilized with alt loss/gain of less than 50ft for 360 degrees full circle
* Speed and G loading was measured
-------------------------------------------------------------


Test Results[/size]



The standard E-M Diragram was used for measuring turn rate for given speed and G loading.


P-47D-11, no flaps
- 145mph TAS(212ft/s), 1.9G
- 14.3 degrees per second turn rate
- 25.1 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1773.1 yards

P-47D-11, full flaps
- 110mph TAS(161.3ft/s), 1.6G
- 17.3 degrees per second turn rate
- 20.8 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1118.3 yards

P-51D, no flaps
- 157mph TAS(230.2ft/s), 2G
- 14 degrees per second turn rate
- 25.7 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1972yd circle

P-51D, full flaps
- 120mph(176ft/s), 1.9G
- 17.2 degrees per second turn rate
- 20.9 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1226.1 yards

Bf109G-6, no flaps
- 152mph(222.9ft/s), 2.3G
- 16.9 degrees per second turn rate
- 21.3 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1582.5 yards

Bf109G-6, full flaps
- 130mph(190.6ft/s), 2G
- 16.6 degrees per second turn rate
- 21.6 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1372.3 yards

...


Planes in order of best turn rate under normal(no flap use) circumstances

1. Bf109G-6 (16.9d/s)
2. P-47D-11 (14.3d/s)
3. P-51D (14d/s)


Planes in order of smallest turning circle under normal(no flap use) circumstances

1. Bf109G-6 (1582.5yds)
2. P-47D-11 (1773.1yds)
3. P-51D (1972yds)


Planes in order of best turn rate under full flap usage

1. P-47D-11 (17.3d/s)
2. P-51D (17.2d/s)
3. Bf109G-6 (16.6d/s)


Planes in order of smallest turning circle under full flap usage

1. P-47D-11, (1118.3 yards)
2. P-51D, (1226.1 yards)
3. Bf109G-6, (1372.3 yards)



Conclusion and Analogy

This test does not represent the optimum turning rates of any of the planes given. It compares the turn rates, turning circle, and turning speed of the planes when it enters a contest of the tightest turn possible.

1. SL settings and Slats

The difference in SL settings needs some explanation. The P-47 and the P-51 can both handle a SL setting of 0.05, which means these planes can fly at 0.05 degrees before reaching critical AoA.

The Bf109G-6, in the very first tests used the same 0.05 setting. However, Hitech's comments confirm that this is not an accurate representation of critical AoA in certain settings.

The Bf109G-6 used 1.0 setting. Above approximately 0.3 setting, the Bf109G-6 still encountered noticeable destabilization in the roll and yax axis, but the effect could be controlled, and the plane continued turning in an oscillation of flight path.

At SL setting of 1.0, the turning path did not oscillate, and the Bf109G-6 could maintain a stable turn throughout the whole 360degrees. Thus, in a technical sense, it could be set that at SL settings between 0.3 and 1.0, the Bf109G-6 was flying in a controlled stall status.

Therefore, my initial suspicions that the Bf109 was stalling before its critical AoA, is proven to be false. The 109 was not stalling before critical AoA when it wobbled around. It actually exceeded its critical AoA which it could maintain a stable turn, and was turning in a wobbly, unstable flight path.

This means the critical AoA of the Bf109G-6 is in reality, 1 degrees before the AoA set by the stall limiter to be "critical".

While the Bf109 does stall, the neutralizing effects of the slats enable them to continue maneuvering in a stalled status - therefore, the Bf109G-6 can "mush through" the turn about 0.7 degrees over its critical AoA. Over 0.7 degrees critical AoA, and even the slats cannot prevent any more serious destabiliztion, thus, the turn is interrupted.


2. Comparisons in turning abilities

Under normal circumstances, it is confirmed that theoretically, the Bf109G-6 will outturn the P-47 and the P-51.

However, once the contest reaches an extreme point where flaps are to be used, the P-47 and the P-51 will outturn the Bf109G-6.

It is true, that the above explained effect of slats will enable a Bf109 to turn "tighter" by "mushing" through stalls. Therefore, in actual practice there is a possibility that the Bf109G-6 will overcome the stated figures and numbers above, utilize the "mushing", and outturn the P-47 or the P-51.

However, for that theory to be valid it needs a premise that the P-47 and P-51 will be interrupted in their turns immediately when it too, reaches critical AoA. The beneficial effects of the slats will enable the Bf109G-6 to maneuver over its critical AoA. However, there are no guarantees that the same may not hold true for the P-51 and the P-47.

While it is questionable and/or presumable that the P-47 or the P-51 may not be able to tolerate a stalling status for such a long time as the Bf109G, it remains that the P-47 and P-51 can also continue maneuvering under stalled status for a certain period of time - which is ofcourse, up to the pilot. The "tricks" in turn fighting which a Bf109 may use, can be also used for the P-51D or the P-47D.

Thus, in a prolonged battle of such harsh maneuvering, the contestants will be forced into a fight to turn tightest as possible - which flaps will take serios part in.

Once such maneuvering contest begins, the P-51D and the P-47D is superior over the Bf109G-6 in overall ease of such maneuvering(due to its very large advantage stability), and actual/absolute numbers. The P-47D and the P-51D, will outturn the Bf109G-6 for sure, and it will do so with much less effort than the Bf109G-6 pilot has to muster, to simply try to keep with those planes.

It is interesting to note that while the differences are very small, the P-47D-11 will outmaneuver the P-51D, which is generally thought to hold a certain advantage over its predecessor workhorse in the European theater. If we take into account a certain margin of errors, it could be said that the P-47D-11, at least turns as good as a P-51D.

Since a close-combat includes much more factors than turning, in a tactical sense the P-51D can be considered superior to the P-47D thanks to its other traits such as climb or speed. However, in pure maneuvering the P-47 and the P-51D does not show any large differences.

Also, another thing to note is that the stall limiter will generally make it easier for a pilot to reach the extreme limits of the plane's envelope - as he needs not worry about going over it.

The implications are clear.

The test conditions are more or less purely theoretic, and will be a valid comparison when we expect all of the pilots to push the plane to its limits to the extreme. In a more general, conceivable case, usually an average pilot in the P-47, P-51, or the Bf109G-6, will not be able to achieve such results.

However, the relative ease of flight characteristics makes it presumable that the P-51 or the P-47, will be able to push further near the limits on a more regular basis, than compared to the Bf109.

Therefore, in overall conclusion, about half of my initial claims need to be dropped, and half of them still remain.

There is nothing wrong with how the slats are working, and the slats will help a pilot push over the limits of the 109(albeit with a certain risk).

However, in slow-speed maneuvering contests, the P-47 and/or the P-51 is still superior to the Bf109G upto an uncomfortable level. Only under normal conditions will the Bf109 really outturn any of them.

Considering the fact that both adversaries of the Bf109 can start deployment of its flaps at least 200mph IAS before the Bf109, it is highly likely that the Bf109 will never gain any kind of real 'edge' when it comes to low speed fights with these planes.

The only arsenal left for the Bf109, other than the wits of the pilot, is its ability in climb and acceleration. In a loose sense, there is nothing about the Bf109 to be considered "superior" to the P-51 or the P-47, when it comes to pure maneuvering performance.


 ...

[Kweassa]

And here's Badboy's analysis:



 The 109 barely outturns the Jug. Barely. Frankly, the P-47, at least in AH, is not a bad turner at all.

(either that, or the AH 109 just absolutely sucks in turning)

[Ted Strykker]

Damn he went too Kinko's on ya'll.

[lasersailor184]

It will need perks, especially if it can carry the bombload the D40 does.


A plane that can carry a lot of ordnance that nothing can catch except for another perk plane.  

I'd perk it just a little bit higher than the F4u1c.  Not high enough so that no one uses it.  But not low enough to make the person over confident at bombing something for no risk.

[Brooke]

The P-47 doesn't turn all that well in max-turn-rate, stallfight conditions.  Here is data from testing in Aces High II, where all planes are flown at 500 ft. altitude, 50% fuel, max ammo load, max. normal power.  The times listed are seconds for 3 revolutions, steady state, at stall speed (stall horn blaring).  This is performance under steady-state, stall-fight conditions.  "1n" means "1 notch of flaps"; "50" means "50% of max ammo load".

SpitV, 47
Bf 109E-4, 55
Bf 109G-6, 58
P-51D, 63
P-51D (1n), 60
P-47D-25, 72
P-47D-25 (50), 70
P-47D-40, 73
P-47D-40 (1n), 72

The P-51 turns better than the P-47, both of which turn worse than the others and are totally outclassed in such turn performance by the SpitV.  The Bf 109G-6 turns better than the P-47 and P-51 by a significant amount, but that is without gondolas.  Add gondolas, and the extra weight and drag are going to make it turn worse.

Note also that dropping a notch of flaps, while it does decrease turn radius, doesn't always increase turn rate that much.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
You obviously havent flown the AH version of the P47.  That "big bus" out turns everything but a spitfire down on the deck.  I hope they perk it like a 262 lol.

Put down the crack pipe and let go of the ewe and step away from the keyboard.




ack-ack

[slimm50]

I don't remember which model it was, but I remember in "Gabby's" autobiography he commented on how much better the Jug climbed/ zoomed with the installation of the larger bladed prop. He called it a "paddle-bladed prop". Any comments on the prop used in AH? Or do they not get that detailed in the modelling?

[killnu]

kwe, i know it can turn well, especially for a large bird...just pointing out an obvious bait, well i hope it was a bait...because that is just absurd.  

[Roscoroo]

perk the new jug , perk the la-7 its only fair. (im really getting tired of chasing lala's,,, nobody turn fights in them hardly at all thses days)

[Kweassa]

I kinda suspected as much killnu

 The problem is that maximum turn rate is a pure, theoretical state where turning aircraft can make the fastest time in doing a 360 turn.

 However, as we all know, in vast majority of cases during combat tightening up the turning radius becomes what's really important. It is because that a combat is combat, not a contest of theoretical performance. In combat people fire guns, and to avoid guns, they are forced to turn tighter.

 In short, in combat, the term "outturning" does not mean "achieve better turn rate", but rather, more often means "achieve a tighter turn radius for as long as possible".

 What happens is.

 You approach a P-47 in a 109 from his six at about 800 yards. He starts turning to his left.

 You decide to follow him, chop throttle, kick rudder, and turn.  The P-47 drops a notch of flaps and starts entering the super-tight turn zone.

 By the time you finally slow up enough to use your own flaps, the 109 is no longer at the P-47's six O'c. It becomes a pure turn contest where both contestants start out at a non-advantaged state.

 You can try to maintain the "best turn rate", but the P-47 will still turn as tight as possible, What's gonna happen?

 Well, the P-47 will gain on your six, since he is turning so tightly, and get a shooting solution. If both planes were not armed at all, and they would just turn all day, eventually the 109 sticking to its 'maximum turn rate' will gain the upperhand after many turns. But during combat, with armed planes, just sticking to a max turn rate speed is not gonna work.

[Kev367th]

If it's not perked I'll be surprised.
Reasons -
1) Its speed at alt, I don't believe we have anything unperked currently that could catch it.
2) Without perking it all we'll see is P47N's.
3) Range combined with ord carrying capability

The top two reasons alone warrant a perk, co-incidently probably the two main reasons for the Spit 14 perk.

So I would expect around the same as a Spit 14, maybe a little lower. If not there is something fishy going on in HT land.