Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Seadog36 on March 25, 2014, 08:12:10 PM
-
Over 7000 of the 15,000 P-47s built were Razorback. wing pylon. paddle blade prop variants. Half :furiousthe D-11 skins are of later Razorbacks. It would be an easy upgrade to give the D-11 template pylons and D-25 performance and ordnance options. I know this is a rehash, but it needs some attention!
-
There is almost no gain for that work. That is the thing holding it back. I can list many similar options for other aircraft that are much more significant than essentially asking for a different skin for an existing aircraft. The P-47s are already the best represented aircraft in the game with a higher density of models per year they were active than any other aircraft in AH, even more than the Bf109s and Spitfires.
-
Thank you Karnak, you make my point for me. Most used/popular aircraft in the game and historically significant should be properly represented. The D25,D40 and M were very small production runs. No new skins would need to be made. The existing D11 skins meant for later model variants could be reallocated.
-
I didn't say anything about being the most popular or used in the game and adding the D-23, a fine idea in a vacuum, wouldn't change that. There are Bf109s and Spitfires that are much bigger gaps because they have actual performance differences compared to the models in the game.
The problem you have with the D-23 is that it is just a D-25 that looks like a D-11. It doesn't add anything else.
If it weren't for the developer resources needed to do it that would be one thing, but there is such a tiny, tiny gain from the addition of the D-23 that it simply doesn't make sense to spend those resources there in my opinion.
Bf109s:
1940: Bf109E-4
1941: Bf109F-4
1942: Bf109G-2
1943: Bf109G-6
1944: Bf109G-6/AS, Bf109G-14, Bf109K-4
1945: -
Spitfires:
1940: Spitfire Mk Ia
1941: Spitfire Mk Vb
1942: Seafire Mk II, Spitfire Mk IX
1943: Seafire Mk III, Spitfire Mk VIII
1944: Spitfire Mk XIV, Spitfire Mk XVI
1945: -
P-47:
1940: -
1941: -
1942: -
1943: P-47D-5
1944: P-47D-23, P-47D-25, P-47D-40
1945: P-47M, P-47N
-
I think we need some P47Cs before we fill the list up with any more D models.
-
Only a very small number of C models saw service, and performance was virtually identical to the early Ds though it lacked the reinforced ventral section to carry a drop tank initially. All of the B models and Curtis built G models we kept in the US for training squadrons. With the first P-47C and early D combat mission in April 43, they do not squeak into EW time frame even though they were operating in the US in 42.
I don't see your point in your spitfire, 109. P-47 list. Almost every model is represented except the D 21/23. This is not a wouldn't it be nice, we are talking about THE largest production block, more than half of one of the most ubiquitous fighters built not being in the game. Instead we have the lowest production models in the D 25,40 and M overrepresented. The D30 was the most produced bubble top and it isn't in either. We are not talking major investment of resources to fix the discrepancy, when compared to adding completely new models like the Yak 3 or Tu Tu which HTC has been popping out at a rapid rate.
-
D21/23
-
P-47 currently has five models covering three years of service, 1.667 models per year. The Spitfire has 1.167 models per year covering its six years of WWII service. The Bf109 has 1 model per year covering its six years of WWII service.
The P-47 has denser coverage than either of those two lines. In addition the missing Spitfires and Bf109s are more significant that the P-47D-23 because they actually perform differently than the Spitfires and Bf109s that we already have. Your production numbers mean pretty much nothing because the P-47D-25 already exists in the game and provides the same performance as the P-47D-23.
It is all and well to be totally focused on your favorite kind of plane, but you need to step out of that and look at the big picture. On the scale of missing variants for series aircraft in AH the P-47D-23 is right down near the bottom because it can so easily and effectively be substituted with the P-47D-25.
-
I can see were Seadog is coming from, I for one wish I could put the razor back canopy on all the p47 variants.
-
Looking back, the D25 probably should have been a late razorback but I am sure at the time there was a clamor for a bubble top. When I choose a 47 to take out I choose the variant for its advantages. The D11 for its fighter skills, the D40 for attack missions and the M for pure killing power. I don't think I would take out a latter model razorback that could not perform as well in an attack mission as the D40.
-
I can see were Seadog is coming from, I for one wish I could put the razor back canopy on all the p47 variants.
Thank you glzsqd. There is definitely a role for bubble canopy variants especially in the N for the LW Pacific arena, but the main point is most of the swarms of 47s doing the ground pounding in the war were Razorbacks, which are not well represented by the single hardpoint D-11 in the game. Furthermore D-11s and earlier models were retrofitted with wing hardpoints almost from the get go when it became obvious that their short range without drops severely limited their missions in both Europe and the Pacific. (http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/HHII_zps6d323f32.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/HHII_zps6d323f32.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/sleepytimegallarge.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/sleepytimegallarge.jpg.html)
-
Most used/popular aircraft in the game and historically significant should be properly represented.
It is already more than properly represented as Karnak said.
-
Any later Razorback skin that has been skinned on the D-11 shape would have to modified before it could be used as a D-23 skin in order to add the wing pylon's texture. The problem with doing this is that there is not a large enough gap on the D-11 skin's bmp file to fit the wing pylon, on the bubble-top Jugs it is placed where the Razorback area of the LH fuselage would have been.
I'd think it unlikely HTC would add a late Razorback until the P-47 series gets redone to the latest standard and this probably won't happen until all the AH1-era planes have been updated.
-
Looking back, the D25 probably should have been a late razorback but I am sure at the time there was a clamor for a bubble top. When I choose a 47 to take out I choose the variant for its advantages. The D11 for its fighter skills, the D40 for attack missions and the M for pure killing power. I don't think I would take out a latter model razorback that could not perform as well in an attack mission as the D40.
I agree Randy, they also changed the P-51B to a Malcolm hood bubble variation too because people preferred not to have the obstruction of the IMHO more attractive and realistic factory installed "birdcage" canopy, even though HTC has a policy of "no field modifications" for ingame vehicles and aircraft.
Most top scoring US aces got the bulk of their kills flying Razorback Ds not P-51s. Chances are you will see Ms zooming around because everything in the MAs is uber even though only 315 were ever built and barely saw service in the last months of the ETO. Once you dropped your ord, you would be much happier dog fighting in a D-23 than the heavier sluggish D-40. If you want some convincing reading, try Widewing's interview of Robert S Johnson on the bbs: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=27675.30
Wmaker~ The 47 is definitely and unfortunately improperly represented, though HTC has an opportunity to correct the oversight, whether Karnak likes it or not is inconsequential.
You are probably right Greebo~ I'm just trying to usher in the update bestowed on the C-47, B-26 and others. Btw thanks for the new 318th skin. The old holdup in inserting new skins seems to have been reduced.
-
+1 for the D21 or D23.
I can see Karnak's rationale for disagreement. That said, the D23 would out perform the D25 as a fighter, and SD correctly argues a Late D model would best represent the the P-47 model in AH as it did in three theaters of WW2. The razorback has a cleaner airframe than the Bubble top and should handle better than the D25 at all speeds.
-
+1 for the D21 or D23.
. . . That said, the D23 would out perform the D25 as a fighter, . . .
And the D11 would out perform the D23 wouldn't you think Ammo?
-
And the D11 would out perform the D23 wouldn't you think Ammo?
No sir. Slightly more powerful engine, better prop. I would think the D23's climb rate would be higher than the D11. I am not sure if the top speed would be better than the D11 with the wing pylons.
-
No sir. Slightly more powerful engine, better prop. I would think the D23's climb rate would be higher than the D11. I am not sure if the top speed would be better than the D11 with the wing pylons.
Pylons mean added braces. Braces mean added weight. I figure the D23's weight should be closer to the D40 than the D11. The D11s weight makes it a better performer. That is what I am thinking. Your the expert on these so I go with what ever your thoughts on the 47s.
-
+1 for the D21 or D23.
I can see Karnak's rationale for disagreement. That said, the D23 would out perform the D25 as a fighter, and SD correctly argues a Late D model would best represent the the P-47 model in AH as it did in three theaters of WW2. The razorback has a cleaner airframe than the Bubble top and should handle better than the D25 at all speeds.
Not to mention the Razor Back canopy makes the Jug look 100X more intimidating and scary. Not that I don't like the bubble canopy P47s, its just they can some times look more like a big radial pony. Although come to think of it, maybe I just have a fetish for Heavily framed cockpits, might explain my obsession of the F4u-1 over the rest of the plane line up as well as the D-11.
-
Pylons mean added braces. Braces mean added weight. I figure the D23's weight should be closer to the D40 than the D11. The D11s weight makes it a better performer. That is what I am thinking. Your the expert on these so I go with what ever your thoughts on the 47s.
Later model bubble tops had more internal fuel, adding weight and making them more sluggish. Thought the pylons added some wight and drag, the the slightly more powerful R-2300 radial coupled with the newer larger diameter, wider chord props really ramped up climb performance and added some speed.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/burmarazorback-1.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/burmarazorback-1.jpg.html)
-
Not being an a hole here or anything but tell us what new/different thing this plane would bring to the game, and no "it's a plane I want to fly" doesn't count as there are many planes that other want to fly that have less of a chance in getting in.
-
Better climbing, faster, but I can still feel morally superior because it's a midwar plane? Yes, please!
With that said, chances of it happening are pretty close to nil. We've got plenty of jugs and it doesn't really add anything material gameplay-wise to the planeset.
If and when they redo the jug set though, I'd like it added.
Wiley.
-
Not to be an A hole but the thread clearly makes the argument that the model should be in the game for historical accuracy. That model is the unsung hero of the USAAF in terms of air to air kills. ground attack and pioneer of close air support. From the Southwest Pacific, China, Italy and Europe- that was in the skies when people looked up, that is reason enough.
-
Not to be an A hole but the thread clearly makes the argument that the model should be in the game for historical accuracy. That model is the unsung hero of the USAAF in terms of air to air kills. ground attack and pioneer of close air support. From the Southwest Pacific, China, Italy and Europe- that was in the skies when people looked up, that is reason enough.
A lot of planes should be added for 'historical accuracy' like the P-38H but like the P-47D15-23 series, doesn't bring anything to the table game play wise that would call for it's immediate inclusion into the game.
ack-ack
-
Also ready for the J2M series :D
Based off of what some have said, "what does it bring" to the table, well it would fill the hole it was built for in the IJN arsenal.
Plus if they modeled the J2M4, we could shoot upwards at bombers while flying level :devil
Sorry, but the P47 is probably the last plane set that needs any addition atm. YMMV
Hazarding a guess, but I figure little work is being done on new planes atm and most work is directed at the new graphics release, not that I have any insight...just a guess.
-
A lot of planes should be added for 'historical accuracy' like the P-38H but like the P-47D15-23 series, doesn't bring anything to the table game play wise that would call for it's immediate inclusion into the game.
ack-ack
Ack Ack~ The P-38H had 601 examples built vs the 7,000+ examples of P-47D15-22 series and RotBaron, you probably know the J2M series were also minor players in comparison with only 621 of all types built. The Ki-43 was the biggest hole in the IJA planeset. All the naysayers said it would be a hangar queen because of its firepower but it gets tons of play.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1959465_1416108775306474_1851936958_n_zps0e41f7a9.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1959465_1416108775306474_1851936958_n_zps0e41f7a9.jpg.html)(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1939761_1416108605306491_804051748_n_zps45ccbb8b.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1939761_1416108605306491_804051748_n_zps45ccbb8b.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1545576_10200940759115320_254158799_n_zps260c7a5b.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1545576_10200940759115320_254158799_n_zps260c7a5b.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1975213_10202863137593384_1896380482_n_zps0c10b27c.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1975213_10202863137593384_1896380482_n_zps0c10b27c.jpg.html)
-
By the hole in the IJ set I meant a plane that was capable of doing the things the J2M did. Almost all of the IJ set we have are the super turny birds, the J2M puts the plane set above 15k a realm of possibility. We have some high alt bases, not many, but enough that plane choices have some narrowing where at least I say to myself xyz plane is a bad choice for attack/defense of xyz. Anyhow I'm all for more, but just not more of something we have plenty of, but the Japanese Jug with 20's, I'm all in there :D
-
Razorbacks with paddle-bladed props, hot-rodded to pull 70" MAP like they did, those were likely the highest performing Jugs and best dogfighting Thunderbolts of all.
-
Ack Ack~ The P-38H had 601 examples built vs the 7,000+ examples of P-47D15-22 series and RotBaron, you probably know the J2M series were also minor players in comparison with only 621 of all types built. The Ki-43 was the biggest hole in the IJA planeset. All the naysayers said it would be a hangar queen because of its firepower but it gets tons of play.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1959465_1416108775306474_1851936958_n_zps0e41f7a9.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1959465_1416108775306474_1851936958_n_zps0e41f7a9.jpg.html)(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1939761_1416108605306491_804051748_n_zps45ccbb8b.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1939761_1416108605306491_804051748_n_zps45ccbb8b.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1545576_10200940759115320_254158799_n_zps260c7a5b.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1545576_10200940759115320_254158799_n_zps260c7a5b.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1975213_10202863137593384_1896380482_n_zps0c10b27c.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1975213_10202863137593384_1896380482_n_zps0c10b27c.jpg.html)
But unlike the P-47D-23 the P-38H and J2M actually perform differently than things already in the game. That makes them nearly infinitely preferable to anybody who isn't a P-47 junkie.
-
But unlike the P-47D-23 the P-38H and J2M actually perform differently than things already in the game. That makes them nearly infinitely preferable to anybody who isn't a P-47 junkie.
The switch from the toothpick prop to the paddle-bladed prop gave a relatively large boost in climb and acceleration for a small decrease in top end speed. Put such a prop on a razorback and its dogfighting abilities go up quite a bit.
-
This ROC difference is mostly due to the paddle prop IIRC. I would expect the razorback to exceed the D-25 in climb if given a paddle-blade, due to lighter weight. This could conceivably put it near the vaunted P-47M in ROC.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=46&p2=28&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Would love to see more razor back P-47s, love my D11. I would finally be able to take an 47with almost the same handling on an attack mission.
Huge +1
-
Not to be an A hole but the thread clearly makes the argument that the model should be in the game for historical accuracy. That model is the unsung hero of the USAAF in terms of air to air kills. ground attack and pioneer of close air support. From the Southwest Pacific, China, Italy and Europe- that was in the skies when people looked up, that is reason enough.
ahhh so it has nothing to do with the game or game play, it's just a wish to make YOU happy.
As ACK ACK said there are many others that fit that "historical" category that should be be added that WILL have a different in the game/game play. I'd hope to see those before the P47-23
-
What part of a more authentic historical representation don't you understand? I guess you can't help but be a Mass hole. It has nothing to do with my personal happiness and everything to do with making the game better for everyone. Flame on hater :rofl
-
What part of a more authentic historical representation don't you understand? I guess you can't help but be a Mass hole. It has nothing to do with my personal happiness and everything to do with making the game better for everyone. Flame on hater :rofl
The only reason you can post is "because of history" How does that make the game better?
-
This game is based on historical aircraft, their modeling and performance with some attention to usage and availability. I'm sorry you can't comprehend the justification as enough reason to improve the plane set. By HTC's criteria of numbers used, dates of production and significance, they qualify, and I an not alone in that opinion. It seems like for many, unless it isn't the fastest most heavily cannon aircraft, it won't add anything to the game. Maybe you can contribute something well researched alternative instead of just your negative opinion. I sincerely enjoy learning about different vehicles involved in the war through the community on the bbs.
-
When we have planes that are still not in the game that were made in thousands, the slightly different Jug can wait a bit.
Bristol Beaufighter:
Served: 27 July 1940 to 1960
Number built: 5,928
(http://www.saafmuseum.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beaufighter_X_19_sqn_saaf.jpg)
Vickers Wellington:
Served: 1938-1953
Numbers built: 11000+
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/aircraft/bomber/vickers-wellington-bomber/vickers-wellington-bomber-01.png)
Petlyakov Pe-2:
Served: 1941-1954
Numbers built: 11400+
(http://ww2-weapons.com/Aircrafts/Bombers/Russian/Petlyakov/images/Pe-2-05-px800.jpg)
All these planes are not represented in any way within the game and bring a unique flight model to the game.
-
+1 on all of them, especially the Beaufighter, but I do think the introduction of of a later razorback D would be far easier than a from scratch model. Fortunately HTC has really picked up the pace of their R&D.
-
but I do think the introduction of of a later razorback D would be far easier than a from scratch model.
This is true but with the P-47s being older models, it would not be worth it to add any new models before they update the models again. And as the P-47 is still a AH2 model, its not due for an update anytime soon.
If the P-47 gets an update in a few years HTC could add a Razorback, but until then it is not worth it.
-
This is true but with the P-47s being older models, it would not be worth it to add any new models before they update the models again. And as the P-47 is still a AH2 model, its not due for an update anytime soon.
If the P-47 gets an update in a few years HTC could add a Razorback, but until then it is not worth it.
Adding a paddle-bladed razorback would be the sort of non-issue that adding the P-47M was.
-
Adding a paddle-bladed razorback would be the sort of non-issue that adding the P-47M was.
[/quot
agreed or the Ju87 with cannon pods, or the bomber mossie. Not the same level of work involved.
-
Adding a paddle-bladed razorback would be the sort of non-issue that adding the P-47M was.
Read Greebo's post. This is not the same as adding the M from the D-40. There is no room on the skin bitmap for the D-11 to add the wing pylon.
-
Read Greebo's post. This is not the same as adding the M from the D-40. There is no room on the skin bitmap for the D-11 to add the wing pylon.
HTC has a lot to work with already.
-
Read Greebo's post. This is not the same as adding the M from the D-40. There is no room on the skin bitmap for the D-11 to add the wing pylon.
This just means that the skins cannot be instantly transfered between the D11 and D23. In terms of the 3D mesh, this is much less work than creating a new plane, and so is the flight modeling.
The P47s line does need the most common Jug, and the best dogfighter of the bunch. Even the D11s that we have, spent much, if not most of their service with paddle blade props and wing mounts. If I am not mistaken, the paddle blade prop was introduced into the production line immediately after the D11 and quickly installed in all planes in the field.
For those who say that the P47s are over represented, this is just a game-history issue that gave us both D-25 and D-40, which is quite redundant. The D25 (as much as I like it) should have been a late razorback instead. However, if HTC do decide to model a late razorback, they will probably not remove the D-25 from the game, though I am perfectly fine with it if they do.
-
This just means that the skins cannot be instantly transfered between the D11 and D23. In terms of the 3D mesh, this is much less work than creating a new plane, and so is the flight modeling.
Sure. The thing is, it's a relatively fine detail change in a relatively well represented plane model. If there were no P47s in the game and HTC was talking about adding them and considering what models to represent, it would be an obvious choice.
Unfortunately, I don't think I've ever seen HTC add a variant to a model since I've been here without rolling it in with a rework of that model's entire line. Hence why I'm saying it ain't likely anytime soon. I'd like it to, but from what I've seen about how HTC develops, they don't change what they've got existing unless they're wanting to roll it in with something bigger than another subvariant.
I am saying this as a guy who spends most of his time in the D11 because I like the way it handles. This plane, if it existed, would likely be my standard 'knock around in the MA' ride.
Wiley.
-
When we have planes that are still not in the game that were made in thousands, the slightly different Jug can wait a bit.
Bristol Beaufighter:
Served: 27 July 1940 to 1960
Number built: 5,928
(http://www.saafmuseum.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beaufighter_X_19_sqn_saaf.jpg)
Vickers Wellington:
Served: 1938-1953
Numbers built: 11000+
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/aircraft/bomber/vickers-wellington-bomber/vickers-wellington-bomber-01.png)
Petlyakov Pe-2:
Served: 1941-1954
Numbers built: 11400+
(http://ww2-weapons.com/Aircrafts/Bombers/Russian/Petlyakov/images/Pe-2-05-px800.jpg)
All these planes are not represented in any way within the game and bring a unique flight model to the game.
+1 x infinity :aok
-
When we have planes that are still not in the game that were made in thousands, the slightly different Jug can wait a bit.
Bristol Beaufighter:
Served: 27 July 1940 to 1960
Number built: 5,928
(http://www.saafmuseum.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beaufighter_X_19_sqn_saaf.jpg)
Vickers Wellington:
Served: 1938-1953
Numbers built: 11000+
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/aircraft/bomber/vickers-wellington-bomber/vickers-wellington-bomber-01.png)
Petlyakov Pe-2:
Served: 1941-1954
Numbers built: 11400+
(http://ww2-weapons.com/Aircrafts/Bombers/Russian/Petlyakov/images/Pe-2-05-px800.jpg)
All these planes are not represented in any way within the game and bring a unique flight model to the game.
Concur - Great AC to add, just like the D23.
-
Sure. The thing is, it's a relatively fine detail change in a relatively well represented plane model. If there were no P47s in the game and HTC was talking about adding them and considering what models to represent, it would be an obvious choice.
Unfortunately, I don't think I've ever seen HTC add a variant to a model since I've been here without rolling it in with a rework of that model's entire line. Hence why I'm saying it ain't likely anytime soon. I'd like it to, but from what I've seen about how HTC develops, they don't change what they've got existing unless they're wanting to roll it in with something bigger than another subvariant.
I am saying this as a guy who spends most of his time in the D11 because I like the way it handles. This plane, if it existed, would likely be my standard 'knock around in the MA' ride.
Of course, except no one is yelling "give it to me NOW! or else...". This is the wish forum. We seed ideas here that HTC may consider to accept/develop in the future. The typical time between requests and implementation in the game is measured in years. So, if 2 years from now, if HTC decides to reword the P-47 line, or has a little spare time in their development schedule and look for a short-quick project to use this time for, we want that the wish for a late razorback will be on the table.
-
Of course, except no one is yelling "give it to me NOW! or else...".
My apologies. That was kind of how I heard it, moreso from Seadog with the 'all it would take is to do x' comments. I was just pointing out that's not how they work. I don't see how if it fits the criteria, anybody can argue against more planes in the planeset. More planes means more different things to fly. :) :salute
Wiley.
-
The "Or Else" doesn't seem to affect much anyway, thought HTC is responsive to our desires through their new aircraft polls. That's why I dusted off this thread, try to enlighten and reawaken interest in the ride. I believe it would poll well if it showed up as one of the options since the Yak3, 410, Tu and Ki43 itches have been scratched. Even the lowly Storch gets huge play. Glad to see my squadies and I are not alone in the desire.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/Scan-080815-0015a1_zpsef583b6e.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/Scan-080815-0015a1_zpsef583b6e.jpg.html)
-
I would love to have more early 47's the C model would be great also. As far as the -16 to -23 series sure.... after the 51's are redone and we have 4-5 of those it would be great.
+1
-
I would love to have more early 47's the C model would be great also. As far as the -16 to -23 series sure.... after the 51's are redone and we have 4-5 of those it would be great.
+1
Here is a great snap of an early stateside B model. Old style roundel, extra canopy window, 8" shorter fuselage, fabric covered tail surfaces and no keel belly bulge hardpoint.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/P-47B001a_zps1bb4ca73.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/P-47B001a_zps1bb4ca73.jpg.html)
Here is a 353rd FG D-6 model with the added wing pylons and sadly bent up paddle props...
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/4873905388_bb17c51f96_b_zps59d4bfce.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/4873905388_bb17c51f96_b_zps59d4bfce.jpg.html)
-
Here is a great snap of an early stateside B model. Old style roundel, extra canopy window, 8" shorter fuselage, fabric covered tail surfaces and no keel belly bulge hardpoint.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/P-47B001a_zps1bb4ca73.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/P-47B001a_zps1bb4ca73.jpg.html)
Here is a 353rd FG D-6 model with the added wing pylons and sadly bent up paddle props...
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/4873905388_bb17c51f96_b_zps59d4bfce.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/4873905388_bb17c51f96_b_zps59d4bfce.jpg.html)
:aok
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/xp47b-1.jpg)
Message them a little better :cool:
(http://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj639/Mark_Allen_M/P-47TouchofTexas_zpsa359c7d4.jpg)
(http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l404/michaelsatin/P-47D%20Razorback/P-47D-16-RE42-76076TouchofTexasCaptCharlesMohrle510FS405FGphoto-1.jpg)
(http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l404/michaelsatin/P-47D%20Razorback/P-47D-16-RE42-76076TouchofTexasCaptCharlesMohrle510FS405FGphotos.jpg)
Charles Mohrle's D-16 RE
:cheers:
-
Its currently impossible to recreate western front 1941-1942 historical battles without the Fw190a1,1FW190a2, Fw190a3 , we have no FW190 in-game prior to 1943.
-
Its currently impossible to recreate western front 1941-1942 historical battles without the Fw190a1,1FW190a2, Fw190a3 , we have no FW190 in-game prior to 1943.
Sounds like material for a new thread...this one is about all of these guys~
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1607103_10200975892233626_1303331916_n_zpsef782182.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1607103_10200975892233626_1303331916_n_zpsef782182.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/10151747_10200957454732700_420697590_n_zpsbd56218b.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/10151747_10200957454732700_420697590_n_zpsbd56218b.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/SL_zpsfc508aed.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/SL_zpsfc508aed.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/10155843_10200975910914093_357967638_n_zps0aecbb55.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/10155843_10200975910914093_357967638_n_zps0aecbb55.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/10170781_10200976606371479_741093342_n_zpsad8def96.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/10170781_10200976606371479_741093342_n_zpsad8def96.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/10153082_10200984268123018_511171633_n_zpsf0911331.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/10153082_10200984268123018_511171633_n_zpsf0911331.jpg.html)
-
if you do the 47 in half size but almost same power, you have a 190 :D
-
if you do the 47 in half size but almost same power, you have a 190 :D
FW 190s dream of becoming 47s when they grow up. Move along save, you apparently have nothing to add. The D-11 covers all the C and early variants, just as the A5 covers all the other early 190 variants. It is also available in EW as a perked ride. I promise not to troll your thread if you stop try to hijack this one.
-
FW 190s dream of becoming 47s when they grow up. Move along save, you apparently have nothing to add. The D-11 covers all the C and early variants, just as the A5 covers all the other early 190 variants. It is also available in EW as a perked ride. I promise not to troll your thread if you stop try to hijack this one.
And the P-47D-25 covers the P-47D-23.
-
And the P-47D-25 covers the P-47D-23.
Yes, but not very convincingly- By every account the D-23 should be covering the D-25. We are working on remedying that problem, stay tuned and feel free to post your favorite late model Razorback picture anytime.
-
Yes, but not very convincingly- By every account the D-23 should be covering the D-25. We are working on remedying that problem, stay tuned and feel free to post your favorite late model Razorback picture anytime.
It does so as convincingly as the Fw190A-5 does so for the Fw190A-2.
There are aircraft that would require less 3D/skin changes (i.e. none) that would actually perform differently than the versions we already have.
Based solely on what you have posted I agree that the P-47D-23 would have been a better choice than the P-47D-25, but that ship is long since sailed.
-
Wonderful, another member of the bbs community agrees with the rational for the D-23! I didn't think you would ever come ever come around Karnak! We can leave it to HTC to decide if that ship has sailed. I have a strong premonition that we will see it in the not too distant future.
-
Wonderful, another member of the bbs community agrees with the rational for the D-23! I didn't think you would ever come ever come around Karnak! We can leave it to HTC to decide if that ship has sailed. I have a strong premonition that we will see it in the not too distant future.
No. If we had neither the P-47D-23 or the P-47D-25 I would have agreed that the P-47D-23 should be the one added. Given that we are not in that situation we face the question of if the P-47D-23 ought to be added when we already have the identical in all practical ways P-47D-25 and the answer to that is a firm no. The P-47D-23 would be a clear waste of developer resources given the actual situation.
-
Karnak, you are back peddling now~ Let me quote you
[ author=Karnak link=topic=360563.msg4794006#msg4794006 date=1396740969]
I agree that the P-47D-23 would have been a better choice than the P-47D-25
[/quote]
I'm thrilled we agree on that fact, wether you believe the relatively small investment in resources to make the minor change is worth it is not in your hands. Again, I thank you for recognizing the merits of having the most numerically prevalent model in the game. You have refused to acknowledge that previously, but like water wearing down stone we are making progress. I was in full agreement with you over the Ki-43 and presto! Dreams really do come true, even if it takes a while<S>
-
Again, I thank you for recognizing the merits of having the most numerically prevalent model in the game.
Just a minor correction: I am not sure that D-23 was the most numerous model. It is however, the most representative of actual Jugs flying around in WWII because all previous razorback models (including our D11) were upgraded to this standard and spend much (if not most) of their combat time in a configuration very similar to the D-23.
I understand Karnak's objection and I too would prefer that HTC add a completely new Beaufighter for example. Though one has to keep in mind that adding D23 is nothing close to the resources required to add a completely new plane to the set. I hope HTC keep this wish in mind when they have a little of free development time that is too little for a completely new project. D23 will be a nice bone to throw to the community and this is a model that will see plenty of use in the arenas and scenarios.
-
Just a minor correction: I am not sure that D-23 was the most numerous model. It is however, the most representative of actual Jugs flying around in WWII because all previous razorback models (including our D11) were upgraded to this standard and spend much (if not most) of their combat time in a configuration very similar to the D-23.
I understand Karnak's objection and I too would prefer that HTC add a completely new Beaufighter for example. Though one has to keep in mind that adding D23 is nothing close to the resources required to add a completely new plane to the set. I hope HTC keep this wish in mind when they have a little of free development time that is too little for a completely new project. D23 will be a nice bone to throw to the community and this is a model that will see plenty of use in the arenas and scenarios.
bozon, you are right~The argument is for the D15-23 series of which I have compiled inventories of serial numbers from production at Republic in Farmingdale, Long Island, NY and Evansville, IN and come up with over 7k of a 15k total factory production run, not including the thousand of field modified earlier variants. HTC has the chocolate cake, they just need to put the frosting on for this one vs a whole new recipe.
-
A little convoluted but RE are Farmingdale built RA Evansville
P-47C Serial Numbers:
41-6066 to 6123 Republic P-47C-RE Thunderbolt
41-6124 to 6177 Republic P-47C-1-RE Thunderbolt
41-6178 to 6305 Republic P-47C-2-RE Thunderbolt
41-6306 to 6667 Republic P-47C-5-RE Thunderbolt
P-47D Serial Numbers:
42-7853 - 7957 Republic P-47D-1-RE Thunderbolt
42-7958 - 8402 Republic P-47D-2-RE Thunderbolt
42-8403 - 8702 Republic P-47D-5-RE Thunderbolt
42-22250 - 22363 Republic P-47D-1-RA Thunderbolt
42-22364 - 22563 Republic P-47D-2-RA Thunderbolt
42-22564 - 22663 Republic P-47D-3-RA Thunderbolt
42-22664 - 22863 Republic P-47D-4-RA Thunderbolt
42-22864 - 23113 Republic P-47D-11-RA Thunderbolt
42-23114 - 23142 Republic P-47D-16-RA Thunderbolt
42-23143 - 23299 Republic P-47D-15-RA Thunderbolt
42-25274 - 25322 Republic P-47D-20-RE Thunderbolt
42-25323 - 25538 Republic P-47D-21-RE Thunderbolt
42-25539 - 26388 Republic P-47D-22-RE Thunderbolt
42-27389 - 28188 Republic P-47D-23-RA Thunderbolt[/font]
42-26389 - 26773 Republic P-47D-25-RE Thunderbolt
42-26774 - 27388 Republic P-47D-27-RE Thunderbolt
42-28189 - 28438 Republic P-47D-26-RA Thunderbolt
42-28439 - 29466 Republic P-47D-28-RA Thunderbolt
42-74615 - 74964 Republic P-47D-6-RE Thunderbolt
42-74965 - 75214 Republic P-47D-10-RE Thunderbolt
42-75215 - 75614 Republic P-47D-11-RE Thunderbolt
42-75615 - 75864 Republic P-47D-15-RE Thunderbolt
42-75865 - 76118 Republic P-47D-16-RE Thunderbolt
42-76119 - 76364 Republic P-47D-15-RE Thunderbolt
42-76365 - 76614 Republic P-47D-20-RE Thunderbolt
43-25254 - 25440 Republic P-47D-20-RA Thunderbolt
43-25441 - 25664 Republic P-47D-21-RA Thunderbolt
43-25665 - 25753 Republic P-47D-23-RA Thunderbolt
44-19558 - 20307 Republic P-47D-28-RE Thunderbolt
44-20308 - 21107 Republic P-47D-30-RE Thunderbolt
44-32668 - 33867 Republic P-47D-30-RA Thunderbolt
44-89684 - 90283 Republic P-47D-30-RA Thunderbolt
44-90284 - 90483 Republic P-47D-40-RA Thunderbolt
45-49090 - 49554 Republic P-47D-40-RA Thunderbolt
Serials of Curtiss built P-47Gs:
42-24920 - 24939 Curtiss P-47G-CU Thunderbolt
42-24940 - 24979 Curtiss P-47G-1-CU Thunderbolt
42-24980 - 25039 Curtiss P-47G-5-CU Thunderbolt
42-25040 - 25119 Curtiss P-47G-10-CU Thunderbolt
42-25120 - 25273 Curtiss P-47G-15-CU Thunderbolt
-
New late model razorbacks final production in Hangar 2 at Republic Farmingdale
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/repub_zpsced6898a.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/repub_zpsced6898a.jpg.html)
-
Karnak, you are back peddling now~ Let me quote you
[ author=Karnak link=topic=360563.msg4794006#msg4794006 date=1396740969]
I agree that the P-47D-23 would have been a better choice than the P-47D-25
I'm thrilled we agree on that fact, wether you believe the relatively small investment in resources to make the minor change is worth it is not in your hands. Again, I thank you for recognizing the merits of having the most numerically prevalent model in the game. You have refused to acknowledge that previously, but like water wearing down stone we are making progress. I was in full agreement with you over the Ki-43 and presto! Dreams really do come true, even if it takes a while<S>
I highlighted the relevant phrase you seem to have overlooked or misunderstood.
It means a different choice was appropriate at some point in the past when considering how things were at that time.
No backpedaling on my part, you just ignored the part that didn't agree with you.
-
you just ignored the part that didn't agree with you.
As you do most of the time :aok
-
As you do most of the time :aok
Yet you can provide no such thing. Funny that.
-
A little long range escort...
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/post-2463-12603933311_zps190b4b8b.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/post-2463-12603933311_zps190b4b8b.jpg.html)
-
A few factory floor pictures...
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/repub2_zpsdb35ac7f.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/repub2_zpsdb35ac7f.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/repb3_zps261a1d33.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/repb3_zps261a1d33.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/repub5_zps0518b5f6.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/repub5_zps0518b5f6.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/repub4_zps603a0cc8.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/repub4_zps603a0cc8.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/repub1_zpsddeb664e.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/repub1_zpsddeb664e.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/repub6_zpse9811e01.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/repub6_zpse9811e01.jpg.html)
-
{snip}tell us what new/different thing this plane would bring to the game {snip}
I am in very late on this conversation, but I thought this was a legitimate question and one to the heart of the matter.
In my opinion, what Seadog is suggesting is more of a correction to the game choices. What he is asking for is no different from the expansion of the P40s (or actually does anyone besides me :old: remember the P47D30). As for what game play, there could be advantages in a number of areas, such as Scenarios, perk point multipliers, historical skins, etc.
If somewhere around half the Jug variants were razorback, then limiting the use of that variant to short range attack (no wing attachments) and fighter roles, does virtually cut down on the use of D11's. As much as I love to fly the Jug, I find a significant gap in the reward / perk system that favors 109s and even 190s in attack mode ( I may stand corrected as this is based on my :old: recollection of attack perks awarded in my past missions).
^^ This may be the best solution to a problem that nobody knew we had. ;) Since everyone is in a Bf109K4 or Spit 16 anyway (I am not judging :P pilot's choice.....). In a game, risks and rewards are balanced by player skill and knowledge. (Of course, there are other factors as well, considering multiple 50 cal damage to objects versus larger rounds, and that horse I hope is not beaten to death yet).
-
Yes. More jugs please. Who doesn't like Jugs?
I think the D-23 would accelerate and be a bit more stable as a gun platform than the D-25. Based on pilot accounts, the razorback jugs were hotrods once they were outfitted with the paddle props. They were, however, overboosting the engines to nealry M/N levels long before either of those models came out.
I say more is good. No matter which plane. Seems putting a paddle prop and D-25 wings on a D-11 would be a pretty simpleish mod. Then again, I'm not a programmer.
-
Then the D25 would be dropped and the 23 added? I would sure like to give the paddle prop razorbacks a go.
-
Actually, much more than half of all Thunderbolts were razorbacks, and around half off all types were wing hardpoint razorbacks. I do remember the D-30 in the game. The D-30 was the single most produced bubble top variant, so they had that right until they opted for the rarer D25 and D40s.
Another example is in the case of the P-51B to which the gave it these goofy looking infield modification of the Malcolm hood, because players wanted better visibility over the stock and IMHO better looking birdcage canopy. They overrepresented the bubble top 47s for the same reason.
There is no need to drop the D-25, many are skinned as D-28, D-30 etc. Just add a D15-23, all the data and flies already exist and more than half the skins are for late models anyway. My favorite example which illustrates this is the D-11 57th FG skin which is OD with bare metal wings which should have pylons on them. The MTO based 57th FG were pioneers in P-47 ground attack and an earlier variant was field fitted with new wings.
-
Per Pyro AH never had a P-47D-30. It had a P-47D-40 that was mislabeled as a P-47D-30.
-
no need to immediately eliminate the D25 from the game. It is enough that HTC decides to stop development on it and the next time that graphics/flight models are updated would be a good time to drop it.
Even tough the D25 is my most used model I much prefer a late razorback over it.
-
Why does anyone think the D25 has to be removed? Is there no room in the hanger?
I remember the blue nosed jug. Wilbus got caught flying it once. :D
-
What is the weight difference between the current D11 and the wished for P-47D15-23 series?
-
Yes, more planes means more fun. A +1 on this one!
But before adding it, I'd go for non-american planes first. They are already very well represented, with carrier fighters, ground attackers, fighters, dive bombers, light, medium and heavy bombers.
Russian bombers, anyone? Pe-2? More than 11.000 units built! Or what about german bombers? The He-177 would give us an axis heavy bomber, which is quite nice if I do say so myself :old:. Don't trust me on this one but I think that the new terrain will carry a new flow of players, which means cash, which means new planes and candy for all.
[/rant]
-
What is the weight difference between the current D11 and the wished for P-47D15-23 series?
Randy, the current D11 model only has a single belly hardpoint, all models of 47s after the D-15 were factory installed with underwing pylons, primarily for fuel as it became obvious P-47s lacked needed range in both the Pacific and European theaters. The older models, including the D-11 and earlier were field modified with new wings and hardpoints to extent their range. In addition Curtiss developed a wider chord, larger diameter propeller "know as the paddle propeller" which significantly improved climb performance and speed. These were also retrofitted to earlier models as well.
Nearly half of all 15,000 P47s were the factory produced improved D15-D23 Razorbacks, and with the upgraded earlier models they were the most common variant which saw service to the very end of the war in every major arena. This thread is an effort to shed light on that and bring Razorback prevalence and capability into AHII where it belongs. Most US top aces in the ETO got the bulk of their kills flying Razorbacks~ Gabreski Johnson etc and they had an excellent track record in the Pacific for aerial kills as well with Kearby, Dunham and others. They were the backbone US jabo fighter and as you know the D-11 can only carry a single 500lber.
Many of us feel (with the exception of the loud and vocal perma-dissenters like Karnak) it is very worth the effort to upgrade the P-47 plane set to reflect this, all the digital files exist and compared to developing a new type of aircraft, it should be fairly simple.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/1607103_10200975892233626_1303331916_n_zpsef782182.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/1607103_10200975892233626_1303331916_n_zpsef782182.jpg.html)
-
What does the P-47D-23 offer than the P-47D-25 does not?
To date all that you have said is that it is the same, but a razorback, which means it only offers a graphical difference, which while nice, is hardly enough justification to add it when there are actual performance gaps in other lines of aircraft.
If adding it actually filled a gap I'd be all in favor of it, but it does not seem to fill any such gap.
-
I'll have to look through my books for the hard numbers but I have read several 56th pilot's books/memoirs and some have stated the razorback was more stable and less forgiving than the "super bolt". I'll spend some time this weekend to see if I can dig up some hard numbers; if for nothing else than to answer Randy's question.
-
I'll have to look through my books for the hard numbers but I have read several 56th pilot's books memoirs and several have stated the razorback was more stable and less forgiving than the "super bolt". I'll spend some time this weekend to see if I can dig up some hard numbers; if for nothing else than to answer Randy's question.
I'd expect that there would be a slight handling difference based on the razorback, but not something most players would notice. Certainly nothing like the performance differences of the Bf109G-6/AS as compared to the Bf109G-6 or Bf109G-14 or the Seafire Mk III as compared to the Seafire Mk II.
-
What does the P-47D-23 offer than the P-47D-25 does not?
To date all that you have said is that it is the same, but a razorback, which means it only offers a graphical difference, which while nice, is hardly enough justification to add it when there are actual performance gaps in other lines of aircraft.
If adding it actually filled a gap I'd be all in favor of it, but it does not seem to fill any such gap.
The razorback should accelerate marginally better and be more stable in the yaw. It's a cleaner airframe than the Bubble top Jugs. Dorsal fins were added to late model Jugs to correct some of the yaw instability.
Last I checked, you didn't solely control which aircraft get added or when. What the OP is asking for isn't unreasonable and shouldn't take a tremendous amount of work. The "gap" it fills is the most widely produced model of the most widely produced American fighter of the war. While you might consider it a waste of resources, there are others who consider it to be just the opposite.
-
Many of us feel (with the exception of the loud and vocal perma-dissenters like Karnak) it is very worth the effort to upgrade the P-47 plane set to reflect this, all the digital files exist and compared to developing a new type of aircraft, it should be fairly simple.
What would it add to the game? We already have 5 different variants of the P-47. I don't think we should be adding more american birds, but upgrading existing models which need it (A-20G, TMB, etc) and adding planes from countries who are underrepresented.
AHII Planes by Country:
Japan 11
Italy 2
USSR 9
UK 17
Germany 21
USA 35
See what I mean? It's not about liking or disliking an airplane. It's about making an useful planeset and adding something to the game. What would another hog add, besides a new ride for P-47 fans?
-
I am not denying I am a P-47 fan. My opinion leans that way - no doubt about it. I also know little about the AC and agree with Seadog that it should be added for the reasons already stated. I said as much to HiTech when I visited the HTC office last December.
-
AHII Planes by Country:
Japan 11
Italy 2
USSR 9
UK 17
Germany 21
USA 35
See what I mean? It's not about liking or disliking an airplane. It's about making an useful planeset and adding something to the game. What would another hog add, besides a new ride for P-47 fans?
Considering the US, by itself, produced over 100% more aircraft than any country on that list I could argue there is plenty of room for more American aircraft and variants.
-
Considering the US, by itself, produced over 100% more aircraft than any country on that list I could argue there is plenty of room for more American aircraft and variants.
So we're going by production numbers? Well, you're absolutely right on that, and I don't really know which criteria does HiTech use when adding a plane. If more planes built = more representation in the game, another P-47 is the way to go :cheers:.
But! I personally think that HiTech's efforts would be better spent on modelling aircraft which can give us new experiences in all the arenas. But then again, a new P-47 would mean just that for a lot of players, so it's arguably a matter of personal preference. In my case, I'd rather see some new mediums/heavies, but that's because it's what I like to fly. If the options are no new planes or a new hog, I'm all in for the 47! :x
-
The razorback should accelerate marginally better and be more stable in the yaw. It's a cleaner airframe than the Bubble top Jugs. Dorsal fins were added to late model Jugs to correct some of the yaw instability.
As I said, a slight handling difference. You P-47 guys are doing an exceptionally poor job selling this thing as a needed addition.
Last I checked, you didn't solely control which aircraft get added or when. What the OP is asking for isn't unreasonable and shouldn't take a tremendous amount of work. The "gap" it fills is the most widely produced model of the most widely produced American fighter of the war. While you might consider it a waste of resources, there are others who consider it to be just the opposite.
And I never claimed to have any control over what gets added. This is a public forum in which we players debate things. HTC can take your advice or my advice or ignore both of us as they wish.
I am not denying I am a P-47 fan. My opinion leans that way - no doubt about it. I also know little about the AC and agree with Seadog that it should be added for the reasons already stated. I said as much to HiTech when I visited the HTC office last December.
As Seadog and LilMak have not been able to articulate why it is an important addition, could you please explain it? It really doesn't seem to add anything to the game other than for hardcore P-47 fans. It seems directly comparable to a Spitfire fan asking for a bubble canopy Mk XIV or Mk XVI, something I have also argued against for the same reasons when it has been requested.
Heck, I argue against the Halifax being added because it is so similar to the Lancaster and they are 100% different airplanes. So please don't feel I am singling out the P-47 when I argue against the P-47D-23.
-
I'll have to look through my books for the hard numbers but I have read several 56th pilot's books/memoirs and some have stated the razorback was more stable and less forgiving than the "super bolt". I'll spend some time this weekend to see if I can dig up some hard numbers; if for nothing else than to answer Randy's question.
I found an untraceable source that the weight increase was just under a 100 pounds between a D10 and a D25. This was a post on a forum so no hard facts.
I found this too about the radios weight and thought it interesting. p-47 radios weight 248 pounds! Lots of tubes and cooper.
-
+1. Hope to see it added soon
-
As Seadog and LilMak have not been able to articulate why it is an important addition, could you please explain it? It really doesn't seem to add anything to the game other than for hardcore P-47 fans. It seems directly comparable to a Spitfire fan asking for a bubble canopy Mk XIV or Mk XVI, something I have also argued against for the same reasons when it has been requested.
Heck, I argue against the Halifax being added because it is so similar to the Lancaster and they are 100% different airplanes. So please don't feel I am singling out the P-47 when I argue against the P-47D-23.
First off, you should never argue against any variant of any aircraft being added. More is always better. Second, the we've argued that the D-23 is likely a superior fighter to the D-25. Since that's not good enough for you, I'll be sure to chime in in any thread where you recommend a plane be added and tell you your reasons are invalid. Third, there have been more that a few planes HT and everybody else knew would be hangar queens which were added anyway. The D-23 would be a competitive aircraft in the MA. Which is more than you can say for the likes of the Yak-7, most of the P-40 lineup, and planes like the KI-43. While you're arguing things that shouldn't be added or have no reflection on game play, why don't you add terrain, water effects and so on. All are useless according to your logic.
-
I am not saying it is a hangar queen. I couldn't care less if it would be a hangar queen, so long as it filled a gap.
The posts comparing it to the P-47D-25 have made it sound like the difference, other than graphics, would be extremely slight.
Understand that when talking about adding aircraft it is always a tradeoff so saying that people should never argue against it ignores the fact that there is limited resources available to add them. If resources weren't limited, then yes, add everything of course, but the fact is that adding the P-47D-23 means not adding something else and my issue with it is that the P-47D-23 seems to bring less to the table than many other things that HTC could use that effort to add. The lack of bang for their buck is why I argue against adding things like the P-47D-23, bubble top Spitfires XIV and XVI, Halifax or Mosquito B.Mk IX.
-
The D-23 would undoubtedly see tremendous use in the game, that is really reason enough. That combined with the historical correction and the minimal amount of developmental resources to do it, it is a slam dunk. :lol
-
The D-23 would undoubtedly see tremendous use in the game, that is really reason enough. That combined with the historical correction and the minimal amount of developmental resources to do it, it is a slam dunk. :lol
That has not been demonstrated. Where would it see tremendous use? Not in the MA as you well know, so you must be talking about scenarios. That means it will only see tremendous use by cannibalizing the use of the P-47D-25, a very serviceable stand in for the P-47D-23. The historical correction would be nice, but that is true of all the other gap fillers that have much more significant performance differences between themselves and the things used as stand ins for them in game.
Explain why it is more of a slam dunk than the Bf109G-6/AS or Seafire Mk III.
-
Explain why it is more of a slam dunk than the Bf109G-6/AS or Seafire Mk III.
Who said it is more? I am in full support of adding 109G6/AS in spite of the number of 109 variants we already have. I don't know enough about the Seafire III to comment. Why do you think that 109G6/AS and P47D23 are exclusive?
The D23 will see plenty of arena use because it will be the best dogfighting jug, combined with full JABO capability. It will be the best performing jug on MIL power, especially in the climb and sustained turn. It will outclass the D25 in every way except views. True, the improvement will not be jaw dropping, but it will be there. The improvement vs. the D11 will be much more noticeable with the addition of the paddle blade prop that adds 600-800 fpm rate of climb to a plane that doesn't even hit 3000 fpm. The latter is what the jug fans want - a razorback with a paddle blade prop that is a much better representation of razorbacks in service than our current D11. Even the real D11s through constant upgrades had for most of their service specs closer to the D23 than to the factory D11. So the correct question is "what will D23 add over our D11", not how it compares to D25.
D23 will be relevant to nearly all USAAF ETO scenarios, except those that are set in early 1943. MTO and PTO had razorbacks as well as the mainstay thunderbolts. The upgraded razorbacks served till the end of the war. I dont remember the exact date from which paddle blade props were being retrofitted to JUGs, but by 1944 they should have had it, meaning the bulk of the scenarios involving USAAF.
-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf)
This letter might shed some light. They speak of a wide blade prop.
-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf)
This letter might shed some light. They speak of a wide blade prop.
Yes, that was my recollection, January 1944. Just before Bigweek.
- oldman
-
Who said it is more? I am in full support of adding 109G6/AS in spite of the number of 109 variants we already have.
The P-47 actually has the highest density coverage of any aircraft in the game right now.
I don't know enough about the Seafire III to comment.
Highest production Seafire, 1200 built, and had significantly higher performance than the Mk II. The last fighter vs fighter dogfight of WWII was Seafire Mk IIIs vs A6M5s.
Why do you think that 109G6/AS and P47D23 are exclusive?
It isn't exclusive of the Bf109G-6/AS specifically. It is exclusive of something though.
The D23 will see plenty of arena use because it will be the best dogfighting jug, combined with full JABO capability.
The P-47M will remain the best dogfighting P-47 and as the P-47D-25 does not have the P-47's full attack capability I don't see why the P-47D-23 would either.
It will be the best performing jug on MIL power, especially in the climb and sustained turn.
MIL is nice, but not what ultimately counts as the Mossie VI demonstrated in its update. It lost a little MIL and gained a lot of WEP performance, and its K/D ratio jumped way up due to that, breaking 1/1 for the first time ever.
It will outclass the D25 in every way except views. True, the improvement will not be jaw dropping, but it will be there. The improvement vs. the D11 will be much more noticeable with the addition of the paddle blade prop that adds 600-800 fpm rate of climb to a plane that doesn't even hit 3000 fpm. The latter is what the jug fans want - a razorback with a paddle blade prop that is a much better representation of razorbacks in service than our current D11. Even the real D11s through constant upgrades had for most of their service specs closer to the D23 than to the factory D11. So the correct question is "what will D23 add over our D11", not how it compares to D25.
How much of an improvement over the D-25? The D-11 is 100% irrelevant to this. The way it has been mentioned in this thread the improvement would be a fraction of a percent, barely noticeable by dedicated Jug fliers and not noticeable by anybody else.
D23 will be relevant to nearly all USAAF ETO scenarios, except those that are set in early 1943. MTO and PTO had razorbacks as well as the mainstay thunderbolts. The upgraded razorbacks served till the end of the war. I dont remember the exact date from which paddle blade props were being retrofitted to JUGs, but by 1944 they should have had it, meaning the bulk of the scenarios involving USAAF.
Only at the expense of the D-25 being used for those scenarios. The D-25 which is a perfectly serviceable stand in for the D-23.
-
Bravo, you hit the nail on the head again. Yes the "D-23 will be used at the expense of the D-25", just as it should be. You already agreed that the evidence presented compels you to believe the D-23 is a more fitting example but having said that, you now have to, ever so patronizingly, quote by quote dismiss every contributor to the thread.
Please start a thread arguing why your 109g6 sub variant and your Seafire Mk III with a whopping 1200 examples should be put in to enrich the game. I'm sure without another Karnak to tear it down the crickets will be deafening.
-
Bravo, you hit the nail on the head again. Yes the "D-23 will be used at the expense of the D-25", just as it should be. You already agreed that the evidence presented compels you to believe the D-23 is a more fitting example but having said that, you now have to, ever so patronizingly, quote by quote dismiss every contributor to the thread.
Please start a thread arguing why your 109g6 sub variant and your Seafire Mk III with a whopping 1200 examples should be put in to enrich the game. I'm sure without another Karnak to tear it down the crickets will be deafening.
Dude, no disrespect, but it doesn't offer widely varying attributes from what we already have, which makes it extremely unlikely to be a priority for HTC to add anytime soon.
Wiley.
-
Bravo, you hit the nail on the head again. Yes the "D-23 will be used at the expense of the D-25", just as it should be. You already agreed that the evidence presented compels you to believe the D-23 is a more fitting example but having said that, you now have to, ever so patronizingly, quote by quote dismiss every contributor to the thread.
Please start a thread arguing why your 109g6 sub variant and your Seafire Mk III with a whopping 1200 examples should be put in to enrich the game. I'm sure without another Karnak to tear it down the crickets will be deafening.
Look, I'll be happy for you guys if you get it. I am arguing intellectually here, not emotionally. Part of the reason I am doing so is to push you guys to improve your arguments and partially because I enjoy the back and forth debate. The Bf109G-6/AS and Seafire Mk III are just examples and not intended to be seen as the specific alternatives.
The problem you have failed to address is what is significantly gained out of adding the D-23. The D-25 already works just fine as a substitute for the D-23. It is not perfectly accurate, but it is very close. As a counter example, the Bf109G-6 or Bf109G-14 is not just fine as a substitute for the Bf109G-6/AS as their performance envelopes are very different.
The fact that the D-23 was produced is such large numbers means it ought to have been added instead of the D-25, but that ship has sailed. We now have the D-25 which makes the production numbers of the D-23 completely moot from the standpoint of what the D-23 adds to the game for anybody other than die hard P-47 fans. The Seafire Mk III's 1200 production is only significant in that its performance is also very different from the Seafire Mk II's. Were its performance almost exactly the same as the Mk II, only it had folding wings then its much higher production numbers would be completely irrelevant as it wouldn't add anything to the game due to the Mk II being a fine stand in for it.
Even completely different aircraft can fall into this. There is little reason to add the Halifax when AH already has the Lancaster even though there is some performance differences and capability differences between them. Were the resources needed to add the Halifax as slight as those needed to add the P-47D-23, Bf109G-6/AS, Seafire Mk III or numerous other aircraft it would probably be worth adding, but as a completely new heavy bomber I simply can't see the resources needed to add it to the game as a good investment given how adequately the Lancaster works as a stand in for the Halifax.
Bringing this back to the P-47D-23 we are looking at a some workload to add it to the game as it has some graphical differences compared to the D-11, yet it seems to offer almost nothing other than greater historical visual accuracy compared to using the P-47D-25 in the same setting. But this is a game in which the scenario creators regularly do things like using the 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX in a 1945 setting, where the Spitfire Mk XVI (Spitfire LF.Mk IXe) ought to be used, for balance purposes. It is, at this stage of planeset completion, very hard to see the P-47D-23 as a good use of resources when the very similar P-47D-25 is existent within the game. Were the planeset significantly more fleshed out then that kind of granularity makes more sense to push for, but as it stands I strongly believe that developer resources would be better put to fleshing out the planeset's bigger gaps than closing a very small gap as there is between the P-47D-25 and P-47D-23.
-
Thank you for the well wishes :lol We have all made our arguments ad nauseam. We all have our somewhat subjective opinions of what we would like to see in our virtual WWII experience. The debates on the forums can be informative and entertaining. I was surprised how eclipsed P-47s were by P-51s in the popular perception. The more I researched, the more I came to appreciate how the 47 really succeeded on bringing the air war to the enemy, and later became the premier jabo fighter as well at great cost to their crews.
In popular films like Saving Private Ryan and Redtails razorback jugs are again ignored when they were the actual swarms over the beaches of Normandy and the transition aircraft from P-40s for the Tuskegee squadrons, further reinforcing the misconception. I sincerely hope we can finally get it right in AH, however trivial it may seem. Many important gaps have been getting addressed lately- this is another good candidate.
-
We have both made our arguments ad nauseam. We all have our somewhat subjective opinions of what we would like to see in our virtual WWII experience. The debates on the forums can be informative and entertaining. I was surprised how eclipsed P-47s were by P-51s in the popular perception. The more I researched, the more I came to appreciate how the 47 really succeeded on bringing the air war to the enemy, and later became the premier jabo fighter as well at great cost to their crews.
In simplistic terms, it is my opinion that it was the P-47 that broke the back of the Luftwaffe in the west. The Spitfire held the line against the Luftwaffe then the P-47 broke the Luftwaffe's back in the west and then the P-51 mopped up.
In popular films like Saving Private Ryan and Redtails razorback jugs are again ignored when they were the actual swarms over the beaches of Normandy and the transition aircraft from P-40s for the Tuskegee squadrons, further reinforcing the misconception. I sincerely hope we can finally get it right in AH, however trivial it may seem. Many important gaps have been getting addressed lately- this is another good candidate.
There are likely many reasons that combine for to cause that. Availability probably played a large role in what fighter they got for Saving Private Ryan. The Tuskegee did fly P-51s, so that is only fair. If we ever got a movie about the 56th Fighter Group we'd get to see some P-47s.
Edit:
I want to add another note about my stance on the P-47D-23. I don't oppose the addition of the P-47D-23 at this time for the same reasons I oppose the Mustang Mk Ia or cannon armed A-20G. Unlike those requests the request for the P-47D-23 would have no negative effect on the game. Our disagreement is merely about the value of the developer time spent on it. You are asking for a reasonable and appropriate aircraft, not something to be dweeby with that you only want because it seems powerful. You want it because of its history and role and I respect that.
-
In simplistic terms, it is my opinion that it was the P-47 that broke the back of the Luftwaffe in the west. The Spitfire held the line against the Luftwaffe then the P-47 broke the Luftwaffe's back in the west and then the P-51 mopped up.
Absolutely agreed. Absolutely. I have maintained this position for lo, some four-plus decades.
We have reached one of those steps to Armageddon. Oldman and Karnak agree.
Time to build another ark. The end is nigh.
- oldman
-
Hollywood is somewhat constrained by trying to condense historical events. In Private Ryan, the fact that there are only 9 flying 47s of which only 2 are Curtis built razorback Gs makes it understandable why they used a pair of the hundred flying mustangs for the production. Retails was predominantly CGI and could have included the P-47 chapter if they didn't think they could skip it and sub 51Ds for the 47D21-23s and 51C&Bs they actually flew. The warships in Peal Harbor gave me a chuckle but that's a whole other story.
-
The Spitfire held the line against the Luftwaffe then the P-47 broke the Luftwaffe's back in the west and then the P-51 mopped up.
Mopped up after hard won air supremacy to get the spotlight. I'll be posting tribute pictures from here on out :salute and thanks for all the tough scrutiny.
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/b2647escort_zps6eb95c28.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/b2647escort_zps6eb95c28.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/britjugs_zps3948d8e3.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/britjugs_zps3948d8e3.jpg.html)
Jug attacked panzer PzKpfw IV... GVs don't really drive out of 500lb craters in real life...
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/jugbomb_zps0af7c6ee.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/jugbomb_zps0af7c6ee.jpg.html)
-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_Propellers-30nov43.pdf)
This letter might shed some light. They speak of a wide blade prop.
Very cool find Randy~
-
FW 190s dream of becoming 47s when they grow up. Move along save, you apparently have nothing to add. The D-11 covers all the C and early variants, just as the A5 covers all the other early 190 variants. It is also available in EW as a perked ride. I promise not to troll your thread if you stop try to hijack this one.
The Jug can swallow them all whole...
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/scale_zps863af698.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/scale_zps863af698.jpg.html)
-
I saw Widewing listed the P-47D-21 as an aircraft he thought should be added. What is the difference between the P-47D-21 and P-47D-23?
-
I saw Widewing listed the P-47D-21 as an aircraft he thought should be added. What is the difference between the P-47D-21 and P-47D-23?
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_P-47D.html
The fact to be noted is the factory install of the "paddle-blade" prop. In reality, these were installed in the field as supply's were available.
-
What does the P-47D-23 offer than the P-47D-25 does not?
To date all that you have said is that it is the same, but a razorback, which means it only offers a graphical difference, which while nice, is hardly enough justification to add it when there are actual performance gaps in other lines of aircraft.
If adding it actually filled a gap I'd be all in favor of it, but it does not seem to fill any such gap.
My previous post got a lil long winded so I took a knife to it:
what Seadog is suggesting is more of a correction to the game choices. {snip}
there could be advantages in a number of areas, such as Scenarios, perk point multipliers, historical skins {snip}
(no wing attachments) {snip}, does virtually cut down on the use of D11's
To put this into perspective, how did you feel about the Mossie bomber addition? I do love that plane and both variants, but I never knew that I was missing that option before (ie: bomber scope, tempest speed, allies aircraft, without a jet engine and perks).
-
To put this into perspective, how did you feel about the Mossie bomber addition? I do love that plane and both variants, but I never knew that I was missing that option before (ie: bomber scope, tempest speed, allies aircraft, without a jet engine and perks).
The two examples are not comparable. Between the Mossie VI and Mossie XVI you have two aircraft that are extremely different. Between the P-47D-23 and P-47D-25 you have two extremely similar aircraft. The closest thing I can think of for Mossies would be somebody asking for the Mossie IX, which would basically be the same as the XVI, except not have the bulged bomb bay and being unable to carry the 'cookie'. It was a Mossie IX that set the record for the most sorties by an Allied bomber at 213. I'd oppose that as well, even more than the P-47D-23.
-
The two examples are not comparable. Between the Mossie VI and Mossie XVI you have two aircraft that are extremely different. Between the P-47D-23 and P-47D-25 you have two extremely similar aircraft. The closest thing I can think of for Mossies would be somebody asking for the Mossie IX, which would basically be the same as the XVI, except not have the bulged bomb bay and being unable to carry the 'cookie'. It was a Mossie IX that set the record for the most sorties by an Allied bomber at 213. I'd oppose that as well, even more than the P-47D-23.
Then it is good that opinions are free, because I found having a Mossie with a bomber scope addition very similar to a Jug with additional wingpoints. Additionally (a lot of additions :lol that is the point though), why is the Mossie not of the IX variant, based on what you are saying?
I do get your point about Mossie (no serious pilot would fly bomber version into a fighter duel), but likewise serious attackers would not want to take 1 x 500 lb bomb to a ground fight, especially without adequate fuel to make it home.
-
Then it is good that opinions are free, because I found having a Mossie with a bomber scope addition very similar to a Jug with additional wingpoints. Additionally (a lot of additions :lol that is the point though), why is the Mossie not of the IX variant, based on what you are saying?
The difference is that we had no glass nosed Mossie whereas we have many P-47s with additional hard points. That is the problem with the request for the P-47D-23. It takes developer time that could be used elsewhere and adds very little as it fills a relatively subtle gap. While I think it should be eventually added, that would be far down the road as there are many gaps that could be filled that are much, much less subtle.
The Mossie IX was probably not added because its production numbers were much lower and the XVI can effectively stand in for it just by blocking the use of the 'cookie', just as the D-25 can effectively stand in for the D-23.
I do get your point about Mossie (no serious pilot would fly bomber version into a fighter duel), but likewise serious attackers would not want to take 1 x 500 lb bomb to a ground fight, especially without adequate fuel to make it home.
Fortunately those serious attackers can take the P-47D-25, P-47D-40 or P-47N. While they are not razorbacks that is not nearly so significant a difference as the absence of either guns or a bombsight, depending on which Mossie you propose sub for the other.
-
I saw Widewing listed the P-47D-21 as an aircraft he thought should be added. What is the difference between the P-47D-21 and P-47D-23?
Here is the breakdown of P-47 development until the first bubbletop from the 368th fighter group web page~
Specifically between the D21 and D23/22 is a there was a slight increase in internal fuel, jettesonable canopy, bullet proof glass and the larger Hamilton or Curtis prop being factory installed. Earlier Ds were retrofitted stateside or in the field as Randy's document demonstrates. From the D-20 on they were able to generate 2300hp factory settings on WEP.
The P-47B was fitted with a Pratt & Whitney R-2800-21 engine rated at 2000 hp.
The engine drove a 12' 2"diameter Curtiss Electric C542S-A6 propeller.
The P-47B had an empty weight of 9,346lbs and a maximum loaded weight of 13,360 pounds.
The P-47B was essentially a test model and most were modified and quickly replaced by the P-47C model.
Only 171 P-47B models were built and very few were sent overseas.
Republic P-47C
The first Thunderbolt to be considered truly combat-ready was the P-47C-2-RE.
Perhaps the most important change introduced by this production block was the provision for shackles and
a release mechanism for a bomb or a fuel tank on the underside of the belly. When carrying a 200-gallon
belly tank the range was extended to 1250 miles at an altitude of 10,000 feet.
The P-47C-5-RE introduced revised radio, instruments, and antenna. Cockpit heating was also introduced.
The P-47C was the first Thunderbolts to see combat in Europe.
602 P-47Cs were delivered by February 1943, when the improved P-47D replaced it on the production line.
Republic P-47D
The Early P-47D differed very little from the P-47C-5-RE. The P-47D had changes in the turbo
supercharger exhaust system which incorporated an adjustable duct and redesigned vents for the engine
accessory section. Additional cowl flaps were fitted to improve engine cooling airflow.
More extensive armor protection was provided for the pilot.
Demand for the Thunderbolt was so great that Republic built a new factory at Evansville, Indiana to
augment production of the P-47D. 1050 P-47Ds were ordered from Evansville on January 31, 1942, and
the first Evansville-built P-47D (serial number 42-22250) rolled off the assembly line in September of 1942.
Evansville-built P-47Ds were distinguished by the use of the RA manufacturer letter code rather than RE.
Curtis built 354 P-47's designated P-47G, these were identical as the Republic versions, however most
Curtis built P-47's remained stateside and were used by training units.
All early Thunderbolts used the R-2800-21 engine. Water injection capability was added to this engine
beginning with the D-4-RA and D-5-RE production blocks. Provision was made for the mounting of
15-gallon tank carrying a water-alcohol mixture to the bulkhead just aft of the engine. A line from this tank
was plumbed directly into the fuel intake. When injected into the combustion chamber, the water checked a
dangerous rise in cylinder head temperature while manifold pressure was boosted. For brief instants, a
15-percent increase in engine power could be obtained, giving a maximum war emergency power of 2300
hp. In the D-5-RE, D-6-RE, and D-10-RE (D-4-RA, production bolcks, the pilot manually controlled the
water flow of the injector, but the injection procedure was automatically- controlled on the D-11-RE
(D-11-RA) and subsequent blocks. This happened when the throttle was pushed forward into its last
half-inch of travel.
Production batches from the D-20 onward were fitted with a "universal" wing which could carry a variety
of drop tanks or bombs. These batches also introduced the R-2800-59 engine with an improved ignition
system. The power was the same as that of the -63, with a war emergency power output of 2300 hp.
Production batches D-22-RE and D-23-RA, a 13' diameter paddle-bladed propeller (either a Hamilton
Standard Hydromatic 24E50-65 or a Curtiss Electric C542S) was fitted to make full use of the additional
power provided by water injection. Blocks D-22-RE and D-23-RA were also provided with a jettisonable
cockpit canopy which was activated by the pilot pulling a ring. A bullet-proof windshield was fitted, and
internal fuel capacity was increased.
-
I want to add another note about my stance on the P-47D-23. I don't oppose the addition of the P-47D-23 at this time for the same reasons I oppose the Mustang Mk Ia or cannon armed A-20G. Unlike those requests the request for the P-47D-23 would have no negative effect on the game. You are asking for a reasonable and appropriate aircraft. You want it because of its history and role and I respect that.
Geez Karnak~ No negative effect, reasonable and appropriate...I'll be happy for you guys if you get it! Sounds like the D-23 is a must have for the game! You are just as good as I am at selling this thing :rolleyes: Enough with the Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde!
-
Yeah, we're just quibbling about where it stands in the priority list.
-
May 1945~ still chugging along in the Philippines. This P-47D 21 of the 58th FG was later loaned to the 201st Mexican Fighter Squadron in May of 1945
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/ThisP-47Dofthe58thFGwaslaterloanedtothe201stMexicanFighterSquadroninMayof1945_zps430fa34e.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/ThisP-47Dofthe58thFGwaslaterloanedtothe201stMexicanFighterSquadroninMayof1945_zps430fa34e.jpg.html)
-
Unless its got different performance than the D-11 or D-25, I say not now. Just no need for it when there are still aircraft that would genuinely provide something new.
-
That explains why P-47s are intentionally left out of AvA setups where they belong or the wrong type is inserted to justify some uber axis ride.
The D-23 is precisely what in needed to add some semblance of historical accuracy to AvA, scenarios, FSO and other events. You can't have an accurate WWII sim without the most prevalent type of 47. The addition doesn't require the same amount of resources as a completely new type which has been exhaustively discussed in the thread.
l expected better from you Jager, especially with your involvement in what could be the best arena in AH. If you read the thread, you would know it does have a better climb rate and is more stable than both the D-11 or 25 in addition to having full jabo capability.
-
That explains why P-47s are intentionally left out of AvA setups where they belong or the wrong type is inserted to justify some uber axis ride.
The D-23 is precisely what in needed to add some semblance of historical accuracy to AvA, scenarios, FSO and other events. You can't have an accurate WWII sim without the most prevalent type of 47. The addition doesn't require the same amount of resources as a completely new type which has been exhaustively discussed in the thread.
l expected better from you Jager, especially with your involvement in what could be the best arena in AH. If you read the thread, you would know it does have a better climb rate and is more stable than both the D-11 or 25 in addition to having full jabo capability.
:rofl
Yes because subbing a typhoon for a Beau is fine but not a P-47 D25 for a P-47 D23. Or a TBM for a TBD.
The performance differences between the D-25 and D-23 are not that great. Only a hardcore Jug rider would be able to tell the difference in game.
It is obvious that you really want the D-23, but you are not willing to see the very small benefit adding it would bring. In a few years when they are refreshing the older 2.0 models, then the option to add a new version of the Jug can be explored.
We are still missing planes that saw high use and were made in large numbers that don't even have one model in this game.
-
That explains why P-47s are intentionally left out of AvA setups where they belong or the wrong type is inserted to justify some uber axis ride.
The D-23 is precisely what in needed to add some semblance of historical accuracy to AvA, scenarios, FSO and other events. You can't have an accurate WWII sim without the most prevalent type of 47. The addition doesn't require the same amount of resources as a completely new type which has been exhaustively discussed in the thread.
l expected better from you Jager, especially with your involvement in what could be the best arena in AH. If you read the thread, you would know it does have a better climb rate and is more stable than both the D-11 or 25 in addition to having full jabo capability.
That is exactly opposite of how they misuse the Spitfire line in the AvA. With Spitfires they either use the wrong one for "balance" reasons (make sure the Luftwaffe is dominant?) or through willful ignorance of Spitfire history (because it is a dweeby, MA plane that nobody serious could possibly like?). This results in the regular use of the 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX in 1944 or 1945 settings where the Spitfire Mk XVI ought to be used as the mainstay Spitfire at those times was, in reality, the Spitfire LF.Mk IX running on 150 octane. Our Spitfire Mk XVI is actually a Spitfire LF.Mk IX running on 100 octane based on its performance numbers, but Spitfire Mk XVIs were also common in 1944 and 1945.
It surprises me that they insist on exact P-47 models with subtle differences while ignoring massive and blatant differences in Spitfires to use whichever they want to. If they are willing to use a +15lbs boost, Merlin 61 Spitfire Mk IX from 1942 when, at the very least, they ought to use the clipped wing, +18lbs boost Merlin 66 powered Spitfire Mk XVI I am really surprised they won't use the P-47D-25 in place of the P-47D-23 given how close their capabilities are.
-
I mistook Jager for Jaeger1 who heads up lots of AvA activities. My apologies to Jaeger1, he has always been a gentleman and I applaud his efforts even thought I often have reservations with the plane sets that he is not necessarily responsible for. This thread is not meant to be an ultimatum on AvA, which has the potential to be the best arena in the game. I am mystified by the popularity of the MA vs AvA.
Fish42, I am all for adding the Beau and other worthy examples, but those projects are a whole order of magnitude more complex than reworking an existing type.
-
In simplistic terms, it is my opinion that it was the P-47 that broke the back of the Luftwaffe in the west. The Spitfire held the line against the Luftwaffe then the P-47 broke the Luftwaffe's back in the west and then the P-51 mopped up.
There are likely many reasons that combine for to cause that. Availability probably played a large role in what fighter they got for Saving Private Ryan. The Tuskegee did fly P-51s, so that is only fair. If we ever got a movie about the 56th Fighter Group we'd get to see some P-47s.
Edit:
I want to add another note about my stance on the P-47D-23. I don't oppose the addition of the P-47D-23 at this time for the same reasons I oppose the Mustang Mk Ia or cannon armed A-20G. Unlike those requests the request for the P-47D-23 would have no negative effect on the game. Our disagreement is merely about the value of the developer time spent on it. You are asking for a reasonable and appropriate aircraft, not something to be dweeby with that you only want because it seems powerful. You want it because of its history and role and I respect that.
I completely agree with you Karnak. I got into an argument with a kid in a different forum about P-47's and P-51's and he tried to tell me that the P-51 was the real hero in the West. He also tried to tell me that P-47's never went to Berlin. I threw some 56th FG AAR's in his face, some peoples ignorance kills me.
-
That is exactly opposite of how they misuse the Spitfire line in the AvA. With Spitfires they either use the wrong one for "balance" reasons (make sure the Luftwaffe is dominant?) or through willful ignorance of Spitfire history (because it is a dweeby, MA plane that nobody serious could possibly like?)
Honestly dude. this crap get's really old. There is no doubt that you have more specific knowledge of WWII equipment than most, including us, and yes, sometimes we aren't real anal in planeset accuracy.
One reason why people prefer MA is because they never have to deal with a disadvantage that may be historically accurate. It's hard enought to get people to fly limited planes without putting them up against nothing but Spit 16's. If we could enable finite numbers of planes etc it would be better because when we include unlimited late model spits, that is about the only thing that will be flown on that side.
I realize you find it more satisfying to acscribe selfish and nefarious motives to us, but in reality, whether we get it right or wrong, our only motive is to attempt to make it fun for both sides.
-
jimson,
From your perspective creating setups for the AvA, how useful would the P-47D-23 be? Would it enable any settings that you can't do now? If so, why would the P-47D-25 not be a suitable stand in?
-
From a pure performance perspective, the D21 would be the best performing Razorback. It came standard with the paddle blade prop and had less fuel capacity than the D23. I read that the D23 was fitted with a higher capacity internal fuel tank allowing for an additional 75 gallons.
But that is not Seadog's argument, even though the D21 had comparable production numbers to the D23.
-
jimson,
From your perspective creating setups for the AvA, hhow useful would the P-47D-23 be? Would it enable any settings that you can't do now? If so, why would the P-47D-25 not be a suitable stand in?
I don't really get hung up too much on correct sub variants, so in this case I would agree that it would be an acceptable sub.
-
It does not matter how it performs relative to the D25. They look different and that does matter to me and some others. The model that looks like it, the D11 does perform considerably different.
Nobody says that a D21/23 will revolutionalize AH. Immersion is important and this is why a D25 is not the same as D23 razorback. Resource wise it is not a huge project to add it, so it does not come at the expense of an entirely new model.
-
It does not matter how it performs relative to the D25. They look different and that does matter to me and some others. The model that looks like it, the D11 does perform considerably different.
Nobody says that a D21/23 will revolutionalize AH. Immersion is important and this is why a D25 is not the same as D23 razorback. Resource wise it is not a huge project to add it, so it does not come at the expense of an entirely new model.
That can be said of many other units that would also fill significant gaps.
Nobody, so far as I know, is saying the D-21 or D-23 shouldn't be added, we're just saying it is a pretty low priority on the scale of things.
-
That can be said of many other units that would also fill significant gaps.
Nobody, so far as I know, is saying the D-21 or D-23 shouldn't be added, we're just saying it is a pretty low priority on the scale of things.
Priority is of course, subjective to the individual. And who is "we're"; mouse in your pocket? "We're" can be applied to the proponents of the D21/23 as well.
We want what we want and lobby all the same.
I would love to see you back in the MA where you can enjoy this sim.
-
Priority is of course, subjective to the individual. And who is "we're"; mouse in your pocket? "We're" can be applied to the proponents of the D21/23 as well.
We want what we want and lobby all the same.
I would love to see you back in the MA where you can enjoy this sim.
I'm agreeing with him, and I'm willing to bet *most* of the community would agree with us as well.
-
I'm agreeing with him, and I'm willing to bet *most* of the community would agree with us as well.
Your statement is intuitive - don't you agree? You are agreeing that a late model Razorback is not a priority for anyone not a P-47 enthusiast , but what is it you want to see? You are the minority from the community in your case just as seadog, myself, bozon, etc are a minority in the same sense.
Name the AC that the majority of the AH customer base wants - please. You have an entire library of wishlist posts to sift through and nail that answer down.
-
Priority is of course, subjective to the individual. And who is "we're"; mouse in your pocket? "We're" can be applied to the proponents of the D21/23 as well.
We want what we want and lobby all the same.
I would love to see you back in the MA where you can enjoy this sim.
"We're" was specifically referring to the posters in this thread saying the P-47D-23 shouldn't be a priority.
-
"We're" was specifically referring to the posters in this thread saying the P-47D-23 shouldn't be a priority.
"We're" in consideration of Seadog's argument in this thread refers to those that believe the P-47D-23 should be a priority. Start your thread and I will respond accordingly.
-
"We're" in consideration of Seadog's argument in this thread refers to those that believe the P-47D-23 should be a priority. Start your thread and I will respond accordingly.
All threads are open for discussion. You made a statement that I was trying to speak for the majority of AH players which is not something I was doing by the use the the "we're" term. I just wanted to make that clear. I'd not presume to speak for the community as a whole.
-
All threads are open for discussion.
Roger that
-
Let's be honest Ammo, the D-23 is as needed as the 109E7. To say otherwise is simply a blatant lie.
Hell, the E7 is more needed, given that it represents a change in performance over the E4, and was widely used in North Afrika, and Barbarossa.
What's next Ammo, demanding a remodeled jug because the seat is the wrong shade of gray?
-
Let's be honest Ammo, the D-23 is as needed as the 109E7. To say otherwise is simply a blatant lie.
Hell, the E7 is more needed, given that it represents a change in performance over the E4, and was widely used in North Afrika, and Barbarossa.
What's next Ammo, demanding a remodeled jug because the seat is the wrong shade of gray?
When you say "let's be honest", do you really think I am going to agree with you? These discussions do not include absolutes and are entirely argumentative - so don't go stating it's a lie to disagree with you. Shame, shame, shame on you. And yes, the seat is the wrong color.
Why do you care about the inclusion of a D23? It's just another target for you anyway (unlike karnak who doesn't log in).
-
That can be said of many other units that would also fill significant gaps.
Nobody, so far as I know, is saying the D-21 or D-23 shouldn't be added, we're just saying it is a pretty low priority on the scale of things.
I'm not really saying anything new. I just keep this argument alive because a long threat at the top of the wish list cannot be a bad thing for those who like the wish :)
D23 has been wished for long before we had the N and M models. I recall such discussions since AH1. We've been wishing for 10+ years, its not like I expect this to happen tomorrow.
(between us, I'd trade any hypothetical P47D23 for a hypothetical mossie XVIII, or F.30 ;) , but I'd still wish for a D23 after that...)
-
When you say "let's be honest", do you really think I am going to agree with you? These discussions do not include absolutes and are entirely argumentative - so don't go stating it's a lie to disagree with you. Shame, shame, shame on you. And yes, the seat is the wrong color.
Why do you care about the inclusion of a D23? It's just another target for you anyway (unlike karnak who doesn't log in).
No, it's a lie. You want it for aesthetic reasons, not because it performs any different, would be flown any different, or would BE any different than the D25.
The Germans in particular deal with a LOT of compromises in terms of performance, far greater than the canopy used, and yet you think that your D23 is important enough to come ahead of all that?
I care because it's in my, and everyone else's, interest to see a lot of stuff added before this boondoggle.
-
No, it's a lie. You want it for aesthetic reasons, not because it performs any different, would be flown any different, or would BE any different than the D25.
The Germans in particular deal with a LOT of compromises in terms of performance, far greater than the canopy used, and yet you think that your D23 is important enough to come ahead of all that?
I care because it's in my, and everyone else's, interest to see a lot of stuff added before this boondoggle.
(http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb1/bigsargewells/Stupid.jpg) (http://s207.photobucket.com/user/bigsargewells/media/Stupid.jpg.html)
-
-1
we already have 5 47s.
Should it be added someday? Yes
Should it be added before at least 6 or seven other planes? No
-
The dissenters all seem to agree that the D-25 is the wrong 47 variant based on HTCs own criteria, and that the D-21/23 would me a more appropriate, historically correct type. The objection is that it should come before a whole series of newly developed aircraft, of which the Beaufighter is the only one with any consensus.
I would really be interested in seeing any proposals of easy fixes for existing variants that have better legs to stand on than the one proposed in this thread. Feel free to post any ideas with commensurate references and production numbers in a new thread. I'm sure you'll be heckled to death by the same naysayers with different agendas, including those among the D-21/23 lobbyists.
So far the we should expect a great thread explaining why the 109F-7 is so pressing.
-
The dissenters all seem to agree that the D-25 is the wrong 47 variant based on HTCs own criteria, and that the D-21/23 would me a more appropriate, historically correct type.
Yes, but the D-25 is already here which makes the question moot.
The objection is that it should come before a whole series of newly developed aircraft, of which the Beaufighter is the only one with any consensus.
I don't think most people are saying that. I recognize work load to add something as relevant. Bang for your buck so to speak. I can't speak for others though.
I would really be interested in seeing any proposals of easy fixes for existing variants that have better legs to stand on than the one proposed in this thread. Feel free to post any ideas with commensurate references and production numbers in a new thread. I'm sure you'll be heckled to death by the same naysayers with different agendas, including those among the D-21/23 lobbyists.
So far the we should expect a great thread explaining why the 109F-7 is so pressing.
Bf109G-6/AS would be at the top of my list. No 3D model changes needed as far as I know. It would have better high altitude performance and a 30mm cannon option that would make USAAF 8th Air Force vs the Luftwaffe settings much more competitive for the Germans without having to use the October 1944 Bf109K-4 in setting earlier than it ought to appear.
The Seafire Mk III could be done simply with a new flight model and putting the Spitfire Mk IX's four bladded prop on the Seafire Mk II's 3D model. It would offer significantly improved performance and it was the main production Seafire with 1200 built. The last fighter vs fighter dogfight of WWII was Seafire Mk IIIs vs A6M5s.
Those would be the two variants I'd focus on, but there are other options as well. The problem with the D-21 or D-23 is that they offer relatively little in the way of performance differences while still taking some work on the 3D models and skins. It doesn't seem like there is as much bang for the buck with them.
-
Increase 190A5 ata from 1.43 to 1.49 to represent the majority of A-5 models.
Add bombs to the 190F-8, which requires no new visualizations to be created, and simply requires adding the existing ETC 503 bomb rack onto the wings and enabling 2 250kg bombs on the wings, add the 1000kg bomb to the center line.
Remove 800lbs of weight from the A8, as most models did not have the added armor (and armor seems not to be modeled in AH anyway)
All easy fixes providing actual performance differences than your D-23, and making the model more representative of history.
On top of that, there's also the gaping holes in the German bomber set, our sorely needed G-6 or G-14/As, the Ki-44, Italian SM-79, the H8K, the Beaufighter, the Yak-1, and Lagg-3, Seafire III, the Vickers Wellington, Pe-2. All would add far far more than D-23 would to the game, and all deserve a much higher spot on the priority list, given that the D-23's performance can be not only approximated, but PERFECTLY MATCHED by the D-25.
-
So far the we should expect a great thread explaining why the 109F-7 is so pressing.
But there's no thread about the 109 or another similar case. Why? Because a new airplane is more important than another version of an already existing aircraft. Simple as that!
-
And people call me biased :noid.
-
Karnak, your suggestions seem to offer more of the same, without even any physical differences. You have 6 spitfires in the game already so 1200 vs 7000 seem like a major fail in that argument, what will a 7th accomplish? The slightly better performance of your 109 w 30mm without massive production numbers is even weaker. You are giving us ice in winter, not impressed.
-
Karnak, your suggestions seem to offer more of the same, without even any physical differences. You have 6 spitfires in the game already so 1200 vs 7000 seem like a major fail in that argument, what will a 7th accomplish? The slightly better performance of your 109 w 30mm without massive production numbers is even weaker. You are giving us ice in winter, not impressed.
The 109G/As models actually represent a majority of units on the Western Front. Strategic defense in the East could be almost entirely ignored, given that the Soviets never made efforts to develop a strategic bomber force. Thus virtually all /As units produced went to the west, or less common, Italy.
-
Bf109G-6/AS would be at the top of my list. No 3D model changes needed as far as I know. It would have better high altitude performance and a 30mm cannon option that would make USAAF 8th Air Force vs the Luftwaffe settings much more competitive for the Germans without having to use the October 1944 Bf109K-4 in setting earlier than it ought to appear.
The Seafire Mk III could be done simply with a new flight mqodel and putting the Spitfire Mk IX's four bladded prop on the Seafire Mk II's 3D model. It would offer significantly improved performance and it was the main production Seafire with 1200 built. The last fighter vs fighter dogfight of WWII was Seafire Mk IIIs vs A6M5s.
The K-4 is a superior stand in for the AS. Has a 30mm too. Your above statement has no validity based on your own arguments.
Seriously!?!?!!!! You're arguing for a spit with a different prop? Sounds familiar. Oh yea! A jug with a different prop was asked for earlier in this thread.
-
There are 6 variants of 109 in the game, tied with spits for most represented in the game, which some falsely attribute to the 47. Show me a 109 that typifies half of all 109s produced not in the game and you will have something to equal a late razorback. I'm not suggesting a 7th variant of a well represented model, I am asking for THE CORRECT variant, which if the D-25 is retained will bring it to par with 109s and Spits for representation.
-
Karnak, your suggestions seem to offer more of the same, without even any physical differences. You have 6 spitfires in the game already so 1200 vs 7000 seem like a major fail in that argument, what will a 7th accomplish? The slightly better performance of your 109 w 30mm without massive production numbers is even weaker. You are giving us ice in winter, not impressed.
Massive performance differences compared to a graphics difference. I am sorry, but performance means far, far more. We're not talking about slight differences here.
The K-4 is a superior stand in for the AS. Has a 30mm too. Your above statement has no validity based on your own arguments.
Seriously!?!?!!!! You're arguing for a spit with a different prop? Sounds familiar. Oh yea! A jug with a different prop was asked for earlier in this thread.
You want the 452mph Bf109K-4 used as a sub? You're being intentionally absurd and you know it. Your suggested substitution is so ridiculous it is never done, instead the German players get to struggle through with the low altitude tuned Bf109G-6, or maybe the low altitude tuned Bf109G-14.
As to the Seafire, where did I say the only difference was a different prop? The Seafire Mk III offers a significant performance boost over the Seafire Mk II. The fact that the only graphics difference is a four bladded prop instead of a three bladded prop is irrelevant to what it offers. I was mentioning it as a reference for the 3D modeling work needed, not as something for you to grossly misrepresent as the only difference.
There are 6 variants of 109 in the game, tied with spits for most represented in the game, which some falsely attribute to the 47. Show me a 109 that typifies half of all 109s produced not in the game and you will have something to equal a late razorback. I'm not suggesting a 7th variant of a well represented model, I am asking for THE CORRECT variant, which if the D-25 is retained will bring it to par with 109s and Spits for representation.
Yes, there are more Spitfires and Bf109s in the game, but they have to cover all of WWII unlike the P-47s where they only have to cover the last two and a half years. That means we have 0.857 Bf109s per year (1939-1945), 1.000 Fw190s per year (1941-1945), 1.167 Spitfires per year (1940-1945), 1.250 F4Us per year (1942-1945) and 1.667 P-47s per year (1943-1945). P-47s have the densest coverage of any aircraft in AH. It is unreasonable to complain that aircraft that served shorter a shorter time have fewer variants.
As to asking for the correct variant, why is the correct variant with the same performance as the incorrect variant more important than another plane's correct variant that has significantly different performance? To me the second one looks like the stronger need. Your asking for the correct model does not distinguish your request from mine or Tank-Ace's at all as that is true of all three of us.
-
There are 6 variants of 109 in the game, tied with spits for most represented in the game, which some falsely attribute to the 47. Show me a 109 that typifies half of all 109s produced not in the game and you will have something to equal a late razorback. I'm not suggesting a 7th variant of a well represented model, I am asking for THE CORRECT variant, which if the D-25 is retained will bring it to par with 109s and Spits for representation.
For years of service, the P-47 is the most heavily covered plane in the game.
The 109 and spitfires have 6 aircraft covering 5 years of service.
-
The 109 and spitfires have 6 aircraft covering 5 years of service.
More, six aircraft for 1939 to 1945 for the Bf109. That is seven years.
Spitfire/Seafire has to cover 1940 to 1945 with seven aircraft, and it served in every theater of the war.
-
[EDIT]:
Nevermind, I did some screwy math.
-
Lets take the 109 for example. Of the 30,000 or so built 1/3 of them were G series. 12,000 alone were the G6. Now imagine there was no G2 or G6 in the game, and you would begin to come close to the scale of the omission.
There were a total of 20,000 of all types of Spitfire, 6000 mark Vs 7000 mark IX, put those together take them out of the game and you have the scale of the ratio of late razorbacks. Tell me again how the Seafire Mark III or G6 As compare to that?
The gap in representation of 109s and Spitfires in the game is very well achieved in the game regardless of the additional 2 two years of service. It is not another mainstay fighter you are arguing for but yet another small production number uber version that has already skewed the skies of the MA to be filled with Temps, La7s,Ta152s, 109Ks and spit 16s. The over prevalence of the P-47M is an issue for me. Just having supreme performance does not equate adding something to the game. In fact it detracts IMHO.
-
Lets take the 109 for example. Of the 30,000 or so built 1/3 of them were G series. 12,000 alone were the G6. Now imagine there was no G2 or G6 in the game, and you would begin to come close to the scale of the omission.
There were a total of 20,000 of all types of Spitfire, 6000 mark Vs 7000 mark IX, put those together take them out of the game and you have the scale of the ratio of late razorbacks. Tell me again how the Seafire Mark III or G6 As compare to that?
The gap in representation of 109s and Spitfires in the game is very well achieved in the game regardless of the additional 2 two years of service. It is not another mainstay fighter you are arguing for but yet another small production number uber version that has already skewed the skies of the MA to be filled with Temps, La7s,Ta152s, 109Ks and spit 16s. The over prevalence of the P-47M is an issue for me. Just having supreme performance does not equate adding something to the game. In fact it detracts IMHO.
You're comparing apples to oranges by gross oversimplification to blunt production numbers. You're ignoring the massive performance differences within the Bf109G line, within the Spitfire Mk V line, within the Spitfire Mk IX line. There were much greater differences within the Spitfire Mk V line alone than between the P-47D-23 and P-47D-25 and production numbers are completely irrelevant to that. Those differences are what allow accurate scenarios to be created and performance differences are much, much more significant to how scenarios play out than are graphical differences. The P-47D-25, unfortunately, does a very good job of handling the performance aspect of the P-47D-23. I think we are all in agreement that it would have been better had the P-47D-23 been added instead of the P-47D-25 (The D-25 and D-40 {mislabled as a D-30 at the time} were the first P-47s added and the fact they were both bubble canopied probably explains why we got the D-25 instead of the D-23) but we aren't at that point. We're at a point where the P-47D-25 does exist in AH.
Performance characteristics are what matters most in gap filling.
Looking at the first half of 1944, Western Europe, we have two main contenders in this thread. What does the P-47D-23 bring and what does the Bf109G-6/AS bring? The D-23 brings poorer cockpit views and slight handling changes. The G-6/AS brings the option for the 30mm MK108 and much, much better performance up high were the fighting against the P-47s, P-51s and B-17s will happen. Which of those changes has more of an effect on the game?
-
You keep insisting the D-25 and the D-23 are the same plane. They are not. If they are, HT really needs to work on their physics model. The D-23 should be faster, accelerate better, and climb better if for no other reason because it has a much cleaner airframe. The D-11 is already faster (without WEP) than the D-25.
-
You keep insisting the D-25 and the D-23 are the same plane. They are not. If they are, HT really needs to work on their physics model. The D-23 should be faster, accelerate better, and climb better if for no other reason because it has a much cleaner airframe. The D-11 is already faster (without WEP) than the D-25.
I was basing that on Seadog36's statements earlier in the thread that it was the same as the D-25, just a razorback.
How much faster and better climbing would you expect? To match the differences I was talking about between the G-6 and G-6/AS or within the Spit V line they would need to be very, very significant.
-
You keep insisting the D-25 and the D-23 are the same plane. They are not. If they are, HT really needs to work on their physics model. The D-23 should be faster, accelerate better, and climb better if for no other reason because it has a much cleaner airframe. The D-11 is already faster (without WEP) than the D-25.
Thank you LilMak.
Ok so the G6 As has better high alt performance and a 30mm with vomparatively production numbers yet the K, which looks identical and performs nearly identically won't do? HTC got it right that's why the 109G6As is not in the game
The illustration of Spitfire and 109s models in the game vs P47s is spot on. If fighter aircraft are apples, what are the oranges?
-
Thank you LilMak.
Ok so the G6 As has better high alt performance and a 30mm with vomparatively production numbers yet the K, which looks identical and performs nearly identically won't do? HTC got it right that's why the 109G6As is not in the game
The illustration of Spitfire and 109s models in the game vs P47s is spot on. If fighter aircraft are apples, what are the oranges?
The Bf109G-6/AS and Bf109K-4 do not perform even remotely close to identically. Just because the Bf109G-6/AS has a high blown engine does not mean it has the same high blown engine. The Bf109K-4 is probably 35-40mph faster than the Bf109G-6/AS, climbs much better and does not have the option for 20mm cannons.
Saying that kind of crap to make the marginal differences between the D-23 and D-25 sound comparable does not help your argument. It merely makes you look hopelessly biased.
The D-23 would fill a small gap. The Spitfire Mk Vc, Bf109G-6/AS or Seafire Mk III would fill a large gap, a gap in which the performance of the aircraft being used historically at those times is very different from the performance of the aircraft used in AH as substitutes.
You guys are much, much more knowledgeable about P-47s than I am. Based on your posts you don't seem to know much about WWII aircraft outside of P-47s though. This seems to be leading you to false equivalency beliefs based on aircraft naming schemes, something that varied wildly from nation to nation and even within some nations, and a focus on production numbers to the exclusion of all else.
Sure, production numbers would be relevant in the extreme, but nobody is suggesting some double digit production aircraft would bring more to the game than the D-23.
-
Karnak, was the G-6/AS actually faster than the G-6, or did it just peak higher? I've always been under the impression it was about 420mph at 28k, making it about 30mph slower than the K4, not 50.
-
Karnak, correct me if I'm wrong (and if you happen to know), but the G-6/AS did about 420mph at 28,000ft, correct?
About that. Bf109s are not my strong point. The fact is that comparing the K-4 as a substitute for the G-6/AS to the D-25 as a substitute for the D-23 and claiming is about the same difference is pure hyperbole.
-
I don't disagree; the K4 is far more capable than the G-6/AS, but I was just curious as to what degree. I've heard it compared with the G-10 at high altitude, though the G-10 would own it in a low altitude fight.
-
The D-23 would fill a small gap. The Spitfire Mk Vc, Bf109G-6/AS or Seafire Mk III would fill a large gap, a gap in which the performance of the aircraft being used historically at those times is very different from the performance of the aircraft used in AH as substitutes.
within some nations, and a focus on production numbers to the exclusion of all else.
Massive production numbers are very significant in which aircraft belong in the game. As you have acknowledged several times already the D15-23 series represent a large gap~ unlike a micro subvariant like the G6/AS or even the Seafire Mark III which sounds like, asides the better performance, was an engineering disaster from a carrier plane standpoint~
"The Griffon powered Seafires had some serious faults; the main problem was a result of the increased power yielded by the Griffon engine; the increase in torque meant the pilot had to continuously correct the flight of the aircraft (to prevent the frame of the aircraft rotating in the other direction to that of the propeller). This was huge problem when attempting to take off and land from an aircraft carrier. The torque also affected the lift of the right wing (the Griffon engines rotated anti-clockwise) which would lose lift and even stall at reasonable speeds. The increased weight of the engine meant that the take-off had to be longer and proved very dangerous from most British carriers. The increased weight of the engine further affected the centre of gravity that Mitchell had concentrated on so carefully in the original Spitfire. As a result the handling of the aircraft suffered. Eventually most of these problems were fixed in Seafire 47 when the 6 bladed contra-rotating propeller was adopted." ~ HTC chose well with the Mark II.
Sure, production numbers would be relevant in the extreme, but nobody is suggesting some double digit production aircraft would bring more to the game than the D-23.
And yet you do~ looking for another micro run 109 variant just 30mph slower than the K4 with Ta152 production numbers... If these are best "must have" variants you can offer, maybe you need to keep browsing wikipedia for something else.
-
Massive production numbers are very significant in which aircraft belong in the game. As you have acknowledged several times already the D15-23 series represent a large gap~ unlike a micro subvariant like the G6/AS or even the Seafire Mark III which sounds like, asides the better performance, was an engineering disaster from a carrier plane standpoint~
"The Griffon powered Seafires had some serious faults; the main problem was a result of the increased power yielded by the Griffon engine; the increase in torque meant the pilot had to continuously correct the flight of the aircraft (to prevent the frame of the aircraft rotating in the other direction to that of the propeller). This was huge problem when attempting to take off and land from an aircraft carrier. The torque also affected the lift of the right wing (the Griffon engines rotated anti-clockwise) which would lose lift and even stall at reasonable speeds. The increased weight of the engine meant that the take-off had to be longer and proved very dangerous from most British carriers. The increased weight of the engine further affected the centre of gravity that Mitchell had concentrated on so carefully in the original Spitfire. As a result the handling of the aircraft suffered. Eventually most of these problems were fixed in Seafire 47 when the 6 bladed contra-rotating propeller was adopted." ~ HTC chose well with the Mark II.
Ah The Mark III spit was a Merlin powered aircraft.
The Seafire F Mk III was the first true carrier adaptation of the Spitfire design. It was developed from the Seafire Mk IIC, but incorporated manually folding wings allowing more of these aircraft to be spotted on deck or in the hangars below. Supermarine devised a system of two straight chordwise folds; a break was introduced immediately outboard of the wheel-wells from which the wing hinged upwards and slightly angled towards the fuselage. A second hinge at each wingtip join allowed the tips to fold down (when the wings were folded the wingtips were folded outwards). This version used the more powerful Merlin 55 (F Mk III and FR Mk III) or Merlin 55M (L Mk III), driving the same four-bladed propeller unit used by the IIC series; the Merlin 55M was another version of the Merlin for maximum performance at low altitude. Other modifications that were made on the Spitfire made their way to the Seafire as well including a slim Aero-Vee air filter and six-stack ejector type exhausts. The shorter barreled, lightweight Hispano Mk V cannon were introduced during production as were overload fuel tank fittings in the wings[6][7] This Mark was built in larger numbers than any other Seafire variant; of the 1,220 manufactured Westland built 870 and Cunliffe Owen 350. In 1947 12 Mk IIIs were stripped of their naval equipment by Supermarine and delivered to the Irish Air Corps.
And yet you do~ looking for another micro run 109 variant just 30mph slower than the K4 with Ta152 production numbers... If these are best "must have" variants you can offer, maybe you need to keep browsing wikipedia for something else.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg)
(http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6500/p47dclimbandspeed7kd.jpg)
30mph is a far greater difference then any shown in the charts I have.
-
Great find Fish~ What a storehouse of information @ http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ :rock
-
Looks to me like you should just wish for the D-22.
-
Massive production numbers are very significant in which aircraft belong in the game.
Ta-152
Great find Fish~ What a storehouse of information @ http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ :rock
Did you read the charts? It mentions the D-25 and D-23 top speeds. The D-23 is 3mph slower.
The D-23 should be faster, accelerate better, and climb better if for no other reason because it has a much cleaner airframe.
We've seen it's not faster, it's marginally slower than the D-25. You've been arguing that it was a model needed because it's got different performance, and we've seen it's not the case. I'll repeat it again: it's just 3mph slower than the D-25. If you want (another) 47 added so badly you'll have to give good reasons for it besides production numbers. We already have a truckload of P-47s.
Now, about the G-6/AS you like to mock so much. Our Stock Bf-109G6 tops at about 391mph at 22K. The G6/AS tops at 406mph at 28K. That improves the top speed by a full 15mph (5 times what you lose in D-23/D-25) but, more importantly, that top speed is reached a whopping 6K higher, and that's a huge difference.
The 47 has the densest version coverage of the whole planeset, and the D-23 would just give us cosmetic changes and a hardly appreciable performance decrease. I'd really like to hear what arguments you have for adding it besides "I like it a lot".
-
Ta-152
With 43 built, another stupid addition to the game, yes thank you~ you get my point. They make P-47M, with 130 examples, seem like mass production. The Me 262 has a far more relevant place in the game with 1,400 examples built. With few exceptions significant production numbers are a primary consideration for models in the game and you know it.
Did you read the charts? It mentions the D-25 and D-23 top speeds. The D-23 is 3mph slower.
And the identical D-22 is 6 mph faster~ Could you possibly comprehend that +/-3 mph is a normal variation in sampling error? Speed, climb rate, range and payload are significantly upgraded from the very early 1943 model razorbacks that the D-11 represents. The whole point is not some vast improvement in performance or some moronic experimental cannon loadout. It's about making the prevalent physical model available in the game. A completely valid and worthy request, and relatively easily executed as well.
We've seen it's not faster, it's marginally slower than the D-25. You've been arguing that it was a model needed because it's got different performance, and we've seen it's not the case. I'll repeat it again: it's just 3mph slower than the D-25. If you want (another) 47 added so badly you'll have to give good reasons for it besides production numbers. We already have a truckload of P-47s.
Now, about the G-6/AS you like to mock so much. Our Stock Bf-109G6 tops at about 391mph at 22K. The G6/AS tops at 406mph at 28K. That improves the top speed by a full 15mph (5 times what you lose in D-23/D-25) but, more importantly, that top speed is reached a whopping 6K higher, and that's a huge difference.
Surely the G-6 which I rightly mock will achieve an extra 10 mph at 28k as most aircraft will in higher atmospheric conditions~ most pilots understand that the higher a plane flies the better the groundspeed because of less wind resistance~ making it nearly identical to the G6 AS +/-3mph in top speed. How many thousand of that particular G-6 subvariant were built? Less than the Ta-152 not unlikely.
The 47 has the densest version coverage of the whole planeset, and the D-23 would just give us cosmetic changes and a hardly appreciable performance decrease. I'd really like to hear what arguments you have for adding it besides "I like it a lot".
How about I like it a lot times 7,000. Good luck with that G-6 AS, I predict we will see that...NEVER. :ahand Look you are getting your AS handed to you. Say thank you.
-
On a lighter note~ please enjoy this graceful footage of one of the 2 flying P-47G Curtiss built Razorback examples.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI4NFuCN6Fo
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/dux13eagle_2_zps54664e36.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/dux13eagle_2_zps54664e36.jpg.html)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KnwIYwEh6o
-
How about I like it a lot times 7,000. Good luck with that G-6 AS, I predict we will see that...NEVER. :ahand Look you are getting your AS handed to you. Say thank you.
I'm quoting this first to remember why I won't take you seriously anymore. Geez, this is a forum about airplanes in our little toy world! I won't lose any sleep over not having the G6/AS, there's plenty of nice aircraft to fly :noid
With 43 built, another stupid addition to the game, yes thank you~ you get my point.
It seems like you didn't get mine. Could you wonder why an aircraft with such a small production run was added? It's because it added something to the game. It was a different aircraft. So let this sink in: an aircraft doesn't need to be produced in the thousands to be a worthy addition. And vice versa! Just because an aircraft was widely manufactured doesn't automatically make it a good addition.
The whole point is not some vast improvement in performance or some moronic experimental cannon loadout.
But you said the differences weren't all cosmetic. You told us that there would be an increase in speed, climb and agility over the already existing D-25, and that's not the case. Therefore, the only differences are cosmetic ones.
Surely the G-6 which I rightly mock will achieve an extra 10 mph at 28k as most aircraft will in higher atmospheric conditions~ most pilots understand that the higher a plane flies the better the groundspeed because of less wind resistance~ making it nearly identical to the G6 AS +/-3mph in top speed.
I'm gonna break this down into several smaller pieces because I'm having a little trouble here. I don't know if you simply didn't read my post or you're trying to bend the facts.
Surely the G-6 which I rightly mock will achieve an extra 10 mph at 28k as most aircraft will
Your 10 mph speed difference at 28K is based on fantasy. A Bf-109G6 will make about 380mph at 28K. The G6/AS will make a nice 406 mph. That's a 26 mph difference. Again, I really don't know where the 10 mph figure came from. But having seen how little you know about the P-47 you like so much, I didn't expect you to know the dirty poophead 109 any better.
making it nearly identical to the G6 AS +/-3mph in top speed.
I'll try to make it even more clear:
109G6 391mph
109G6/AS 406mph
As you see, the absolute speed difference is about 15 mph, and it climbs to 26mph at 28K. I absolutely don't know where your 3mph figure came from.
I'll try to keep this to one question:
Why should the D-23 have more preference than other aircraft or versions, like the G6/AS?
-
To quote you, and I have no idea what your source is~ "Our Stock Bf-109G6 tops at about 391mph at 22K. The G6/AS tops at 406mph at 28K"
...You realize 28K is 6K higher than 22K don't you? Even my Bonanza flies 15-25mph faster at 12K vs 6k.
Speed increases with altitude gained in graph 31? It works for 109s too.
Please start a thread to convince us that another 109G6 variant that goes 15mph faster 6k higher,that is almost identical to 109K performance, that looks exactly like the 6 other 109s is the top candidate to enhance the game.
I will be the first to congratulate you and Karnak for pulling that feat off. It would be very much like the D-21/23, a fairly easy addition in terms of manpower with none of the wow.
Furthermore if the glaring and undisputed fact that the late model Razorbacks are the dominant variant at this point and based on that reality alone warrants a place in the lineup over another G-6. That is the argument, and yes, the very different shape of the airframes is important to many whether you agree with it or not.
-
Hello~ to quote you, and I have no idea what your source is~ "Our Stock Bf-109G6 tops at about 391mph at 22K. The G6/AS tops at 406mph at 28K"
...you fly that stock Bf-109G6 to 28K and it will fly faster than 391mph. You realize 28K is 6K higher than 22K don't you? Even my Bonanza flies 15-25mph faster at 12K vs 6k.
So let's just say conservatively, the stock G6 flies 10 mph faster at 28K, you have virtually no appreciable change in performance between the two sub variants. That is why I dumbed it down for you~ you don't even pay attention to your own variables. Notice how the speed increases with altitude gained in graph 31? It works for 109s too. http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6500/p47dclimbandspeed7kd.jpg
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/2/25/109g6spd.jpg)
Now it's clear that you know nothing about aircraft performance, but can you at least read a graph? Do you aknowledge that not all aircraft behave like a P-47?
The 109G6 is slower at 28K than at 22K. It's a simple fact that you seem to be unable to grasp. That's why I posted the graph.
you have virtually no appreciable change in performance between the two sub variants. That is why I dumbed it down for you~ you don't even pay attention to your own variables
I showed you the 26mph speed difference at 28K. You chose to ignore it. But don't keep telling me there's no speed difference.
Furthermore if the glaring and undisputed fact that the late model Razorbacks are the dominant variant at this point and based on that reality alone warrants a place in the lineup over another G-6.
I've seen your sole reasons for a new P-47 is personal preference. It would not add anything to our gameplay.
-
Surely the G-6 which I rightly mock will achieve an extra 10 mph at 28k as most aircraft will in higher atmospheric conditions~ most pilots understand that the higher a plane flies the better the groundspeed because of less wind resistance~ making it nearly identical to the G6 AS +/-3mph in top speed. How many thousand of that particular G-6 subvariant were built? Less than the Ta-152 not unlikely.
You don't seem to understand the dynamics of piston engines and altitude. Look at the following chart:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=85&p2=2&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Both of those Spitfires use Merlin 60 series engines. The full throttle altitude for the Spitfire F.Mk IX's Merlin 61 is at about 27,000ft and the Spitfire LF.Mk VIII's Merlin 66's is at about 21,000ft. Those are the highest respective altitudes that their engine's superchargers are able to provide maximum air pressure and above those altitudes the engine's power drops off sharply, reducing the aircraft's top speed and its climb/acceleration performance. The Spitfire Mk VIII's Merlin 66 is actually slightly more powerful than the Mk IX's Merlin 61, but due to its lower critical altitude the LF.Mk VIII is not able to match the F.Mk IX's maximum level speed. Bf109s also used mechanical superchargers of the same nature. The P-47 used a turbcharger, a method that removes the performance steps you see on those Spitfire charts at the cost of some power. The critical altitude for the P-47's turbocharger was about 30,000ft, which is what make the P-47 such an awesome fighter at altitude.
So basically, climbing higher only means more speed if you can maintain your engine power as the air thins. If the air gets too thin for whatever blower you are using to maintain pressure power drops off, and so does top speed. That is what the Bf109G-6/AS is much faster than the Bf109G-6 at 26,000ft.
As to numbers, the aircraft would be used to represent both the Bf109G-6/AS, Bf109G-14/AS and any other higher altitude tuned Bf109 prior to the Bf109K-4.
-
The 109G6 performance graph was not presented prior. I do stand corrected on that count, though no data other than Xavier's assertion for 109G6/AS performance is presented, which is undoubtedly slightly better with the larger DB603 supercharger installed on the AS variants. I am surprised the G6 drops off so much above 22k, regardless, why would anyone fly a 109G6/AS with a 30mm over a K-4 with a 30mm which will fly 425 mph at 28k? Definitly have to keep that in mind for all those 30k dogfights.
What is the physical difference, sources sayit looks identical to the G-10. Is this for a MW, I have not been able to find any production #s for any AS variants, start a thread~ interesting but no less redundant.
Btw Karnak, the 47's Turbocharger achieved max rpms of 18,250 at 23,000 feet and remained constant through 35k though horsepower/manifold pressure is gradually lost at higher altitudes.
Altitude Turbo rpms rate of climb
15,000 14,050 2330
20,000 16,450 2150
23,400 18,250 2000
25,000 18,250 1810
30,000 18,250 1190
35,000 18,250 570
-
The 109G6 performance graph was not presented prior. I do stand corrected on that count, though no data other than Xavier's assertion for 109G6/AS performance is presented, which is undoubtedly slightly better with the larger DB603 supercharger installed on the AS variants.
I presented you the maximum speed of both variants and you chose to ignore it and try to mock me. Good luck having anyone take you seriously in this thread from now on.
why would anyone fly a 109G6/AS with a 30mm over a K-4 with a 30mm which will fly 425 mph at 28k? Definitly have to keep that in mind for all those 30k dogfights.
Maybe, maybe for the same reasons a P-47 fanboy would take a D-11 over an M. The point stands: G6 vs G6/AS brings wildly different performance and a new airplane, D-25 vs D-23 does not.
-
I am surprised the G6 drops off so much above 22k, regardless, why would anyone fly a 109G6/AS with a 30mm over a K-4 with a 30mm which will fly 425 mph at 28k? Definitly have to keep that in mind for all those 30k dogfights.
Nobody is talking about any of these, other than the Seafire Mk III, with anticipation of significant use in the MA. A few dedicated P-47 fans, such as yourself, will use the P-47D-23 in the LWMA, but you know as well as I do that the M and the N will continue to dominate P-47 usage. The same is true of the Bf109s and the K-4. The /AS models, and I really don't care if it is a G-6/AS or G-14/AS, are needed for USAAF 8th Air Force vs the Luftwaffe settings because, as you noticed, the performance of the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14 fall off so sharply above 22,000ft, well below the altitude they need to fight at. Kinda ironically, your P-47D-23 would be one of their classic opponents.
What is the physical difference, sources sayit looks identical to the G-10. Is this for a MW, I have not been able to find any production #s for any AS variants, start a thread~ interesting but no less redundant.
The Bf109G-10 has the same engine in it as the Bf109K-4 with the reduced performance being due to the draggier Bf109G airframe. The Bf109G-10 would have significantly superior performance to the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS. The Bf109G-10 also entered service with the Luftwaffe a month or so after the Bf109K-4 did, many of them simply being reengined Bf109Gs of older vintage rather than new construction.
Btw Karnak, the 47's Turbocharger achieved max rpms of 18,250 at 23,000 feet and remained constant through 35k though horsepower/manifold pressure is gradually lost at higher altitudes.
Altitude Turbo rpms rate of climb
15,000 14,050 2330
20,000 16,450 2150
23,400 18,250 2000
25,000 18,250 1810
30,000 18,250 1190
35,000 18,250 570
Gotcha. I was just estimating off of the AH performance chart for the D-25. As I said, P-47s not my strongest point.
-
I presented you the maximum speed of both variants and you chose to ignore it and try to mock me. Good luck having anyone take you seriously in this thread from now on.
I really couldn't care less about your opinion, your 3 mph rant when looking at D-21,23,25 data already discredits you enough. I'm just one of many who recognize this gap and want to see a late model razorback. Even to many for which this is not a priority, acknowledge the historical discrepancy and misrepresentation. This is an old and recurrent thread which won't go away and one that will most likely be rectified in the future.
Maybe, maybe for the same reasons a P-47 fanboy would take a D-11 over an M. The point stands: G6 vs G6/AS brings wildly different performance and a new airplane, D-25 vs D-23 does not.
The 109AS being "wildly different" is a delusion you will have to live with. It is common knowledge that a D-11 being the lightest in the game is the best knife fighter and is superior to the M in many regards when speed and climb rate is not the only criteria. It is the first choice among many who fly 47s in LW as well as MW where it is extremely competitive. I have no problem admitting a mistake and reformulating my opinion, your wiki knowledge does not impress.
-
I really couldn't care less about your opinion, your 3 mph rant when looking at D-21,23,25 data already discredits you enough.
Rant? You said the D-23 was faster, climbed better and handled better. We checked the facts, it was 3 mph slower. If you want to call it a rant, it's ok. The fact stands.
The 109AS being "wildly different" is a delusion you will have to live with.
That's an opinion, and I prefer facts. The AS is 26mph faster at 28K.
I have no problem admitting a mistake and reformulating my opinion
:rofl
your wiki knowledge does not impress.
(http://s14.postimg.org/biqpyowup/133343162469.gif)
-
Rant? You said the D-23 was faster, climbed better and handled better. We checked the facts, it was 3 mph slower. If you want to call it a rant, it's ok. The fact stands.
D25 does not matter. D-22/23 performs significantly better than the other razorback the D11.
The point stands: G6 vs G6/AS brings wildly different performance and a new airplane, D-25 vs D-23 does not.
Then wish for a 109G6/AS. What has a 109 submodel got to do with a P47D22/23 wish?
-
D25 does not matter. D-22/23 performs significantly better than the other razorback the D11.
Back then it was argued that the D-23 didn't add anything to the game since it had the same performance as the D-25 we already have.
Then wish for a 109G6/AS. What has a 109 submodel got to do with a P47D22/23 wish?
While it would be nice to have the 109G6/AS, I personally feel that a lot of aircraft have more preference than another 109 version. The Beaufighter, for example! Or Pe-2, or the Boomerang, He-177, J2M, Ki-44...
-
Rant? You said the D-23 was faster, climbed better and handled better. We checked the facts, it was 3 mph slower. If you want to call it a rant, it's ok. The fact stands.
(http://s14.postimg.org/biqpyowup/133343162469.gif)
Do you realize the D-22RE and D-23RA are the exact same plane, same motor same prop? Of course you don't because you never bothered to read this thread.
As previously stated, the RE denotes it was built in the Farmingdale, NY plant the RA denotes it was built in the Evansville, IN plant.
You are cherry picking the D-23 top speed which is probably off to make your point. According to the chart the D-22 is 6 mph faster than the D-25! So your argument again is wrong~ and one D-23 could just as easily be 3-6mph faster in another trial on a different day. It is just statistical variation, but even the lowly D-11 is 4mph faster than the D-25.
They are all identical in every mechanical aspect except the D-25 was given slightly more internal fuel and a bubble canopy which 1) makes it heavier and 2)makes it more unstable. So unstable in fact that subsequent bubble tops were fitted with fillets to provide more stability. Why don't you look at rate of climb for another "wildly different aircraft type" notice how the D-25 climbs at 1,575 ft/min and the D-22 climbs at 1,850 ft/min. It is also a huge improvement from the 1,375 ft/min over the D-11 and other small propped 47s which were wholesale refitted with larger props.
The D-25 had a whopping 384 total examples built. It was virtually a prototype bubbletop, only built in the Farmingdale, NY plant. The D-30 was the most numerous bubble top which had even more internal fuel added and should be the only other bubble top 47 aside from the N and debatably the M. The D-40 was a Pacific variant and was also another smallish run which never saw service in the ETO or MTO.
The speed of 47's in the game is already artificially depressed to factory standards. Their R-2800 engines were routinely cranked up to achieve 70"hg manifold pressure making even earlier Ds perform closer to Ms in the field. The significant increase in rate of climb and superior handling is yet another reason why the D-25 misrepresents the vast majority of 47's in the game.
-
D25 does not matter. D-22/23 performs significantly better than the other razorback the D11.
The D-25 matters because it is a suitable stand in for the D-23. The razorback vs bubble canopy alone is not enough of a difference to make it a priority. The significance of the difference is much less than that between the Spitfire Mk Vb that we have and the Spitfire Mk Vc that was the majority of Spit V production because there is a significant performance difference between those Spit Vs, but not between the D-23 and D-25.
-
Do you realize the D-22RE and D-23RA are the exact same plane, same motor same prop? Of course you don't because you never bothered to read this thread.
I didn't even mention them :airplane:
They are all identical in every mechanical aspect except the D-25 was given slightly more internal fuel and a bubble canopy
And there you have it! Slightly more fuel and a bubble canopy. That's all the difference between the D-23 and the D-25 that we already have. If you think the D-23 deserves a higher priority than the Pe-2 or Do-217 you're just delusional.
The jug has the densest version coverage by year of the whole planeset. I highly doubt another P-47 is what Hitech has in mind for now.
-
The D-25 matters because it is a suitable stand in for the D-23. The razorback vs bubble canopy alone is not enough of a difference to make it a priority. The significance of the difference is much less than that between the Spitfire Mk Vb that we have and the Spitfire Mk Vc that was the majority of Spit V production because there is a significant performance difference between those Spit Vs, but not between the D-23 and D-25.
You are so cute Karnak the way you keep this thread going by throwing out random aircraft on a regular basis to compare the D22/23. 109, Seafire III, Spit V~ this has become your new variant sounding board. You already slipped up too much agreeing on the strong points of this addition. Too bad you didn't think of it... :angel:. What did you used to fly when you played, what was your handle? Have you even tried out the Ki-43 you so diligently lobbied for :lol
-
Did you read the charts? It mentions the D-25 and D-23 top speeds. The D-23 is 3mph slower.
We've seen it's not faster, it's marginally slower than the D-25. You've been arguing that it was a model needed because it's got different performance, and we've seen it's not the case. I'll repeat it again: it's just 3mph slower than the D-25. If you want (another) 47 added so badly you'll have to give good reasons for it besides production numbers. We already have a truckload of P-47s.
The 47 has the densest version coverage of the whole planeset, and the D-23 would just give us cosmetic changes and a hardly appreciable performance decrease.
Rightttttt....never came up....ummm hmmm What was I thinking, must be another chart? :aok
-
Rightttttt....never came up....ummm hmmm What was I thinking, must be another chart? :aok
What?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KnwIYwEh6o
Arlo, that was really a superior find, thank you.
The videos can't impart the sound as accurately as real life, of course. When you watch and hear them in person, there's no doubt (well....at least for me...) that the P-47 was the real Cadillac of the skies.
Oh....I'd like the D-23 (or 21, whichever) as well. But the Beaufighter and Tojo should come first.
- oldman
-
You are so cute Karnak the way you keep this thread going by throwing out random aircraft on a regular basis to compare the D22/23. 109, Seafire III, Spit V~ this has become your new variant sounding board. You already slipped up too much agreeing on the strong points of this addition. Too bad you didn't think of it... :angel:. What did you used to fly when you played, what was your handle? Have you even tried out the Ki-43 you so diligently lobbied for :lol
I am not trying out random aircraft. There is an absolutely huge number of aircraft that warrant addition before the P-47D-23 simply due to the D-23's lack of gap filling credentials.
Look, it isn't our fault you're obsessed with an aircraft that has near duplicate performance to an aircraft already in AH. To you the differences between them are huge, but to anybody looking at it from a neutral standpoint the differences are minor compared to many others.
-
Arlo, that was really a superior find, thank you.
The videos can't impart the sound as accurately as real life, of course. When you watch and hear them in person, there's no doubt (well....at least for me...) that the P-47 was the real Cadillac of the skies.
Oh....I'd like the D-23 (or 21, whichever) as well. But the Beaufighter and Tojo should come first.
- oldman
This is a classic oldman if you have never seen it~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G22zna572v4
-
I highly doubt another P-47 is what Hitech has in mind for now.
He was receptive to the idea when myself and another squaddie visited him in Decemeber of last year. I hope (and believe) his opinion is much different than yours or Karnak's and a D21 or D23 is in for consideration. He did state there are MANY planes he wants to add after the terrain/graphics improvements. :angel: :pray
-
Ammo~
Have you ever seen this chart before? I've never run across it. I'm glad Hitech finally has those hard numbers to work with specific to the D-22/23. Look at the climb rate for the D-22, 3100 fpm at 5K, 350fpm better then either the D-25 or D-11 and 6mph faster than the D-25 at 30K :cheers:
Fish42's link is a pretty rich source of actual documents~ glad he posted http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/p-47-tactical-chart2_zps091ea782.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/p-47-tactical-chart2_zps091ea782.jpg.html)
-
Ammo~
Have you ever seen this chart before? I've never run across it. I'm glad Hitech finally has those hard numbers to work with specific to the D-22/23. Look at the climb rate for the D-22, 3100 fpm at 5K, 350fpm better then either the D-25 or D-11 and 6mph faster than the D-25 at 30K:cheers:
Fish42's link is a pretty rich source of actual documents~ glad he posted http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/p-47-tactical-chart2_zps091ea782.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/p-47-tactical-chart2_zps091ea782.jpg.html)
I just realize I have it bookmarked from ages ago and completely forgot about it :lol :lol But, no, I have never viewed that chart and it is great news.
-
Read this encounter report of Don Gentile, lol the 190 goes for the HO shot and gets reversed lol~
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/4-gentile-14jan44.jpg
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/p-47ds-of-the-61st-fighter-squadron_zpse45eb10d.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/p-47ds-of-the-61st-fighter-squadron_zpse45eb10d.jpg.html)
-
I had assumed you guys knew about that site. It is a very nice one with lots of primary documents.
-
I had assumed you guys knew about that site. It is a very nice one with lots of primary documents.
The first three letters of that word are... :rofl
Great resource!
-
The first three letters of that word are... :rofl
Great resource!
Oh My!
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/10154556_10201075948694975_8707365548307467706_n_zpsc5d27504.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/10154556_10201075948694975_8707365548307467706_n_zpsc5d27504.jpg.html)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n83/Urbanflotsom1/10300328_10201075894173612_4971922946684146975_n_zpse528a589.jpg) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Urbanflotsom1/media/10300328_10201075894173612_4971922946684146975_n_zpse528a589.jpg.html)
-
Always been interested in the P47D series, only question I have is why the D23? its not a huge upgrade from the D-11/D-25 we have, nor does it fill a gap (believe it was built 1944?).
I can see it being added eventually, but there are so many models and variants of other aircraft that haven't even begun to be added.
I would vote for Luftwobble AS models, but at the same I would ask for some of the gap model Spitfires that are not represented especially C wing configuration.
Dunno I simply don't see enough evidence its worth adding anytime soon, especially when the Japanese are misrepresented throughout as the Russians.
What sucks is the Tu-2 just got added, with Yak-3 (late war) which still leaves early war still ignored as well as anything midwar by japanese.
Karnak's right when the terms of performance of the D-25 is only slight of the D-23, why do we need the D-23 other then another 1944 Gap fighter?
-
Bucher, don't bemoan the addition of the Tu-2. It and anything added to the game is great. I won't re-argue the merits of a late model razorback again. There is plenty of documentation in this thread to support the easy addition.
For Razorback jug fans, just found this great vid of the P-47G known as SNAFU now, formally Lil' Demon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYeK9V49zj0
enjoy
-
nevermind
-
Haha ammo...I don't play much anymore. Really just pretty apathetic about the game these days.
-
If we get more razorback jugs, we better get the F6F-3
-
If we get more razorback jugs, we better get the F6F-3
Add both in the same update, but I think the F6F-3 would fill more of a gap and be a bit more useful in scenarios and SEs, along with adding a Mid-war USN fighter. :old: