Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: niklas on July 12, 2000, 11:16:00 AM
-
Is this a 14500lb fighter or a 8000lb fighter ?
I just ask because it is so wonderful to fly- no not over 20k where it should shine, near the ground.
Without much exercise i was able to fly a sustained turn with 100% fuel in ~27seconds (!!), with 25% it will outturn even a yak with ~22.5 seconds. Flaps one notch down of course, like all american fighter compared to non-american it has also some "more lift without much drag" flaps.
It has also a wonderful abillity to hold itīs E imo. IMO the current P47 behaves a little bit like a ufo, at least i donīt think that a 14500lb fighter can fly like the P47 in AH
niklas
-
Are you comparing P-47 with 25% fuel to Yak with 100% fuel? That wouldn't be a correct comparasion. Also, note that Yak turns better to the left (I think it's left) due to the engine torque.
Wonderful ability to hold E... Hmm lemme see... NO! Try flying Spitfire, that plane has wonderful ability to hold E.
All in all, I don't know how correctly Jug is modeled, just making your numbers not to sound as bad as you make them look like.
mx22
-
I've tried it... it feels like an ice cube on the ice with the way it keeps its E.
While Typhoon and F4u's seems to lose E when you bit turn those.. (specially Typhoon)
I bet you could BnZ some superior fighter to yours for long time in P47 currently, if you have advantage. (never runs out of E!)
-
I have a pet name for the Jug~
The Spit47...
<G,D,R>
-
Originally posted by mx22:
Are you comparing P-47 with 25% fuel to Yak with 100% fuel? That wouldn't be a correct comparasion. Also, note that Yak turns better to the left (I think it's left) due to the engine torque.
Wonderful ability to hold E... Hmm lemme see... NO! Try flying Spitfire, that plane has wonderful ability to hold E.
All in all, I don't know how correctly Jug is modeled, just making your numbers not to sound as bad as you make them look like.
Of course spitfire is horrible with its E retention, but for P47s tank weight, its sure does keep E well when going up or turning.
...I always thought that going up in P47 was same as suicide - that is not true in AH
-
"..I always thought that going up in P47 was same as suicide - that is not true in AH"
Would this be a legacy of how the real aircraft performed or a legacy of past AW and WB's flight models?
I'm happy with the aircraft. For once flying in a Jug I have some of the performance that I'd only read about in books.
-Westy
-
Fishu,
I'm not sure about P47s turning ability, cause I don't turn in this plane. About vertical, well it's a slow climber, I recently tried climbing in Spitfire and seemed like a rocket to me after P47. Zoom climb is very good though, just as it was in RL.
mx22
-
no mx, try a sustained turn with a yak, 25% fuel. That means turn as many circles until speed is constant and stop the time for the next 2 circles (to minimize the mistake of the measurement). Yak has a nasty low speed handling.
westy, in books you usually read, though often not mentioned, stories of fights above 20k. Things are completly different in 20-30k. In which altitude did the bomber came in? Where flew the escort fighter? When allied fighter write that they were able to turn into axis fighter, or outroll them, or outclimb them, then you have always to ask in which altitude this happened!
climbing abillity with 100% ~3000ft/min with 25% ~3600ft/min. For such a heavy fighter very good imo. Donīt forget it has a wing which is designed to carry many external loads, that means usually a bad surface quality, drag, lower max lift coeffizient etc. But it looks like wing data of a faired and sealed wing is modelled... .
niklas
-
"...it has a wing which is designed to carry many external loads.." Actually the P-47 was designed as a high alt interceptor/bomber escort and later on was adapted to the role of fighter-bomber, utilising the strong wings. The elliptical wings (same as Spitfire) wings were designed for fighting, not carrying heavy orinance in a light bomber or jabo role. They just worked out well that way.
As for lower alt performance? It's dead meat against most fighters but works well in a furball when enemy pilots have thier attention distracted or when flown by a good pilot against a pilot of lesser ability. As for it's climb rate. Well it had a decent climb rate, owing in no small part to that enourmous and hugely powerful radial engine up front.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 07-12-2000).]
-
Originally posted by mx22:
Fishu,
I'm not sure about P47s turning ability, cause I don't turn in this plane. About vertical, well it's a slow climber, I recently tried climbing in Spitfire and seemed like a rocket to me after P47. Zoom climb is very good though, just as it was in RL.
It does zoom bit too good to me.. also doesnt get too slow if you turn with it, while typhoon is after very gentle turn as slow as Fokker Dr.1 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Well.. if its not the P47, then I must ask that in the thread "Typhoon is uncontrollable high speed rocket"
where would read that Typhoon loses speed in the next moment you try to turn plane for a bit.
-
The wings are only pseudo-elliptical. Even a Spitfire has not 100% elliptical wings, and itīs obvious that the wing of a P47 is a bit farer away from the perfect elliptical wing compared to the wing of a spitfire.
And it doesnīt help much, due to the weight they were forced to give the P47 a big wingarea. To keep it manoeverable they were forced to design a - for this wingarea - small wingspan, the result is a low aspect ratio of only ~5.5 . This means usually more induced drag, what is important in a slow flight.
The P47 is NOT dead meat in a low alt fight, not at all!
When the modelled P47 is a fighter, why all the external loadout variants? Can the fw190 have the loadout variants of the 190F then please?
niklas
-
I can't speak for the 190A8's loadout abilities. I can tell you that many American fighters were capable of carrying external ordinance despite being primarily fighters. The P47 turned out to be the penultimate ground attack fighter bomber for the Americans (due to its ability to carry ordinance and toughness).
It is not out of the realm of possibility for this version of P47 to be fitted with hard points. Argue its E retention if you like, but it could carry these loads, and that was pretty much stock configuration after a time. What the 190 could or couldn't do has nothing to do with the argument.
Finally, the P47 was designed as a fighter, but anything that carried guns was used as ground attack by the Americans by late war.
-
I can certainly appreciate the P47's ability in a zoom climb but I am only getting about 2500fpm in a 180ias climb from takeoff with usually 50% fuel and the center droptank. What climb speeds are you setting to get the 3k+ roc from the deck?
T
-
DmDBT, i use 160mph auto speed without droptanks. The best climbrates are often near 160mph. Start from F8/Sealevel and note climbrate when itīs constant (2-3k)
Kieren, youīre right, Iīm not interested in the loadout of a P47
So there exist stories of excellent zoom climb abillity of the P47, yes?
There are also reports of excellent zoom climb abillity for the P38
And for the P51
And for the 190
And a 109G10/K or Spit14 were definitly very good zoom climber too, only few other planes had such a good power/weight ratio.
When there are so many good zoomer, than one plane isnīt anymore something special right? So why all those reports? Maybe because pilots donīt compare their AC to other AC they never flew, or to enemy AC, but to AC they flew earlier - P40, P39, Spit5.. training AC???
niklas
-
niklas,
160 auto speed in P-47??? Hmm on my end P-47 at around that speed becomes uncontrollable and I have to drop nose to pick some speed up. I'll test this when I get home though.
P.S. Never heard anything about zooming ability of BF109G/K and Spit14. They did had excellent climb rate though.
mx22
[This message has been edited by mx22 (edited 07-13-2000).]
-
Low drag on P-47 for sure...
I tested few of the AH planes gliding ability, and P-47 was real good at that.
109 was dropping over 4000fpm when trying to
keep speed at 150.
P47 was dropping 2800fpm when trying to keep speed at 150.
Fw190A5 was dropping 3700fpm when trying to keep speed at 150.
P51 was dropping 3900fpm when trying to keep speed at 150.
I dont know how typhoon or yak would had done this, but from my earlier experiences, those two definetly are between 3500 - +4000fpm if you want to keep speed at 150. (IAS) (have ran out of gas couple times, both drops like rocks after that, almost like 109)
If you go compare distances that P47 can glide compared to others, you'll find very much change on that.
P47 does also ski through the skies like a champion.
Oh.. got to tell this, I did climb 3000fpm in P47 at 20 to 27k with 200 IAS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (partly using wep, but not all the time)
-
I seriously doubt that 150 was the "best glide" speed for all types.
Compare apples to apples. Find the "best glide" for each aircraft in RL and then try your test in AH-L. Prop drag is now a factor too, so make sure the prop is out for the glide.
I don't know how it will come out, but without knowing best glide and using it for each respective plane, that was a totally meaningless test.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 07-13-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
I seriously doubt that 150 was the "best glide" speed for all types.
Compare apples to apples. Find the "best glide" for each aircraft in RL and then try your test in AH-L. Prop drag is now a factor too, so make sure the prop is out for the glide.
I don't know how it will come out, but without knowing best glide and using it for each respective plane, that was a totally meaningless test.
It was fast test, but it does show how those planes are affected by prop drag and stuff.
To make 109 faster, you need to pitch more down.. to pray it to keep in the air for longer, well.. it eats all the speed if you take nose above -4000fpm (and then you'll go -4000fpm did you want or not)
While P47 can glide 130-180mph if you wish to.
So, I'd say there is truth based factor in my quick testings that tells how others drops like rocks and P47 keeps in air like feather.
I can say that I don't really know how you can then optimize your gliding better with optimizing gliding speeds.
And this is not about gliding from 20k.
Though, still 109 and Yak drops like rocks from there if they suffer engine failure without someone shooting their engines off.
(lol, in that case that someone shoots your engine, you can glide as far as you wish!!!)
About prop drag.. 109 has small propeller as well as yak and P47 has alot bigger one, still I find 109 and yak prop drag far worst than P47s. (maybe p47 just has some electric windmill powerplant that generates electricity for some battery operated engine, hah)
It is that prop drag is too bad for other planes or P47 does not take a count on prop drag.
-
Fishu youīre right, sink rate is a indicator of lift compared to drag at a certain speed
Propeller drag makes it a little bit more difficult. But i predicted it already 2 month ago that the Typhoon is the worst AC in the category E-retention. Without propeller drag, a good plane has a sink rate of ~-1600ft/min @5k . P38 for example, or macchi205. A bad plane (at least it is modelled to be bad) like the 109 has ~-2000ft/min. And the worst (Typhoon) ~-2400ft/min.
Something is strange with propeller drag: When i glide and cut off my engine, at some planes the propeller keeps rotating - 109, P47, fw190 for example. At other planes (P38, mc205) the propeller stops to rotate. When the propeller stops, suddenly the sink rate improves to the values i had in earlier versions without modelling of propeller drag. Where the propeller keeps rotating, sink rate is a lot worse.
But why produce a standing propeller no drag at all? Shouldnīt it be inverse? A standing propeller produce imo more drag than a rotating propeller which "evades" the air??
Back to the P47, with propeller drag i had in 6k @160mph a sinkrate of -2800ft/min 100%fuel . The FW190A5, a plane with good wings too (yes!), has -3600ft/min. That means the P47 has at the moment superduper low induced drag wings!!
That remembers me to the earliest P38 in AH. Do you remember, with a sinkrate of -1300ft/min and very good E-retention and zoom?? Pyro, pls check your calculations for the P47, i think you did here a smiliar mistake!!
niklas
-
I think that AH considers the prop to be feathered when it is not spinning. Thus the ac that have a stopped prop have reduced drag. The spinning, upowered, nonfeathered prop does not produce significantly less drag than a stopped nonfeathered prop.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Just a question guys. How the hell do you make jug fly at 130???!!! Is it only me, but P47 is real pig with anything around 180 and stalls before way before 130.
I'll get home and make tests on gliding speeds, though I'm pretty sure I'll never get to anything close to 130mph.
mx22
-
Originally posted by mx22:
Just a question guys. How the hell do you make jug fly at 130???!!! Is it only me, but P47 is real pig with anything around 180 and stalls before way before 130.
I'll get home and make tests on gliding speeds, though I'm pretty sure I'll never get to anything close to 130mph.
mx22
I have no problem flying P47 with 130mph.. not at all. (I find more problem flying Fw190 with 130mph than P47)
-
I did some tests, and all i can say now is that you canīt compare glide rates with the modelling of propeller drag.
But when the engine is out, propeller stands, prop drag disappears, so i found out a funny method to compare the P47 to the other AC: I started at A1 and just before i overshoot the mountain i pushed my stick forward and rammed my prop into the ground. Engine was out now, RPM gauge at zero, no prop drag (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The result: in 3k @ 160mph 100%fuel ~-1550ft/min (only a little bit better than a P38)
This is not uber or a mistake. But it is on of the best if not the best between all ac of AH and i didnīt expected that from a fighter with such a wing and so much surface area of the fuselage and such a huge frontal area.
btw, is there a ground effect modelled? ~30ft over the ground the glide rate improved suddenly.
niklas
[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 07-14-2000).]
-
I am serious when I say the Yak has no trouble fighting P-47s. I've engaged Jugs many times, a few times two at the same time, and at least one time against three. The only time I was shot down by a Jug was when I was on the deck, slow, and shooting at somebody else. While the Jug seems to scissors well at first, if you get it real slow, it cannot handle it, whereas the Yak handles low speed much better.
Hm, it's amazing how many people have trouble flying the Yak. Maybe I should start filming my sorties ...
-
Yak is a great plane, no doubts about it. Would have flown it myself, but I don't like its armament, plus it's very unstable.
Now I fly Jugs and I know that the only way for me to win a fight against Yak is to come from above on him, or do some fancy evasive manuever which will make Yak overshoot and give me a shot opportunity.
-
leonid, i only compared sustained turn rates, you know, brain out and pull pull pull (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). I think you didnīt win your fights this way
niklas
-
Okay, I did some P47 and F4U tests, tell me why the P47 with the same engine as the F4u, can outclimb the F4U but the P47 has a heavier airframe?
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 07-14-2000).]
-
Ripsnort,
I have been asking that same question for a long time. The only thing I can tell you is that in head to head test with the
P-38, P-51B, F6F-5 and A6M-2/5 the F4U out climbed them all. But in AH it climbs like a dog. Take a look at this for your amusement.
http://members.home.net/markw4/index2.html (http://members.home.net/markw4/index2.html)
Sound like the AH F4U-1D?
Take my advise, forget about the -1D. Fly the -1C, it is based on the -1A model and climbs better in AH than the -1D. Also turns and handles better at low speed. I have no trouble with P-47's in AH except when they have alt. Just look at the F4U-4 compared to the -1D. It had 200Hp more and climbed at
4000fpm. Over 1K better than the -1D and it weighed more. No A/C I have ever heard of has been able to do that with such a small change in power rating. I had a bet on that with HT going back to the Beta day's. I think he chose to forget. I have some physics calcs on the subject I can share with you that would also seems to disagree with the current FM. Sorry to rant, I have given up my pursuit of this issue for a while since Pyro said he would check a couple of things.
<S> Ripsnort, let me know when your squad is ready. I may come visit.
Later
F4UDOA
-
Hmm... Would people have trouble with the yak because it only has one cannon and limited ammo?
-
They're vastly different aircraft? The propellor too?
-Westy
-
question:
What exactly is the differnce between the D-25 and D-30 besides rocket loadout?
Oh, and besides the paint job.
Thanks,
Liz
-
Dive flaps (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) And I heard it's slower.
mx22
Originally posted by Lizard3:
question:
What exactly is the differnce between the D-25 and D-30 besides rocket loadout?
Oh, and besides the paint job.
Thanks,
Liz
-
Yak unstable? no way (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Stable plane at slow speeds and very fast too. (oo, seems faster than A-5)
I have flown Yak some, haven't died at all in it. (twice died, that was under vulch by 6 enemies and I was on real crazy mood, but i made it still over 1:1 K/D)
Something 20-25 kills in Yak so far on few flights.
P47 isn't big deal in a Yak.
I Find Yak very stable at slow speeds - nice to practice perfect landings with it.
It does also roll fast and not a bad diver either. (Fw190 shouldn't try to scissor Yak too much, definetly not at slow speeds)
-
niklas,
I don't get into sustained turn fights with anyone, if I can help it. Even if I should win a stallfight, I'm nothing but meat on the table for anything else that shows up. Surviving in AH requires that you think ahead to the next fight all the time. But you knew that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Also, I'm with Fishu in fighting 190s in scissors. While the 190 can change direction really fast, the Yak can do so pretty fast too, then turn tighter. Add to that the Yak's low speed handling, and its really a lose situation for a 190 to scissors with a Yak. Best thing a 190 can do against a Yak is split ess, and hold onto alt.
-
Good points on some of the comparisons, but the jug is right on and well done for once in a flight sim.
I would rather see the F4U-c go away and fix the D model or add the F4U-4, I say this because the jug shouldn't spank the hog all over the sky like the other planes do.
-
the yak is capable of going from 300 to 60mph in a heartbeat too, so be prepared to overshoot if yer on its six
but watch the ultra slow stall, you could end up in a flat stall w no easy way to recover,
seems yak has slightly aft cg
-
P-47 engines are not the same as F4U engines. There's this little turbo thingy...
-
Originally posted by funked:
P-47 engines are not the same as F4U engines. There's this little turbo thingy...
That turbo thingy is not too effective until after 20k.
-
I should be more clear - P-47D-30 had 2600 hp using water injection as opposed to 2100-something for the F4U-1D.
-
Citabria,
I agree about the cg location. There's this evasive maneuver Deft from WB taught me awhile ago. It works fine on the Yak-9U, so long as you don't try it at too low a speed. The resultant attitude of the aircraft, combined with the airspeed creates a flat spin where the axis of the stall spin seems to be about where the cockpit is. Plus, the aft fuselage dips, leaving you with no options but to bail.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 07-15-2000).]
-
U guys make me laught... geez... kids... hehehe.
I can't wait for the FW-D9, so u 'I know everything' guys will squeak an another plane and cry for the overmodelling. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Olivier "Frenchy" Raunier
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/rauns/brb.gif)
[This message has been edited by SFRT - Frenchy (edited 07-15-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Westy:
They're vastly different aircraft? The propellor too?
-Westy
Propeller is a bigge. The Hamilton active paddle-prop beats the 13ft Standard any day.
Like the comparison of the prototype P-38K with Actives vs the old Curtis blades. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
and the R-2800-8 in the F4U makes 600 less HP then the R-2800-59 in the P-47.
- Jig
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
That turbo thingy is not too effective until after 20k.
Most of the American planes have two-stage super chargers/turbos.
1st stage is 0-19k, although there is a large power loss after 10k that worsens till the second-stage kicks in at 19k. This goes for the Double-Wasps and the Packard/Merlins.
The Alisons were crappy because they lacked the second stage.
P-38 and the P-47 are exceptions to this loss in power however; the P-38's turbos are based on RPM and exhaust flow, as is the B-17, and the P-47's super charger is 3-4 times larger then the engine mounted ones on the other Double Wasps or the Packard/Merlins. It's sheer size allowed more effectiveness at lower alts and even in the dead zone between 14 and 19k. The standard super charger is about the size of a bell housing on your average truck (about 1' in diameter) while the P-47's is about the size of a washing machine (about 4' X 4')
And thus you get 600 more HP from the P-47 then from the the F4U.
It might be possible however, that some of the planes in AH have 3 stage super chargers but the preformence charts don't refelect it for the US planes.
- Jig
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 07-16-2000).]
-
Leonid wrote:
While the 190 can change direction really fast, the Yak can do so pretty fast too, then turn tighter.
Leonid. In this game Fw190A5 outturns Yak-9u in both left and right turns. It was checked in the Training arena. Both planes were 100% fuel loaded and the circles were made at the deck. The tests started with Yak-9 being on the 6 of Fw-190. After 3-4 circles Fw-190 got the 6 of Yak-9 and could stay there as long as he wished.
-
Jigster,
I think your estamation of the F4U-1D horsepower is a little Low. The R-2800-10W had a max combat horsepower of 2250HP. Plus the P-47D-25 and later weighed almost 2500lbs more than the F4U. Well over a ton.
Also the early versions of the P-47 used a Curtis 12ft toothpick style 4 blade prop. The F4U used a 13ft Hamilton standard wide chord three blade prop. Republic switched to a blade style already in use by Vought. The only difference being that they used a four blade prop instead of three.
In takeoff comparisons a fully loaded
P-47D-25 at 14,411lbs took 2540Ft to leave the runway where as a fully loaded F4U-1D at 12289lbs left the runway in only 840Ft.
Even the paddle blade prop and increased horsepower can't make up the difference in weight and a wing designed more for long range cruising than short carrier takeoffs and steep climb angles.
Later
F4UDOA
-
aper,
Interesting ...
I'll keep that in mind.
-
Ty pravyi, aper.
I tested the turn rates of the Yak-9U, La-5FN, Fw 190A-5, and P-47D-30. While the La-5FN had good times for either left or right, the Fw 190A-5 had roughly the same time as the La-5FN going left! And the Yak-9U had times that were comparable to the P-47D-30!! My tests were all on the deck, 100% fuel, using WEP and one notch of flaps as needed. Test times were after turn speed had stabilized.
I think you and Verm are right. Something is wrong with turn rates in general. Not just with the Yak-9U.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 07-17-2000).]