Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Rebel on January 13, 2009, 01:24:57 PM
-
If this were to be added, I'd change my handle to "Sally", refer to HTC as "Mt Olympus", and name all of the employees therein by their respective Godly names- Zeus for HT, Hera for Mrs.HT, etc.
For it is written that Zeus himself requires scotch, and he shall receive a 12 or 15 year vintage of his choosing upon the arrival of the mighty Pegasus-M model.
That is all
:)
-
Now THAT is how you beat a dead horse. Well played rebel :rofl
(I too would love the 47M :aok)
-
Why do you want a plane that failed?
The M saw very little action and was eventually terminated. The other M prototype became the first N prototype....
From wiki:
"Engines were unable to reach operating temperatures and power settings and frequently failed in early flights from a variety of causes: ignition harnesses cracked at high altitudes, severing electrical connections between the magneto and distributor, and carburetor valve diaphragms also failed. Persistent oil tank ruptures in replacement engines were found to be the result of inadequate protection against salt-water corrosion during transshipment. By the time the bugs were worked out, the war in Europe was nearly over. The entire total of 130 P-47Ms were delivered to the 56th Fighter Group, and were responsible for all four of that group's jet shoot-downs. "
The Meteor shot down a couple of German jets too but we aint going to see that one either.
-
Why do you want a plane that failed?
The M saw very little action and was eventually terminated. The other M prototype became the first N prototype....
From wiki:
"Engines were unable to reach operating temperatures and power settings and frequently failed in early flights from a variety of causes: ignition harnesses cracked at high altitudes, severing electrical connections between the magneto and distributor, and carburetor valve diaphragms also failed. Persistent oil tank ruptures in replacement engines were found to be the result of inadequate protection against salt-water corrosion during transshipment. By the time the bugs were worked out, the war in Europe was nearly over. The entire total of 130 P-47Ms were delivered to the 56th Fighter Group, and were responsible for all four of that group's jet shoot-downs. "
The Meteor shot down a couple of German jets too but we aint going to see that one either.
Meteor shot down some pulse jets, i think we will see it one day because it will add a lot to AH gameplay. Sorry for the hijack!
-
Honestly any new feature added to this Sim would be greatly appreciated!
ANY new Bomber, Fighter , attack , GV , or even a new MA arena/map
Would be something to talk about! :salute
<<<<< HTC PLEASE FEED US>>>>>>>>>
-
Why do you want a plane that failed?
The M saw very little action and was eventually terminated. The other M prototype became the first N prototype....
First off, thanks for taking a lighthearted thread WAY too seriously- if ya searched, you'd have found probably at least a dozen threads calling for the hot-rod Jug.
That having been said....
I'm curious as to your criterium for failure. It had teething problems (most a/c did), and the entire 47 line was scrubbed in favor of the F4U and F51 by 1948, so I can't really cite the short service length of the aircraft as a "failure" in any means.
What it certainly DIDN'T fail at was smashing speed records belonging to the P-51. 473mph at alt? Yes, thank you. Almost 40 mph faster then the Mustang.
I also don't see why the M/N comparison is brought up. They only share the same engine. Beyond that, they're ENTIRELY different aircraft. A comparison of the P-39 and the P63 would make about as much sense.
**Edit** HAIL ZEUS!
-
First off, thanks for taking a lighthearted thread WAY too seriously- if ya searched, you'd have found probably at least a dozen threads calling for the hot-rod Jug. :D Don't get me wrong, I'm all for any new Thunderbolt, my crazy squadies love that ride. But after the last 2 years of seeing the rejections by the community, I think it is rubbing off on me...... Sorry Sir.
I also don't see why the M/N comparison is brought up. They only share the same engine. Beyond that, they're ENTIRELY different aircraft. A comparison of the P-39 and the P63 would make about as much sense. Actually the wing design and engine are the only differences.
-
I thought the entire control system was different, the airframe was strengthened, the weight redistributed to improve stability, and a whole slew of other things were in there....I'll check out AHT tonight, provided Widewing doesn't come down here and slap me upside the head with a mountain of tech data.
Sorry if I seemed short with ya. I'm in IT at a bank, and we're in tax season. Yeah. Figure THAT one out. Friggin' users. I'm hiding in my cube now rebuilding laptops. Maybe they won't find me.... :noid
-
The M Jug would be fun. Seeing how much the German aircraft suffer when they have drop-tank racks and other nick-nacks under the fuselage or wings, I can only imagine how much improved the 47 would be without those ordinance pylons.
That said, it's still more important to fill in the gaps for good scenario play. ;)
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
110s and 109s that can reach 400mph IAS without notable loss of control authority...I could go on and on.
The 109G/K roll rate is 82% slower at 400mph than at 300mph. The 110 suffers about the same.
The P-51D roll rate is about 33% slower at 400mph than 300mph.
P-47 about 17%
P-38L rolls better at 400mph than at 300mph.
-
The 109G/K roll rate is 82% slower at 400mph than at 300mph. The 110 also loses about 82% of its roll rate from 300-400mph.
Most planes loose some roll between 300-400.
I just tried it, and the machine is still rolling satisfactorily, about as well as a P-51 at any rate, until the needle cross the 380 mark. No problem pulling to blackout at that speed either. I was given to understand that notable stiffness appeared as slow as 280mph IAS. It is certainly this way in "Il2"...
Any advantage in handling above 400 mph IAS is almost strictly for running away, since most prop airplanes don't indicate anywhere near that fast, especially at altitude,(at high altitude, an IAS of 400 or so has already put you at/near mach compression anyway) and there is nothing *making* your opponent follow you in a power-dive, as opposed to simply staying on the perch and shooting you if you attempt to climb back up.
-
I just tried it, and the machine is still rolling satisfactorily, about as well as a P-51 at any rate, until the needle cross the 380 mark. No problem pulling to blackout at that speed either. I was given to understand that notable stiffness appeared as slow as 280mph IAS. It is certainly this way in "Il2"...
"Stiffness" is only a description of the force required from the pilot to move the controls. It doesn't tell us anything about how well the aircraft could be rolled despite that stiffness.
At 300mph the P-51D completes a 360 degree roll about .5 seconds faster than the 109G/K. At 400mph about 2.6 seconds faster.
-
M,M,M,M, please :pray
-
See Rule #4
-
Jeeeze- a lighthearted request for one single shred of American iron gets everyone's thong in a tangle. It's kind of embarrasing really.
It is embarrasing. For you and the select few that keep harping on the subject nonstop. It's not a lighthearted request. It's 10-year-old refried beans warming on a sterno can (it's been cooked to death!). Let it go.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
I embarrass folks in Late War rides, while in a Ki-61. It's the Indian and not the Arrow. Pilot skill has more to do with "it", than plane choice.
-
See Rule #4
-
Actually, Karaya didn't say it's 100%. I guess he's mellowing out. ;)
-
It is embarrasing. For you and the select few that keep harping on the subject nonstop. It's not a lighthearted request. It's 10-year-old refried beans warming on a sterno can (it's been cooked to death!). Let it go.
The M is coming. :noid
-
Krusty doesn't like big jugs...
-
But were they in a fridge at least for that decade?
It's 10-year-old refried beans warming on a sterno can (it's been cooked to death!). Let it go.
This right here, is bad Krusty, real bad. Everybody loves Big Jugz!!! Or at least should!
Krusty doesn't like big jugs...
-
See Rule #4
Fair enough, I was going to edit my last post as being a little too harsh anyway.
However, I must point out, it was not *I* who coined the term "Krusty Unit". :devil
-
No, it was simply you that chose to openly tell me to STFU and began spewing abusive text. I did not.
-
See rule....................
Oh nevermind.
:eek:
-
No, it was simply you that chose to openly tell me to STFU and began spewing abusive text. I did not.
huuum... and your post say's "See rule #4" why?? :huh
-FYB
-
You're really asking that question?
So does yours.....
See Rule #4
-
huuum... and your post say's "See rule #4" why?? :huh
-FYB
Because I called him out on not having a real argument (used the word "fool") and my post was only 3 words long. (One of the words was "you're").
Hardly worthy of note after his double tyrade, but that's the way the moderator edits, eh?
-
Because I called him out on not having a real argument (used the word "fool") and my post was only 3 words long. (One of the words was "you're").
Hardly worthy of note after his double tyrade, but that's the way the moderator edits, eh?
okay.
-FYB
-
Because I called him out on not having a real argument (used the word "fool") and my post was only 3 words long. (One of the words was "you're").
Hardly worthy of note after his double tyrade, but that's the way the moderator edits, eh?
*sigh* Ole' Krust, why must you stir this?
You went off the deep end when someone asked for a Jug that would be slightly more competitive in the Mains, while probably seeing very limited scenario use. You argued that the Luftwaffe set is already under some kind of horrendous disadvantage vs. the P-planes we've got. Well, sorry, no, in the 109 K-4 you have what is arguably the 3rd or 4th best prop plane in the game, inarguably it is by and large faster, climbs much better, and turns better than the Pony, Jug, or Lightning. *Every* 109 variant in the game has an edge to play in turn and usually in climb against these 3. The 190 D9 is no 109 K-4, but it IS the b'n'z plane that consistently wins for highest k/d among the popular b'n'z rides in the MA, not too shabby. If you were ignorant of these facts of performance that might an excuse, but plainly you are not. The whole thing seemed abit overboard to me, especially considering that Spits, Temps, Las and Yaks typically present the Kraut ride flier in AHII with bigger challenges than the Pursuits typically do, in either the MA or in scenarios.
The ironic thing about you calling me out on this is that the OTHER thing besides the M-Jug I'd really like to have is a hotter 190-A variant...
-
*sigh* Ole' Krust, why must you stir this?
You went off the deep end when someone asked for a Jug that would be slightly more competitive in the Mains, while probably seeing very limited scenario use. You argued that the Luftwaffe set is already under some kind of horrendous disadvantage vs. the P-planes we've got. Well, sorry, no, in the 109 K-4 you have what is arguably the 3rd or 4th best prop plane in the game, inarguably it is by and large faster, climbs much better, and turns better than the Pony, Jug, or Lightning. *Every* 109 variant in the game has an edge to play in turn and usually in climb against these 3. The 190 D9 is no 109 K-4, but it IS the b'n'z plane that consistently wins for highest k/d among the popular b'n'z rides in the MA, not too shabby. If you were ignorant of these facts of performance that might an excuse, but plainly you are not. The whole thing seemed abit overboard to me, especially considering that Spits, Temps, Las and Yaks typically present the Kraut ride flier in AHII with bigger challenges than the Pursuits typically do, in either the MA or in scenarios.
The ironic thing about you calling me out on this is that the OTHER thing besides the M-Jug I'd really like to have is a hotter 190-A variant...
stop fighting, we got your opinion and we got his, its OVER.
-FYB
-
let me get out my gas can and approach the fire..
I brought up this plane WAY back.. perhaps a year ago..
of course just like now Krusty and the other usuals did their job and pissed all over the idea, insulted me, etc etc, just like they always do.. they feel its their job, dont take it personally, its their disorder, not yours, they, at some poing had an imiganary friend crawl out from under their pillow and inform them that it is their DUTY.. as the offical Aces High Forum Police to ridicule, and berate people who post anything that goes agains their own little personal opinion about how their world (which you just live in) should work.
but at any rate, I digress..
here is some info.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-republic-wepchart.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-climb.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-speed.jpg)
TEXT DATA
400 mph at 10,000 feet,
453 mph at at 25,000 feet,
470 mph at 30,000 feet
climb rate under WEP:
3750 feet per minute at 5000 feet
3150 feet per minute at 20,000 feet
weights:
10,432 pounds empty
13,275 pounds normal load
15,500 pounds maximum
-
let me get out my gas can and approach the fire..
I brought up this plane WAY back.. perhaps a year ago..
of course just like now Krusty and the other usuals did their job and pissed all over the idea, insulted me, etc etc, just like they always do.. they feel its their job, dont take it personally, its their disorder, not yours, they, at some poing had an imiganary friend crawl out from under their pillow and inform them that it is their DUTY.. as the offical Aces High Forum Police to ridicule, and berate people who post anything that goes agains their own little personal opinion about how their world (which you just live in) should work.
but at any rate, I digress..
here is some info.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-republic-wepchart.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-climb.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-speed.jpg)
TEXT DATA
400 mph at 10,000 feet,
453 mph at at 25,000 feet,
470 mph at 30,000 feet
climb rate under WEP:
3750 feet per minute at 5000 feet
3150 feet per minute at 20,000 feet
weights:
10,432 pounds empty
13,275 pounds normal load
15,500 pounds maximum
Okay, let me get this straight... Krusty didn't want your idea, but he brings it back a year later after he insults you, and says your idea is ridiculous?
Thats pretty cold blooded Krusty. But you cannot kill him WingNut.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff140/Javelin09/Nerds.jpg)
By the way, i got this from BaldEagl... He posted another thread in AHGD named Rank and Score Matter. Pretty funny.
-FYB
-
(http://images.jkcreativephotography.com/MotivationalPosters/envy.jpg)
-
(http://images.jkcreativephotography.com/MotivationalPosters/envy.jpg)
L0L :rofl
-FYB
-
Okay, let me get this straight... Krusty didn't want your idea, but he brings it back a year later after he insults you, and says your idea is ridiculous?
Thats pretty cold blooded Krusty. But you cannot kill him WingNut.
No, that is a bald-faced lie. I have not insulted him. We do not "piss on his idea" -- his idea was a weak one and couldn't stand up to criticism. Or perhaps that was the person bringing the idea up, I don't know which thread he's talking about.
A bit presumptuous for him to say HE brought the idea up. It's been called for more than the B-29 has, and for just as long, since day 1 no doubt.
Please leave the lies and insinuations out of this.
-
P-47M 130 produced, squadron strength and was in combat..
Ta-152 90-93 produced, squadron strength and was in combat.
Please explain why the M should not be done?
-
I cast my vote in favor for the P47M. I know this thread hasnt been replied to in a long time, but I thought I would bring this back up since everyone else is whining about the B29.
If you do some research on the P47M, you will find that the 56th FG actually had some success with the bird. It took a long time to get the M past its teething problems, but once the bugs were ironed out, the bird flew pretty well. If I am not mistaken, the 56th FG kept the P47Ms until the end of the war. There are records of these planes shooting down 262s. Not sure exactly how many 262s were shot, but I believe that the P47M confronted the German jets more than once.
I personally have a P47 bias, as having flown the plane in the game countless times. They are great aircraft, and extremely deadly in the hands of a good pilot. The M would be a nice package for the P47 enthusiasts. I personally wouldnt feel bad if HTC would trade off the P47N for the M model. The N model is nice, but is rather pointless to have. The plane was reknowned for its long range, but honestly, few people in the MA ever fly the plane the way it was meant to be flown. I think people who play AH would enjoy a more "fighter" oriented P47M thats fast and deadly.
-
Yes, she had her teething problems, so what? I think the M model would be more useful and competitive in the MA, have said so ad nauseum for 8 years now.
Almost every aircraft in the AH stable had teething problems of one sort or another; said problems should NOT be a reason or argument to exclude the plane from consideration. Wasn't it the 109G2 that had engine fires for mysterious reasons? Wasn't a mysterious engine fire the cause of Marseille's death, as he had to bail from an otherwise undamaged plane?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I don't begrudge them that. However, to argue against one plane on the basis of "we already have enough of them" then go to another thread and argue FOR another planes we already have 3 models of is hypocritical.
I am a huge Jug fan, and will argue for, plead for, and present a case for the inclusion of the M model because I believe it has a place in the game, and not just in one area. It would be useful for the MA and the scenarios.
-
Just like a better 190A, the P-47M would make another great "plane of fame" much more viable for MA conditions vs. the low-alt uber-rides. All I need to know. :aok
-
Agreed. Fix the 190A5, add the 190A9, add the P-47M. I could live with that. :aok
-
The wet moose walks backwards at night... But the buzzard whistles in its sleep.
Please explain why the M should not be done?
-
:rock +1 :salute
-
I'd love to see this A/C :D :aok
-
me too!!
again!!
i wonder how many times i have posted in this thread?
o well
like the song says "Squeak, squeak" the squeaky wheel gets the grease!!!
-
P-47M 130 produced, squadron strength and was in combat..
Ta-152 90-93 produced, squadron strength and was in combat.
Please explain why the M should not be done?
Amen I say to you.
-
P-47M 130 produced, squadron strength and was in combat..
Ta-152 90-93 produced, squadron strength and was in combat.
Please explain why the M should not be done?
Look at the US planeset and then look at other nation's planesets.
-
P-47M +1 :aok
-
+1, the blue camo looks very nice.
-
Yes to the M Jug! :aok
-
Look at the US planeset and then look at other nation's planesets.
And 1/3rd of those U.S. planes are bombers and a cargo plane. *yawn* All of which, if they were removed from the game tomorrow, I would barely notice. Fighters my man, lets stick to planes actually worth caring about. :devil
The plane sets you will call limited, Russian and Japanese, yes they may be numerically smaller but these numbers include many of the best-modeled planes for typical MA conditions. Some of the latest, rarest, and/or highest-performance variants built, but the USAAF is stuck with 1944-eque performance for its P-51Ds and P-47D-40s
-
And the IJA is stuck with a lower powered Ki-84-Ia instead of a Ki-84-Ib with a bit more power and better guns.
There are also many other missing aircraft from the Japanese, Russian, Italian, German and British sets.
-
And the IJA is stuck with a lower powered Ki-84-Ia instead of a Ki-84-Ib with a bit more power and better guns.
There are also many other missing aircraft from the Japanese, Russian, Italian, German and British sets.
I agree that some tweaks to the Ki-84 wouldn't hurt....
-
Look at the US planeset and then look at other nation's planesets.
Yeah I notice that half the German Luftwaffe is composed of 109s and another quarter of it is composed of 190s. Whats your point?
-
Why do you want a plane that failed?
The M saw very little action and was eventually terminated. The other M prototype became the first N prototype....
The 56th Fighter Group had the P47M in operational combat. They were the only unit that the P47M saw action in the war. The unit loved them. The manufacture lighten up on the airframe and had a more powerful engine. And they did see escort, dogfighting ...etc with the 56th FG.
Need to do some more searching. Read a book wiki is not always right.
-
Look at the US planeset and then look at other nation's planesets.
It's a US made game with US servers and US offices which has a lot of US planes because that is what US paying customers (who are the majority) want.
Bring on the M! The sooner the better!
-
And US warbirds data is probably a lot more accessible.. Nonetheless the game is better off having relatively balanced representation.
-
Since there are "needs" expressed for the 190A9 and 109G-10, I think it's time to bring this back to the top of the pages so no one forgets the USAAF "needs", too! :aok
-
+1 for the P47M, it's about time latewar has a competative Jug. :aok
-
Bottom of the second page? I think not!
-
+1 for the P47M, it's about time latewar has a competative Jug. :aok
So the N is not competitive?
-
Look at the US planeset and then look at other nation's planesets.
Karnak I'm not asking when I'm asking why not? I too would love to see some early way Japanese AC first.
But as to the question "Can the P-47-M be introduced?" Why not... it fits the criteria for introduction in the game. If not then I say remove the Ta-152.
-
So the N is not competitive?
Well, here is the problem Bronk. The N is not appropriate to the European theater. That makes a difference to a lot of people. The D-40 is, but is really 20mph too slow at typical MA alts to be a front-line ride. There is simply too much it can neither extend from nor hope to win a well-fought angles fight against. Otherwise, the D40 has a number of small advantages over the N, which add up. The M would give the best of both, and clearly be the most competitive Jug, and easily deserve the 5 eny number that the N does not deserve. The M would give the USAAF a ride about as desirable for typical MA low alts conditions as the La7, Spit16, Dora9, and 109K4 already are.
-
OK gents here is what is involved developing an aircraft at HTC.
Drawings and prints. Anyone have any? Do you know where they could be found?
Pilots notes on the P47M model.....have to have them to model the aircraft.
Since I've been somewhat involved on trying to get the beaufighter added to the game
there is a lot of detective work to be done. And the majority of the detective work has
to come from the Community.
Sources:
Wikis- Throw them out the window totally untrustworthy.
NASM your best bet IF they have the info. The information isn't free and sometimes copyright protected.
NACA....you can give them a shot.
Manufacturers: give them a shot.
All in all I'll bet it took Dan and myself 3 to 4 months to provide accurate information.
After that is submitted to HTC then the modeling can begin. Modeling is at their discretion.
It's just not add the M Model its' not that simple. It is gather valid stats and info along with drawings
and then, the modeling can begin.
-
Don't forget all the skins everyone submits, which gives skuzzy a migraine. :devil
-
So the N is not competitive?
No.
-
The N was made to escort B-29's at high alt and a very long way to Japan and back. If we played that way, it would be competitive. In the MA it's mostly a dog with some good spurs until WEP runs out.
-
The N was made to escort B-29's at high alt and a very long way to Japan and back. If we played that way, it would be competitive. In the MA it's mostly a dog with some good spurs until WEP runs out.
If you don't think the "N" is competitive in the MA, you're doing it wrong...
-
If you don't think the "N" is competitive in the MA, you're doing it wrong...
I think they're doing it wrong, I'm the one who keeps pwning them with ease. :P
-
If you don't think the "N" is competitive in the MA, you're doing it wrong...
any plane can be competitive in the MA, given proper use..
the issue is the 5ENY value.. even with WEP the N has no "super power" like most other 5 eny rides.. climb rate is average, acceleration is average/slow turning is nothing too great, e-retention is slightly better than average but not great, firepower is above average but not in 4 hizooka or 30mm territory.. it has amazing stability in a dive but so do other planes with a higher ENY value. roll rate is good but not the best either.
and after it runs out of wep, its equal or inferior to the 20 ENY D40 in performance.
its only "wow" its its the most fuel efficiant.. jug.. which is more or less a moot point in the MA anyway.
-
Anyone who thinks the N doesnt pawn all hasnt had it up to 30,000 feet.....
If you ever get in a fight up there you will see why it has a ENY of 5.
Whether its worth the ENY 5 down low is another story.
-
any plane can be competitive in the MA, given proper use..
the issue is the 5ENY value.. even with WEP the N has no "super power" like most other 5 eny rides.. climb rate is average, acceleration is average/slow turning is nothing too great, e-retention is slightly better than average but not great, firepower is above average but not in 4 hizooka or 30mm territory.. it has amazing stability in a dive but so do other planes with a higher ENY value. roll rate is good but not the best either.
and after it runs out of wep, its equal or inferior to the 20 ENY D40 in performance.
its only "wow" its its the most fuel efficiant.. jug.. which is more or less a moot point in the MA anyway.
I don't think you have accurately estimated the N's performance. Among single engine fighters, its Eg retention is 2nd only to the Ta-152. At 400mph its roll rate is tied for first with the P-38L, and at lower speeds its roll rate is still among the best. I don't know why you'd compare its armament to the 30mm Mk 108, which only achieves a paltry 540m/s muzzle velocity. Moreover, while the 8 .50s are a bit weaker than a 4x20mm armament, the total destructive potential of its guns is 4th in the game after the 110 G, 190A-8, and N1K2. Did I mention ordinance?
Lastly, the P-47N should be flown at altitude. Don't compare it to La-7s and Typhoons at 2k ft. Keep it above 10k ft and nothing can touch you.
-
I agree the N is a good ride, but I'm not sure about this line...
Moreover, while the 8 .50s are a bit weaker than a 4x20mm armament, the total destructive potential of its guns is 4th in the game after the 110 G, 190A-8, and N1K2. Did I mention ordinance?
Seahog, mossi, typh (and temp), Ta-152 all hit harder as well. I would also say debatably that the 109 G-6 + G-14 with gondies are quite comparable. Ballistics are of course more difficult, (particuarly the 152) but punching power is greater than the buzzsaw .50s. So that puts destructive potential down in the upper - middle of the pack.
-
What do you think I meant by destructive potential? Certainly not firepower/time.
-
Lastly, the P-47N should be flown at altitude. Don't compare it to La-7s and Typhoons at 2k ft. Keep it above 10k ft and nothing can touch you.
And you will be a very lonely boy.
-
What do you think I meant by destructive potential? Certainly not firepower/time.
Ah ok, I was thinking if you're firing at say a hanger. But air to air efficiency, I'd still put all those listed except the 152 higher. I'm also used to the weird german 20 mm balistics...
-
any plane can be competitive in the MA, given proper use..
But to say that the P-47M will be any different in this respect is foolhardy. I'm not even sure that it would deserve a perk based on pure performance. Sure, everyone will use it if they fly a P-47, but otherwise, it will be a hotter D model, susceptible to all of the things that P-47s suffer from in the MA. It would be the F4U-4 of the P-47 line, with much potential that will be basically lost when folks turn it, like they do any Jug, into a bomb truck that climbs and flies faster.
-
It would be the F4U-4 of the P-47 line, with much potential that will be basically lost when folks turn it, like they do any Jug, into a bomb truck that climbs and flies faster.
No bomb shackles so that worry is squashed.
wrongway
-
No bomb shackles so that worry is squashed.
wrongway
I'm pretty sure they had shackles and I'm pretty sure I can dig up pics. Field modified I believe. I could be wrong though.
-
Anyone who thinks the N doesnt pawn all hasnt had it up to 30,000 feet.....
If you ever get in a fight up there you will see why it has a ENY of 5.
Whether its worth the ENY 5 down low is another story.
you take an N to 30 k and you will have nothing to fight 95% of the time.. its performance at that alt is pretty much pointless.
-
I don't think you have accurately estimated the N's performance. Among single engine fighters, its Eg retention is 2nd only to the Ta-152. At 400mph its roll rate is tied for first with the P-38L, and at lower speeds its roll rate is still among the best. I don't know why you'd compare its armament to the 30mm Mk 108, which only achieves a paltry 540m/s muzzle velocity. Moreover, while the 8 .50s are a bit weaker than a 4x20mm armament, the total destructive potential of its guns is 4th in the game after the 110 G, 190A-8, and N1K2. Did I mention ordinance?
Lastly, the P-47N should be flown at altitude. Don't compare it to La-7s and Typhoons at 2k ft. Keep it above 10k ft and nothing can touch you.
Corsairs hold E better, F6F about the same.
its roll rate is inferior to any 190 at any speed.
"destructive power" its still middle of the pack to above average.. anything with a single 30mm has an edge over it, considering they can deliver the "1 hitter quitter" where the jug cannot.. which is important in a BNZ ride.
Ord? yes.. it carries alot.. and handles and climbs like a B26 while doing so.
-
Corsairs hold E better, F6F about the same.
its roll rate is inferior to any 190 at any speed.
"destructive power" its still middle of the pack to above average.. anything with a single 30mm has an edge over it, considering they can deliver the "1 hitter quitter" where the jug cannot.. which is important in a BNZ ride.
Ord? yes.. it carries alot.. and handles and climbs like a B26 while doing so.
Have you tested this? I have.
The P-47N holds E better than both the F4U-1A (the best E retaining Hog) and the F6F (by far).
Time to decelerate from 400mph to 150mph in a power off glide, prop feathered, in seconds:
P-47N: 101.16
F4U-1A: 99.6
F6F-5: 91.76
Time to complete a 360 degree roll at 400mph ias, in seconds:
P-47N: 3.45
190A-5: 3.74
And the P-47N's roll superiority over the 190 improves the faster you go past 400mph.
You are wrong to say the P-47s are middle of the pack; you are conflating firepower/time with the absolute value of how much stuff you can blow up.
Here are the Zscores for gun destruction potential (score-average)/standard deviation:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3402/3528637219_72f5991475_o.png)
Basically, this tells you how the aircraft of AH stack up against each other. Anything above 2 or below -2 is a statistical "throw-away" score because it is such an outlier relative to the rest.
-
Anax I guess I'm still quite confused by this "gun destruction" chart. Fancy as it may be, tell me this:
Would you rather have a Seahog or a Jug with a guns solution on you...all else being equal? Lets say D200 and D600, in order to kill the "what is convergence?" argument. I'd take a jug at both ranges, any day of the week.
Is it a powerful weapon platform? Absolutely. Is it instant death like the seahog or mossi? no.
Edit: The more I look at this chart, the more ridiculous it is. I've now figured out that it is essentially multiplying damage per round x total ammo. This is an almost useless stat, in my opinion.
Typhie less lethal than a P-51B? Yak-T less than a 202? :rofl You're a veteran of this game... be honest with yourself here.
-
druski, he is showing how much destructive power is carried over the entire ammo load. It is as much a function of how much ammo is carried as it is gun power. That is why the SpitV is so much lower than the IX, VIII, or Seafire with exactly the same guns.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Yea Hammer, I figured that out as you posted -- thanks. Still don't see the real merit in this, though.
-
Gavagai, I have to say, that's the most useless graph I've ever seen. Whatever way it was measured, the results are completely unpractical.
-
That makes me laugh bubi, because I was told the same thing about ammo duration, e.g. it doesn't matter how long the 190A-5's 7mm lasts. How much can you destroy with it?
Secondly, you are completely wrong that the results are not practical. If I want to gun down town buildings, it tells me exactly which planes do well at it, and which do not. For example, the Ta-152 may have great firepower, but if I only relied on that information I would be woefully wrong in choosing it for that purpose.
Btw, I discovered an error there with the P-51B...fixed.
-
That makes me laugh bubi, because I was told the same thing about ammo duration, e.g. it doesn't matter how long the 190A-5's 7mm lasts. How much can you destroy with it?
Secondly, you are completely wrong that the results are not practical. If I want to gun down town buildings, it tells me exactly which planes do well at it, and which do not. For example, the Ta-152 may have great firepower, but if I only relied on that information I would be woefully wrong in choosing it for that purpose.
But the Ta-152 is ranked lower than the 110C, which has one of the worst gun packages in the game for any purpose. I would rather take the Ta-152 than the 110C.
Look at all the planes behind the C.202. I would take any one of those over the C.202 based on firepower.
-
As already stated, Anaxagoras chart shows the complete destructive value of the various planes. Simply computed by (damage_per_round times number_of_rounds).
The reason why the 110C is ranked so high. It's carryong a whopping 4000 rounds for its MG17's.
What you other guys are looking for is a comparison of firepower per burst:
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/1213/firepowerfighter.jpg)
In this chart, Spit 9 and Spit 5 have the same value. But of course the ammo quantity plays a role in battle too, which is better reflected by Anxagoras' chart.
-
Ahhh, I see where you're going with that. The C202 might destroy an extra half building vs a 109G-2, but the 109G-2 will do the job much more quickly. You're right that you would want to cross reference this information with lethality to make a final selection; looking at either category in isolation is wrong.
-
That chart is useful if you're looking to shoot at objects. It would be more applicable if it were for something like 2-5 seconds' worth of firing.
-
That chart is useful if you're looking to shoot at objects. It would be more applicable if it were for something like 2-5 seconds' worth of firing.
The Hurri IID only has 4 seconds of ammo for its 40mm cannon! :cry
-
That chart is useful if you're looking to shoot at objects. It would be more applicable if it were for something like 2-5 seconds' worth of firing.
Mine is based on a 1 second burst. It's a pure gun power comparison.
Ahhh, I see where you're going with that. The C202 might destroy an extra half building vs a 109G-2, but the 109G-2 will do the job much more quickly. Y
Yes, though I don't know who's taking a C.202 for town killing... it's barely able to destroy 3 town buildings ;)
-
That chart is useful if you're looking to shoot at objects. It would be more applicable if it were for something like 2-5 seconds' worth of firing.
Moot,
The graph is relative......just change the numbers on the side. Doesnt really matter how long the plane fires as your comparing it plane to plane. The relationship between them is independent time. The graph would look the same at any value of time. Of course this isnt considering ammo load.....
-
I notice the Ki-61 is absent. They have the fastest firing cannons in the game.
-
I notice the Ki-61 is absent. They have the fastest firing cannons in the game.
Ki-61 is on both charts. It's maybe just lower than you expected ;)
"Firepower" is based on power of a individual round times ROF. See Mr. Williams website for exact values of all common WWII aerial guns: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
-
On the bright side now I know why it takes a great shot to take down anything in a 51B.
6th worst :uhoh
Strip
-
On the bright side now I know why it takes a great shot to take down anything in a 51B.
6th worst :uhoh
Strip
Speaking of P-51B's, I don't see the FM2, which I would surmise = P-51B on the chart.
wrongway
-
On the bright side now I know why it takes a great shot to take down anything in a 51B.
6th worst :uhoh
Strip
Not that bad. It's still having a much better trajectory than, for example, the A6M2's guns, so hitting at range is considerably easier :)
Speaking of P-51B's, I don't see the FM2, which I would surmise = P-51B on the chart.
wrongway
It's there :)
-
Not that bad. It's still having a much better trajectory than, for example, the A6M2's guns, so hitting at range is considerably easier :)
It's there :)
Doh!!
I didn't have my window open enough to even see P-51B.
:confused: :rolleyes:
wrongway
-
No bomb shackles so that worry is squashed.
wrongway
http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery.php?Group=56&Style=item&origStyle=list&Item=61&Temp=745&searchString=
-
I've only just read this last page but I noticed something. The 190A-8 should be between the 262 and 163. 163 has 2x 30mm, 190a8 carries 2x30mm, 2x20mm, 2x13mm. When compared to the 110G with 4x20mm and 2x30mm, it would be a little less than that, but more than the 163, no?
I guess it depends which package you load these things out with. Without the extra 2-gun gondola option, the 110G falls below the 190a8 WITH 30mm option.
-
I've only just read this last page but I noticed something. The 190A-8 should be between the 262 and 163. 163 has 2x 30mm, 190a8 carries 2x30mm, 2x20mm, 2x13mm. When compared to the 110G with 4x20mm and 2x30mm, it would be a little less than that, but more than the 163, no?
I guess it depends which package you load these things out with. Without the extra 2-gun gondola option, the 110G falls below the 190a8 WITH 30mm option.
In my chart, the A8 has the 4x20mm pack, which is the only one I take.
With the 2x30mm package, it's ranked 3rd, at about 1700.
Further notes:
The 110G has the biggest gun pack
109's no gondolas, the G-14 has the Mk108 option
P-39Q with 37mm and 4x .50 cal
C.202 the "big" gun pack too.
-
http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery.php?Group=56&Style=item&origStyle=list&Item=61&Temp=745&searchString=
Those are "drop tank shackles". :D
Pg. 401 of Warren Bodie's Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt:
Most of the airplanes were, initially, flown without drop tank pylons, but at a slightly later date that condition was altered.
Also, same page on the YP-47M: Factually, the YP-47M was an XP-47N with short range wings.
wrongway
-
I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Keep the idiotic charts coming. :rofl
-
If you're gonna sit here and tell the Community a 202 has "Better firepower" than a Ki-61, you're off of your rocker.
And where exactly I am doing that? As far as I can see the C.202 is on the last place on that chart...
Nice edit btw...
-
And where exactly i am doing that?
You tell me. The Ki-61 isn't even on that initial chart. I'm still laughing.
-
You tell me. The Ki-61 isn't even on that initial chart. I'm still laughing.
The Ki-61 is on my chart and always was.
Now I'm just waiting for you to tell me what's making you laugh :)
-
You tell me. The Ki-61 isn't even on that initial chart. I'm still laughing.
The Ki61 is on Gavagai's chart between the Spitfire 14 and the Bf 109K and on Lusche's chart between the Ki-84 and the P39Q.
What someone should do is make a formula based on gun hitting power, muzzle velocity, RoF, and mounting placement, and compare all of the aircraft. I imagine it would take a while to create a formula that churns out practical data though. I'll leave that up to someone with a longer attention span than myself.
-
The Ki-61 is on my chart and always was.
Now I'm just waiting for you to tell me what's making you laugh :)
Again Lusche, read my first post in this thread. There isn't a faster cycling cannon in the game. I take these charts with a grain of salt and this one proves my point.
I'm still laughing. I'm also not reading the BBS (telling everyone offline while I lurk either).
-
The Ki61 is on Gavagai's chart between the Spitfire 14 and the Bf 109K and on Lusche's chart between the Ki-84 and the P39Q.
What someone should do is make a formula based on gun hitting power, muzzle velocity, RoF, and mounting placement, and compare all of the aircraft. I imagine it would take a while to create a formula that churns out practical data though. I'll leave that up to someone with a longer attention span than myself.
This is a whole hell of a lot more accurate. I'll never understand why one airframe is a mystery to some of the "chit hot sticks" in this game. It shoots 20mm's faster than any other plane and the MG's are almost equivalent to .50 cals.
But some would put forth misleading information and foist it off as something else.
-
The Ki61 is on Gavagai's chart between the Spitfire 14 and the Bf 109K and on Lusche's chart between the Ki-84 and the P39Q.
What someone should do is make a formula based on gun hitting power, muzzle velocity, RoF, and mounting placement, and compare all of the aircraft. I imagine it would take a while to create a formula that churns out practical data though. I'll leave that up to someone with a longer attention span than myself.
For the most part this has been done. "cartridge power" is Mr Williams analysis based on shell weight and muzzle veloctity (thus kinetic energy), and explosive filling (=chemical energy). "Gun power" is simply cartridge power times ROF.
In other words: It's the amount of destructive energy leaving the muzzle within one second.
For a planes firepower value I simply added the firepower for all the guns.
No kind of judgement had been made by me.
Unfortunately I see no way to factor in gun placement in any reasonable way.
This is a whole hell of a lot more accurate. I'll never understand why one airframe is a mystery to some of the "chit hot sticks" in this game. It shoots 20mm's faster than any other plane and the MG's are almost equivalent to .50 cals.
But some would put forth misleading information and foist it off as something else.
Please notice that computing the firepower was done by going strictly by hard data on the weapons.
But if some of that data Mr. Williams provided is misleading or plain wrong, it should be no problem to point it out and correct it.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
-
It shoots 20mm's faster than any other plane and the MG's are almost equivalent to .50 cals.
No it doesn't.
KI-84's Ho-5s shoot faster as they are free firing unlike the ones that are on the cowl of the KI-61.
At least that is the case IRL.
-
No it doesn't.
KI-84's Ho-5s shoot faster as they are free firing unlike the ones that are on the cowl of the KI-61.
At least that is the case IRL.
Funny, I run out of cannon in a Ki-61 than any Ki-84 I've flown in this game. 61's are faster.
-
No it doesn't.
KI-84's Ho-5s shoot faster as they are free firing unlike the ones that are on the cowl of the KI-61.
At least that is the case IRL.
That is accounted for in the game. The Ki-84 has greater lethality for a 1 second burst than the Ki-61.
Funny, I run out of cannon in a Ki-61 than any Ki-84 I've flown in this game. 61's are faster.
The Ki-61 has less 20mm ammunition.
-
Funny, I run out of cannon in a Ki-61 than any Ki-84 I've flown in this game. 61's are faster.
KI-61 has 30 rounds less per gun. The other has them firing through the prop and other has them free firing.
It really isn't rocket science.
-
That is accounted for in the game. The Ki-84 has greater lethality for a 1 second burst than the Ki-61.
Yep...just tested it, KI-84 guns fire faster.
-
Funny, I run out of cannon in a Ki-61 than any Ki-84 I've flown in this game. 61's are faster.
That's probably because the Ki84 has more ammunition. Both are listed in game as being the Ho-5, and due to the mounting they'd have to be synchronized (slower RoF) on the Ki61. Although since they're mounted closer together, they're more lethal, I'd imagine.
-
BTW, the Ho-103 are far from being almost eqivalent to .50 cals.
The Ho is shooting a considerable weaker round.
Ho-103
Cartridge: 12.7x81SR
ROF 15
Projectile weight 33g
MV: 770 m/sec
.50cal Browning M2
Cartridge 12.7x99
ROF 13
projectile weight 43g
MV 890
As we have all learned in school: kinetic energy = 1/2*mass*speed². So you can easily see the M2 has about 70% more kinetic energy than the Ho-103 per bullet.
Taking round type, filling and ROF into account, the M2 can deliver about 50% more destructive energy per second than the Ho-103.
-
Those are "drop tank shackles".
Those are the exact same pylons from which they hung bombs.
-
That is accounted for in the game. The Ki-84 has greater lethality for a 1 second burst than the Ki-61.
The Ki-61 has less 20mm ammunition.
Then why is the Ki-61 ranked above the 84 on Lusche's chart?
-
Those are the exact same pylons from which they hung bombs.
I think it's a matter of role. They had thousands of bomb trucks already in theater, the "hot-rod" never carried them.
-
I think it's a matter of role. They had thousands of bomb trucks already in theater, the "hot-rod" never carried them.
Correct. The ONLY configuration I've seen involved three 75 gallon drop tanks on an M. They did not carry ordnance, other than internal ammo.
-
Then why is the Ki-61 ranked above the 84 on Lusche's chart?
They both have the same value on Lusches's chart.
All gun data is based on the raw, unsynchronized wepaons specs. There may be differences in actual ROF due to mountings in AH, but these differences would be so small that one would barely able to spot it on that graph. But I will open a new thread about this instead of continuing to hijack this one.. :uhoh
-
They both have the same value on Lusches's chart.
All gun data is based on the raw, unsynchronized wepaons specs. There may be differences in actual ROF due to mountings in AH, but these differences would be so small that one would barely able to spot it on that graph. But I will open a new thread about this instead of continuing to hijack this one.. :uhoh
If the 84 fires more cannon, it shouldn't be equal. More ammo fired would tip the balance in the 84's favor.
FWIW, the Ki-61 doesn't have "weak guns". A one second burst on a wing/wing root results in a kill.
-
If the 84 fires more cannon, it shouldn't be equal. More ammo fired would tip the balance in the 84's favor.
FWIW, the Ki-61 doesn't have "weak guns". A one second burst on a wing/wing root results in a kill.
True, and True, though I'd say less than a 1 second burst from a Ki-61 to a wing results in a kill. :) The Ki-61 is actually more lethal than the Spit9 and Spit8 because of its .50 cals.
-
True, and True, though I'd say less than a 1 second burst from a Ki-61 to a wing results in a kill. :) The Ki-61 is actually more lethal than the Spit9 and Spit8 because of its .50 cals.
Why is someone else saying the same thing I am? Thank God someone else uses spartan logic instead of overcomplicating things. :t
I just used "1 second burst" as a decent measure of time. But yeah, plenty of 1/2 second kills here.
-
If the 84 fires more cannon, it shouldn't be equal. More ammo fired would tip the balance in the 84's favor.
FWIW, the Ki-61 doesn't have "weak guns". A one second burst on a wing/wing root results in a kill.
A one second burst from almost anything on the wing/wing root will result in a kill.
-
A one second burst from almost anything on the wing/wing root will result in a kill.
Really? A Jug won't, pony won't, Hellcat won't, Spit 1 won't, as will many others. Again, this "data" is flawed big time. But some choose to almost "rely on this and pass it along".
I'm curious as to how much Tony Williams knows about the Ho-5 and the Ki-61. Seeing as only one example exists and cannot even be photographed legally, I know the answer. His numbers are "guesses" at best. But if you hop in a virtual Ki-61, you'll notice it will down a con faster than a Ki-84. I don't shoot at the fuselage, because it is a sponge. but I bet more than 1/2 of the players playing this game, "aim for what they can take."
-
You may check out his numerous publications about the aircraft guns, most notably the books
Flying Guns: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations (three volumes: WW1; WW2; The Modern Era)
and
Rapid Fire: the Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces
Also note he isn't part of the "Ki-61 POS conspiracy". He didn't say anything about the Ki, he's publishing & researching about guns. ;)
The performance of the Ho-5 is well known & documented, btw.
-
But if you hop in a virtual Ki-61, you'll notice it will down a con faster than a Ki-84.
Convergence is a non issue in the 61... that is be my opinion.
-
LOL..........okay, can you guys take your weapons discussion to another thread, please?
This one is for and about the P-47M, remember? :rock
Thanks........... :aok
-
LOL..........okay, can you guys take your weapons discussion to another thread, please?
This one is for and about the P-47M, remember? :rock
Thanks........... :aok
this.
-
After briefly digging around on the internet, I found three pictures that are P47Ms and were exclusively flown by the 56th FG. Enjoy!
:salute
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u138/exodus2243/P-47M_Battista.jpg)
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u138/exodus2243/P-47M_Lanowski.jpg)
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u138/exodus2243/P-47M_UNT.jpg)
Now tell me, who would NOT want the P47M? It has every right to be in this game just like the TA152.
-
After briefly digging around on the internet, I found three pictures that are P47Ms and were exclusively flown by the 56th FG. Enjoy!
:salute
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u138/exodus2243/P-47M_Battista.jpg)
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u138/exodus2243/P-47M_Lanowski.jpg)
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u138/exodus2243/P-47M_UNT.jpg)
Now tell me, who would NOT want the P47M? It has every right to be in this game just like the TA152.
EVERY P-47M flown in combat was done so by the 56th. Is that exclusivity?
Put D25 wings on an N. Instant P-47M. Perk it.
wrongway
-
I thought the M didn't have the wing racks?
The N wings are so superior to the D wings, I would probably still fly the N if it's true that the M has D wings.
-
I thought the M didn't have the wing racks?
The N wings are so superior to the D wings, I would probably still fly the N if it's true that the M has D wings.
dont ever let anyone tell you, that your not funny.
-
I thought the M didn't have the wing racks?
The N wings are so superior to the D wings, I would probably still fly the N if it's true that the M has D wings.
It would need to be coaded like German racks, drag with them, none without vs there always there as it is now on the P-47.
Drop tanks. No bombs. Fighter mode only.
Take drop tanks, you get the wing rack drag. No tanks, no drag. Center line point would always be there.
It would basically be an N minus 1000 pounds with a D's fuel load.
wrongway
-
EVERY P-47M flown in combat was done so by the 56th. Is that exclusivity?
Put D25 wings on an N. Instant P-47M. Perk it.
wrongway
M's top speed on the deck is what, probably going to be around 370?
So why the devil would you be after perking it in an arena with at least one free aircraft that is faster at low levels, turns better, and enjoys a superior HP/weight ratio? :devil The M would be a Jug that was actually worth a 5 ENY, that is as far as I'll go. Not holding my breath for its arrival though.
-
M's top speed on the deck is what, probably going to be around 370?
So why the devil would you be after perking it
Spite.
wrongway
-
dont ever let anyone tell you, that your not funny.
The N rolls better at very high speed...comes from squaring off the tips I suppose. Who is laughing now? :devil
-
The N rolls better at very high speed...comes from squaring off the tips I suppose. Who is laughing now? :devil
so you would trade superior low and high alt performance (speed), and superior climb rate for "it rolls better at very high speed"?
ok. :huh
-
The N rolls better at very high speed...comes from squaring off the tips I suppose. Who is laughing now? :devil
Was just reading about the superior roll rate of the F4U-4 due to the increased torque of a more powerful engine. Do you suppose the P-47N rolls better due to it's more powerful engine as well?
So, a P-47M may roll as fast, if not faster than a P-47n, be faster than a P-47N due to lighter weight and possibly less drag. It would probably get F4U-4 gas mileage though.
Can you have an ENY of less than 5?
wrongway
-
The P-47M rolled out of the factory as basically a D-25/D-30 (exactly like we have in game) with the same engine and horsepower as the P-47N. Other than some different systems in the cockpit and other miscellaneous changes, the airframe is identical to a bubble top D-25.
The P-47N rolls faster because the ailerons have much more authority than the ailerons on the D. The P-47N wing is larger than the D wing, with a span 32" wider, and roughly 30 more square feet. The ailerons make up the same percentage of wing area as on the D, so with the larger, wider wing, the ailerons are bigger and further from the fuselage, therefore having a higher moment in the roll axis.
It will not get "F4U4" gas mileage because the induction systems are different--F4U4 is supercharged only, while the P-47M/N is turbocharged. The P-47M will get P-47N gas mileage because its the same powerplant and configuration.
-
The Ms were D-27s with the new power plant, turbocharger and 72" manifold with the vertical stabilizer added in the field. The N model was made from the M testbed by switching out the wings I believe. The M would have the power and engine performance of the N, but at the weight of a D25. The climb in and out of WEP was outstanding for a 47 as well as acceleration, low and high level speed.
One thing to remember about the Ms was that the were used by the most experienced thunderbolt group on earth. The 56th field tested all of the 47's from B on up and the service crews were the best there was period.
Not too long ago I read that some of the M's were making a consistent 500+ mph at altitude in the straight and level because of the tuning done to in machine and motor.
My references include among others:
America's Hundred-Thousand by Francis Dean
Thunderbolt: A Documentary History of the Republic P-47 by Roger Freeman
If for no other reason, we need the M for the superb skins that would be available!!!
-
my KINGdom for a green skin fer N :pray
-
The Ms were D-27s with the new power plant, turbocharger and 72" manifold with the vertical stabilizer added in the field. The N model was made from the M testbed by switching out the wings I believe. The M would have the power and engine performance of the N, but at the weight of a D25. The climb in and out of WEP was outstanding for a 47 as well as acceleration, low and high level speed.
One thing to remember about the Ms was that the were used by the most experienced thunderbolt group on earth. The 56th field tested all of the 47's from B on up and the service crews were the best there was period.
Not too long ago I read that some of the M's were making a consistent 500+ mph at altitude in the straight and level because of the tuning done to in machine and motor.
My references include among others:
America's Hundred-Thousand by Francis Dean
Thunderbolt: A Documentary History of the Republic P-47 by Roger Freeman
If for no other reason, we need the M for the superb skins that would be available!!!
the M used the same engine, but was propped different, and was tuned different.
-
Keep it realistic folks. HTC doesn't do "field mod" tuning or over-boosting. It would be stock settings.
You take a P-47N up in-game now, no fuel in the wing tanks, and it would be very similar ("similar", not "identical")
You wouldn't magically get a 500mph sea-level plane or anything...
-
Keep it realistic folks. HTC doesn't do "field mod" tuning or over-boosting. It would be stock settings.
You take a P-47N up in-game now, no fuel in the wing tanks, and it would be very similar ("similar", not "identical")
You wouldn't magically get a 500mph sea-level plane or anything...
Similiar, only IF the P-47M was toting 800-900lbs extra weight. The Speed and Climb Performance charts for the P-47M and P-47N show gross weights of 14,700lbs for the M, 16,700lbs for the N model. Subtracting the weight of the fuel in the wing tanks (186 gallons at approx 6lbs per gallon) only drops the weight by about 1116 lbs.
A P-47N in game, with fuel in the fuselage tanks only, still outweighs a fully loaded P-47M, so performance can in no way be interpreted as "similiar". What if HTC added 900lbs to the LW or RAF or IJN/IJAAF rides, yet called their performance "similiar" to what one could expect from a correctly modelled plane? Talk about weeping and gnashing of teeth!
And no one mentioned a 500mph sea level plane anywhere. They said "at altitude", which you know means up about 20-25K, so please quit distorting people's comments.
A P-47M would still be a great addition to the AH2 MA environment. All the N model has on it is range, and I would gladly trade rate of climb and performance more suited to the MA environs than the additional range offered by the N.
I'll keep hoping and keep bumping this thread back to or near the top. Eight years is a long time to wait, but I haven't given up yet.......
-
Similiar, only IF the P-47M was toting 800-900lbs extra weight. The Speed and Climb Performance charts for the P-47M and P-47N show gross weights of 14,700lbs for the M, 16,700lbs for the N model. Subtracting the weight of the fuel in the wing tanks (186 gallons at approx 6lbs per gallon) only drops the weight by about 1116 lbs.
A P-47N in game, with fuel in the fuselage tanks only, still outweighs a fully loaded P-47M, so performance can in no way be interpreted as "similiar". What if HTC added 900lbs to the LW or RAF or IJN/IJAAF rides, yet called their performance "similiar" to what one could expect from a correctly modelled plane? Talk about weeping and gnashing of teeth!
And no one mentioned a 500mph sea level plane anywhere. They said "at altitude", which you know means up about 20-25K, so please quit distorting people's comments.
A P-47M would still be a great addition to the AH2 MA environment. All the N model has on it is range, and I would gladly trade rate of climb and performance more suited to the MA environs than the additional range offered by the N.
I'll keep hoping and keep bumping this thread back to or near the top. Eight years is a long time to wait, but I haven't given up yet.......
Shhh he's pontificating.
-
Shhh he's pontificating.
Referring to me or to Krusty?
Looking at the E6B vs the charts in America's Hundred Thousand (Graph 33, P-47N Speed and Climb Performance, USAAF Data at 16,700 GW)(Chart 34, P-47 Range and Radius Performance), our P-47N with 100% internal fuel (556 gallons) is 400 lbs too light. Carrying max ammo (425 rds per gun) brings it up to 16,692, very close to USAAF weight.
Perhaps Pyro or HiTech could shed some insight here. Perhaps I'm looking at the charts wrong. I know Widewing did some extensive testing of our ingame P-47N, I'll have to search his posts and see what I come up with.
-
Aside from previous, very difficult switching between N and D40, gunnery is hopelessly different, as guns in N are further from center
(and 5 eny for N is bs...what does it do better than 51D, which is eny 8? 4 more rockets, 1 more bomb, and 75% the climb rate of D40 with similar loadout :aok)
-
Let's make it perfectly clear... The P-47M is a completely different beast than the P-47N. Different wing, much less weight. Essentially, a P-47M was based upon the P-47D-27 airframe with the P-47N's 2,800 hp engine. However, all were upgraded to the D-30-RE configuration before being issued. They were initially deployed without wing pylons, and that allowed for speeds in excess of 480 mph. Pylons were installed later. To argue that the M and N are so similar as to be interchangeable, is like saying that the 190D-9 and 190A-8 are interchangeable. It is not a viable argument and belies Krusty's luftwobble bias.
To introduce the P-47M to the game requires no graphic updates other than a new skin. Of all the possible additions of fighter variants, this one is the easiest to do.
My regards,
Widewing
-
:rofl At Bj's new sig...because I was there to hear it to...and oh yeah, up with the M-Jugs! :rock
-
Why are we still talking about this silly little plain that had silly little service?
-
Because there's nothing silly about either.
-
Referring to me or to Krusty?
Who else. ;) :D
Because there's nothing silly about either.
Quoted for truth.
-
i know there are alot of other planes that could be added but the fact that this is the easiest to do,,
would for me at least be one of the reasons to go ahead and get it done!
-
i know there are alot of other planes that could be added but the fact that this is the easiest to do,,
would for me at least be one of the reasons to go ahead and get it done!
I agree (with the qualification that I don't know how much work is involved beyond the 3D model and default skin), just don't hold your breath because it would cause much weeping and gnashing of teeth with those that think we have enough US planes already. In my opinion, if it is not "easy" and diverts a substantial amount of programming time away from aircraft that would better fill some gaps, I'd vote to wait until after those aircraft are completed. We do have 4 different models in-game currently.
-
Pontificating, no. Not bothering to remember to check this thread, yes.
You know you're talking a small weight difference between empty weights, right?
Let me post a few stats I had to pull up to double check what I remembered:
P-47M:
Performance of the P-47M-1-RE included a maximum speed of 400 mph at 10,000 feet, 453 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 470 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 3500 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2650 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 560 miles at 10,000 feet. Armament was six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 267 or 425 rpg. Weights were 10,432 pounds empty, 13,275 pounds normal loaded, and 15,500 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 40 feet 9 3/8 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 308 square feet.
P-47N:
Performance of the P-47N-5-RE included a maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 800 miles at 10,000 feet. Armanent included six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and two 1000-lb or three 500-lb bombs or ten 5-inch rockets. Weights were 11,000 pounds empty, 16,300 pounds normal loaded, and 20,700 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 42 feet 7 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 322 square feet.
You'll notice that even with the weight differences, that even at high alt the speed difference is only 10mph (probably from the wing rack drag, FYI). The only climb rate difference is at low alts, and may be accounted for with all the extra fuel weight when testing 47Ns. Even counting JUST the empty weight, it's only 568lbs difference. On one of the heaviest fighters in all of the war. The P-47 doesn't really benefit from super weight savings. It was never designed to be light. However, IF you wanted to fly it light, nothing stops you from taking less fuel. You realize the D40 carries 370 gals internal fuel? That's 2220lbs!!!!! You want to save 500lbs and pretend you have a P-47M, take that much less gas! You also realize that the full ammo load alone weighs over a thousand pounds? If you're THAT concerned about 500 measely pounds on a 10,000 lb plane, you can go from 1054 lbs for full ammo (8 guns) down to 662 lbs for light ammo (8 guns) and if you REALLY want to go nuts, you can drop down to 6 guns light ammo for a whopping total of 431 lbs (saving almost 2/3 the weight of the full guns package!)
So, by complaining that the N is 500lbs heavier than the M "so they just don't compare!" is what I'm getting at. It does compare. You CAN fly an N like it's an M. You load it out the right way, and it's even LIGHTER than an M is!
So I'm not saying "No" to the 47M in this post. I'm pointing out how frakking close the two airframes are, for the folks that claim they're night and day.
Might as well say the 109G2 and 109G6 are night and day. It's comparing apples to apples, and they're coming out almost the same.
Oh, and one little dig here, I can't resist:
"The first P-47M was delivered in December 1944, and they were rushed to the 56th Fighter Group in Europe. However, engine problems delayed their use until the last few weeks of the war in Europe."
3 squads in the 56FG had 'em. Only 130 reserved for 47M configuration, not sure of those how many were actually made, shipped over to the 56FG, and actually used (surely 3 simple squadrons don't require 130 airframes). Very minor player in the war. So many more valuable planes are needed!
-
I agree (with the qualification that I don't know how much work is involved beyond the 3D model and default skin), just don't hold your breath because it would cause much weeping and gnashing of teeth with those that think we have enough US planes already. In my opinion, if it is not "easy" and diverts a substantial amount of programming time away from aircraft that would better fill some gaps, I'd vote to wait until after those aircraft are completed. We do have 4 different models in-game currently.
Main reason why we won't see a P-47M any time soon is that any new aircraft means a proliferation of skins.
-
Why is that a good reason not to have the M?
-
Pontificating, no. Not bothering to remember to check this thread, yes.
You know you're talking a small weight difference between empty weights, right?
Let me post a few stats I had to pull up to double check what I remembered:
P-47M:
Performance of the P-47M-1-RE included a maximum speed of 400 mph at 10,000 feet, 453 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 470 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 3500 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2650 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 560 miles at 10,000 feet. Armament was six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 267 or 425 rpg. Weights were 10,432 pounds empty, 13,275 pounds normal loaded, and 15,500 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 40 feet 9 3/8 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 308 square feet.
P-47N:
Performance of the P-47N-5-RE included a maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 800 miles at 10,000 feet. Armanent included six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and two 1000-lb or three 500-lb bombs or ten 5-inch rockets. Weights were 11,000 pounds empty, 16,300 pounds normal loaded, and 20,700 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 42 feet 7 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 322 square feet.
You'll notice that even with the weight differences, that even at high alt the speed difference is only 10mph (probably from the wing rack drag, FYI). The only climb rate difference is at low alts, and may be accounted for with all the extra fuel weight when testing 47Ns. Even counting JUST the empty weight, it's only 568lbs difference. On one of the heaviest fighters in all of the war. The P-47 doesn't really benefit from super weight savings. It was never designed to be light. However, IF you wanted to fly it light, nothing stops you from taking less fuel. You realize the D40 carries 370 gals internal fuel? That's 2220lbs!!!!! You want to save 500lbs and pretend you have a P-47M, take that much less gas! You also realize that the full ammo load alone weighs over a thousand pounds? If you're THAT concerned about 500 measely pounds on a 10,000 lb plane, you can go from 1054 lbs for full ammo (8 guns) down to 662 lbs for light ammo (8 guns) and if you REALLY want to go nuts, you can drop down to 6 guns light ammo for a whopping total of 431 lbs (saving almost 2/3 the weight of the full guns package!)
So, by complaining that the N is 500lbs heavier than the M "so they just don't compare!" is what I'm getting at. It does compare. You CAN fly an N like it's an M. You load it out the right way, and it's even LIGHTER than an M is!
So I'm not saying "No" to the 47M in this post. I'm pointing out how frakking close the two airframes are, for the folks that claim they're night and day.
Might as well say the 109G2 and 109G6 are night and day. It's comparing apples to apples, and they're coming out almost the same.
Krusty, if Bullhockey was a commodity, you would be the Bill Gates of cow pies.....
Strip out 2 guns, take 25% fuel and you have P-47M performance.... Sure, but only compared to a fully loaded P-47M. Strip out 2 guns from an M, take 25% fuel and the the P-47M will climb at well over 4k/min at sea level. Empty weights are not suitable for comparison. No fuel, no oil, no ammo.... Normal combat weights are what count. At normal weights, the difference is considerable. Your argument defies logic (as if that would be news).
Also, 473 mph reflects wing pylons installed. Without the pylons, speed exceeded 480 mph. Drag differences are directly related to the increased wingspan of the P-47N.
The following document illustrates the fallacy of you post....
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/comp-p47dmn.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-republic-wepchart.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
"You know you're talking a small weight difference between empty weights, right?"
Hhhmmmm.....well in this thread you bring up the weight issue, arguing over less weight difference than you see between the M and N Jugs:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258131.msg3198048.html#msg3198048
Here you get worked up about 237 lbs:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,228970.0.html
Here you post a question about "almost 300 pounds of dead weight":
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,197827.0.html
Regarding taking a Jug with reduced fuel, reduced ammo, etc, even YOU remarked on how little combat time it gave. Check towards the bottom of page 3 in this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254975.0.html
Here you make mention of "several hundred pounds" overweight:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247228.0.html
I'm not going to waste any more time going back over the post/threads where you argued about how significant a weight difference was. The SEARCH feature, shows pretty clearly that your opinion of weight differences is that they are only minor if the aircraft involved isn't a LW ride.
On the other hand, if it's a LW ride, even 60 odd pounds becomes a major issue and HTC needs to review the plane weights.
Make up your mind and stick to one side. There are a lot of threads where you question and call for correction of weight issues less than 200-300lbs, but ONLY if the plane is a LW bird. Then in other threads, you say that a almost 1000lb weight difference in a USAAF ride isn't significant.
If weight difference is something to be corrected in one ride, it is something to be addressed in all rides, be the plane RAF, USAAF, LW, VVS, etc. Quit nit picking the LW rides to death over less than 100 pounds then come here and say what you did about almost half a ton.
Either you're a troll, or Widewing was 100% correct in saying you're a Luftwobble.
Either way, you're posts have lost their informational and entertainment value.
-
Hmmm I have never seen a scenario where an N weighed less than 13k...no bullets, 25% gas (full load ammo in jug is 1000 pounds), STILL weighs over 13k
-
"If this were to be added, I'd change my handle to "Sally", refer to HTC as "Mt Olympus", and name all of the employees therein by their respective Godly names- Zeus for HT, Hera for Mrs.HT, etc.
For it is written that Zeus himself requires scotch, and he shall receive a 12 or 15 year vintage of his choosing upon the arrival of the mighty Pegasus-M model.
That is all"
Now everyone take notes! This is how you get something you want. :salute to you sir!
-
Krusty, if Bullhockey was a commodity, you would be the Bill Gates of cow pies.....
My regards,
Widewing
OHHHH SNAP
-
Krusty, if Bullhockey was a commodity, you would be the Bill Gates of cow pies.....
Strip out 2 guns, take 25% fuel and you have P-47M performance.... Sure, but only compared to a fully loaded P-47M. Strip out 2 guns from an M, take 25% fuel and the the P-47M will climb at well over 4k/min at sea level. Empty weights are not suitable for comparison. No fuel, no oil, no ammo.... Normal combat weights are what count. At normal weights, the difference is considerable. Your argument defies logic (as if that would be news).
Also, 473 mph reflects wing pylons installed. Without the pylons, speed exceeded 480 mph. Drag differences are directly related to the increased wingspan of the P-47N.
The following document illustrates the fallacy of you post....
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/comp-p47dmn.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-republic-wepchart.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
beautiful sir :salute
-
I am thoroughly entertained by the efforts some people put into their posts, explaining in detail of another person's posts (in history). I think I like this better than "Days of Our Lives" or "As the World Turns". I shall dub this thread, "As the Propellor Rotates" for lack of better name for the nit-picking drama.
:noid
-
I'm just glad this thread got brought back.
Bring on the M :aok
-
Krusty, if Bullhockey was a commodity, you would be the Bill Gates of cow pies.....
You, sir, are an insulting old fart, who would rather post misleading numbers on reports while jumping to conclusions about my posts, rather than read the point of my post for your own eyes.
My point is and was to counter many many complaints. I have repeatedly said I KNOW the two models are not the same, HOWEVER, the P-47N is damned close to it, if loaded out lightly.
1My point was NEVER to say the 47M and 47N were identical, but I was merely pointing out that folks griping and b****ing that the 47N is nowhere near the 47M .... are liars. My point in comparing EMPTY weights (which you harped about) was only in response to other gripers mentioning differences in empty weights, and my comments as to how that can be corrected with less fuel or ammo or both. It was not an absolute comparison, simply a relative one.
However, since the MIGHTY WideWing has seen fit to dump trash on me, let's examine what's been dumped, shall we? You brought this up, not me.
So let's look at your charts... First off:
I do find it funny that on the surface the 47M only has a few mph over the tested 47N EXCEPT at 32,000feet... oh, wait, it says "32k is estimated"... Funny, that.
However that's not the worst point of the charts you posted. I've checked at least half a dozen references online to get the average numbers for my previous post. Your P-47M numbers line up nicely but 47N are plain wrong.
I don't know what whacky circumstances they used to run those tests, but the only way to reach the specified weights on a P-47N in AH2 for comparison testing is less than 50% fuel and NO AMMO of any kind!! Further, the 47N numbers are significantly lower than most other examples given. These numbers are a red herring. You think "Oh, it's almost 20mph faster!!" but when you look at the real top speed of the 47N it's a far smaller gap. Nothing negative being said about the 47M, just that the implied leap from one to the other is a false one.
Going back to the tested weight... Makes me wonder why they're testing planes "empty" where most wartime test at least have ballast or some kind of notation about this. Also makes me wonder why an empty plane is being tested, especially when the results are slower than most armed planes of the same type. So if the 47N is flown so lightly, how about the 47M? 1/4 gas? NO ammo? No guns?? Note no weight listed for the 47M. No info of any kind listed. Top speeds aren't affected as much by lighter loads, just a couple mph. However, climb rates can drasctically be inflated by reducing weight. So in what condition did the P-47N with a weak engine (sup-par top speed) climb 500fpm faster than a normal 47N? In what condition did this 47M skyrocket at 4000fpm from sea level? It begs the question if the 47N is wrong, what's wrong about the 47M numbers?
Assume the 47M speed numbers are right because they jive with other references. However, the 47N numbers don't.
None of the numbers listed show any resemblance to the AH2 modeled P-47N in any of the climb rates listed. Nor do the speeds match up properly. Even if the speed of the P-47M is correct, the speeds of the P-47N are not.
You'll see at 32k the P-47N in AH (even with more fuel load) reaches the high 460s easily.
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/71sqn/p47chart2.jpg)
Not some made up numbers. These are found in books and online everywhere. So common that HTC used them to model the 47N in-game after whatever test this came from.
I'm going to make my point clearer, using an example:
No look at AH's own climb charts.
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/71sqn/p47chart1.jpg)
You might think the 47N was a worse climber, is the common response. The charts, as we all know, have the 47N carrying more gas. Taking 50% fuel in the 47N and full guns vs the 100% fuel and full guns on the D40, you get the following results:
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/71sqn/p47chart3.jpg)
The 47N outclimbs the 47D40, even when it's a little heavier. Numbers taken in-game, 1k results were oscillating, may not be accurate. You want more comprehensive numbers get 'em yerself, I stopped at 10k for simplicity's sake.
But this test is unrelated, right? It's not directly related, but I'm going somewhere with this:
You can see that the widely-known-better-climbing D40 is actually outperformed when similar loadouts are taken. Now you can extrapolate from the top speeds on the 47M and the top speeds on the 47N, that when similarly loaded, weight-wise, they will perform very close to each other. However the 47N would apparently still have a better rate of roll due to the squared wingtips.
Let me quote my own post, that you dumped crap all over because you thought I somehow personally insulted you (I'm still confused on that).
maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet.
WOW! Imagine that!!! I was 100% right!!! Gee whiz! But, wait... what was that I said about the P-47M?
400 mph at 10,000 feet, 453 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 470 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 3500 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2650 feet per minute at 20,000 feet.
So, not counting your wonky climb rates, guess what?? I'm right again! By your own charts!!! SO WHAT'S WITH ALL THE watermelon YOU THROW MY WAY??? You never even READ my threads before dumping on them. In the F7F thread you totally blew a gasket because I quoted the article YOU provided for us to read! My GOD man!! Somebody actually READING something and commenting on it?!? Please show me where I've warranted the abuse you throw in response to my posts? Do you simply take offense at my mere presence in your favorite topic? Please tell me, so that I may avoid anything you ever post!
Frankly, widewing, I really love most of the input you give to the community, but lately I'm really getting pissed off at your attitude towards me, and your inability to read what I post (and comprehend what I'm posting) BEFORE you jump down my throat. You've been extremely rude to me on several occasions recently, and that never used to be the case.
As for Bronk, your "ankle-hump-anybody-you-think-insults-Krusty" act gets old. Please drop it.
-
EddieK, your post has no bearing on this topic at all. This thread's current discussion was revolving around 2 separate planes and how one is closely similar to the other.
All of the other threads you have brought up are completely different threads about correcting flight model related issues. They are not comparing one plane to another, and you know this. You seem to be attempting to discredit me for previous threads I've posted on other subjects with no relation to the current topic. If you want to insult me please be open about it so the moderators can see it and remove the post.
-
This thread is still going.............
WIDEWING..... No offense but there are 6 spelling errors in that "scan." NO WAY an American typed that up. Much less an officer of the Army Air Corp..... Much less anybody else involved in any way with the S Military. We didnt invent the language and an enlisted man being caught spelling like that would suffer, much less the "smart" people.
[ Fake Image Removed ]
My regards,
Widewing
-
With all due respect, spelling in the USA has always been haphazard in my experience.
-
EZ fer u to say Uropeean!!! :aok
With all due respect, spelling in the USA has always been haphazard in my experience.
-
I'm not european...
-
EddieK, your post has no bearing on this topic at all. This thread's current discussion was revolving around 2 separate planes and how one is closely similar to the other.
All of the other threads you have brought up are completely different threads about correcting flight model related issues. They are not comparing one plane to another, and you know this. You seem to be attempting to discredit me for previous threads I've posted on other subjects with no relation to the current topic. If you want to insult me please be open about it so the moderators can see it and remove the post.
Krusty, oh Esteemed One.......I have no need to discredit you. You do it to yourself. I merely point out your clearly pro-LW or Anti-Allied bias, put it into perspective for all to see. My post was clearly stated, the links proved my points. Weight, be it under or over, IS a flight model issue.
How that ties into THIS thread is plain enough for most people to see, but I will point it out just for you: From reading your comments in various threads, if a LW plane is over or under weight, then as little as 60-odd pounds, it is an issue that needs to be resolved, a "flight model related issue".
If the plane isn't LW, 500lbs and more is "damned close".....are you seeing now how you might be perceived as just a bit Anti-Allied?
I doubt any of this will sink in......you see what you want to see when you read others' posts, even when you read WW2-era official documents, then try to twist what you "think" you see into a means of questioning the validity of said documents.
How so?
You said "I do find it funny that on the surface the 47M only has a few mph over the tested 47N EXCEPT at 32,000feet... oh, wait, it says "32k is estimated"... Funny, that"
The document says: "The high speed of the P-47D at 32,000 is estimated, otherwise all performance figures are actual. All power is at war emergency, plane in combat conditions."
NOWHERE in that statement does it say the M and N figures are estimated....they are actual tested perfomance figures. From the D's estimated numbers you try to smear the M and N figures to cast doubt as to their validity.
Reading comprehension must not be one of your strengths, I see no other way for you to have posted your remark as something to base your argument upon.
Discredit you? Not my intent.
Get you to look at what you post and how it is perceived? Perhaps.
Weight, be it under or over correct values, IS a flight model related issue. No matter the plane, be it LW, RAF, USAAF, etc.....if 60lb is an issue worth looking into on a FW190 or a 109, then 60lb should be worth looking into on ANY ride. My references to you and your past comments was aimed directly at that idea, and how you regard 500 or more lbs as "damned close" for a USAAF plane yet nitpick about 60-odd lbs in a LW ride.
Think about that one for a moment before you fire off another reply. Then go read the threads about adding different LW rides and make some "damned close" remarks like you did in this thread.
-
As for Bronk, your "ankle-hump-anybody-you-think-insults-Krusty" act gets old. Please drop it.
LMAO When HT makes the announcement that the new bs meter is now scaled in "Bronks" instead of "Krustys".... Then it will get old. :aok
So how high is the pine tree in the yard now.. must be what 5k-6k by now. :rofl
-
This thread is still going.............
WIDEWING..... No offense but there are 6 spelling errors in that "scan." NO WAY an American typed that up. Much less an officer of the Army Air Corp..... Much less anybody else involved in any way with the S Military. We didnt invent the language and an enlisted man being caught spelling like that would suffer, much less the "smart" people.
Irrespective of your spelling check, the document is genuine.... Besides, I see only one obvious error. You, on the other hand, made 3 spelling and grammatical errors trying to make your point.
-
I'm not european...
But you spell like one!!!!!111!!!one!!!!
U r either teh Yooro-peon, or teh ghey!!!!!!!!eleventy!!!11
"Moran"
:rock
-
You, sir, are an insulting old fart, who would rather post misleading numbers on reports while jumping to conclusions about my posts, rather than read the point of my post for your own eyes.
Krusty, your reputation as a windbag requires no explanation. You exaggerate with remarkable frequency. Too often you shade the truth to suit your argument. I read your posts, and they often wreak of horse manure. I can't begin to count the times someone has taken you to task for exaggeration, bad information or simply horse hockey. You should apply for an editorial position with Pravda.
So, not counting your wonky climb rates, guess what?? I'm right again! By your own charts!!! SO WHAT'S WITH ALL THE watermelon YOU THROW MY WAY??? You never even READ my threads before dumping on them. In the F7F thread you totally blew a gasket because I quoted the article YOU provided for us to read! My GOD man!! Somebody actually READING something and commenting on it?!? Please show me where I've warranted the abuse you throw in response to my posts? Do you simply take offense at my mere presence in your favorite topic? Please tell me, so that I may avoid anything you ever post!
Frankly, widewing, I really love most of the input you give to the community, but lately I'm really getting pissed off at your attitude towards me, and your inability to read what I post (and comprehend what I'm posting) BEFORE you jump down my throat. You've been extremely rude to me on several occasions recently, and that never used to be the case.
Your entire train of logic is flawed. You insist that if one carves up and disguises an apple, you create an orange. The fact is that you do not. Moreover, you have never given any logical opinion as to why the P-47M should not be added. The graphics already exist. Take a P-47D-25, bump the power up to 2,800 hp and basically, you have it. Now, do a skin. Done! So, why are you so unrelenting in your effort to prevent it being added? What motivates you?
Indeed, there is always an underlying motive in your posts. You don't want the P-47M. It's too much of a beast. So, you argue that a stripped P-47N will suffice. The fact that you would have less guns and no range, plus less performance either eludes you or belies, in fact, your unstated purpose. Therefore, either you argue with deliberate bias, or you are simply obtuse. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to the former, rather than the latter. Let's be clear, many if not most of your posts are rants about something that makes you unhappy. The greater the unhappiness, the more exaggerated the rant (I invite others to disagree). That's your reputation, and you have earned it.
As long as you continue to twist facts to suit your point of view; as long as you exaggerate or overstate, you will be called out on it. If that is uncomfortable for you, it's easy to correct. Be honest and get your facts straight before clicking the "post" button.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You don't want the P-47M. It's too much of a beast.
In an MA that already has free La7s running about?
Anyone who quails at the addition of another Jug, even the hottest Jug ever made, lacks perspective. :D
-
Next time I sit down to take a poo on the toilet, I will think of this thread! :rock
-
Next time I sit down to take a poo on the toilet, I will think of this thread! :rock
Biting my tongue till it hurts.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Next time I sit down to take a poo on the toilet, I will think of this thread! :rock
Well with the manure that has been spread... I can understand why.
Sorry WW had to be said. ;) :D
-
Everyone has their own opinions on airplanes.
I personally think the P-47 is a good plane. For those of you who think it should only be used for ground attack think again.
The 47 was used in escorting before the P-51 came along... no duh for you history buffs right?
Sure it carries lots of bombs, but it also carries alot of fuel. you Cant kill a Sherman or something with 1700 of ammo in each wing can you.
I dont see why not. lets add the M model. The 163 was a rocket interceptor. in my opinion, based upon what Ive read an X-plane. why do we have THAT?
for all of you people who use Wikipedia just to prove people wrong or right, Any Hooligan can write anything on there...It would be re-edited if not true WITHIN THE WEEK.