Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hooligan on July 03, 2009, 03:45:39 PM
-
I admit the new twisty early war planes in the forthcoming version are fun but we could really use the P-47M. The -M would make a pretty nice MA plane. It's performance would be competitive in the MA but I doubt that it would merit perking on that basis. At typical MA altitudes our current P-47 set are just not that capable, and are therefore rarely seen.
Hooligan
-
Performance at typical MA altitudes hasn't help the Spit XIV get unperked.
-
I admit the new twisty early war planes in the forthcoming version are fun but we could really use the P-47M. The -M would make a pretty nice MA plane. It's performance would be competitive in the MA but I doubt that it would merit perking on that basis. At typical MA altitudes our current P-47 set are just not that capable, and are therefore rarely seen.
Hooligan
N is useful enough at typical alts, just be mindful of wep useage
-
Only jug i know that can zoom climb holding 300PMH+ with WEP and zoom from 14-20k.
Just think if we had the M! :x
-
N is useful enough at typical alts, just be mindful of wep useage
I love jugs, but the N is not impressive.. and its the BEST jug in the game.. and when compare performance numbers of the best jug to those of to the best 109, best Corsair, best 190, best spitfire, it is hidiously outclassed almost every category. sure there are a FEW things it has over some other 5 ENY planes.. like it has better gun than the hog-4 but the hog has better climb, acceleration, turn, etc etc no comparison.
as far as how it would fit in
If its the version that can carry ord, 5eny and perked the same as the C-Hog
if its the version that cannot carry ord, 5eny and free.
-
I love jugs, but the N is not impressive..
Take one up to 30k or higher... It owns almost everything up there.
A P-47N can maintain 460 mph at 40k.
My regards,
Widewing
-
If its the version that can carry ord, 5eny and perked the same as the C-Hog
if its the version that cannot carry ord, 5eny and free.
We'll have to hope against hope we get the sans-ord version then, because the 47M is still no La7 or Spixteen. Of course, giving it a perk price will mean almost no one will use it for the typical suicide porking run *anyway*, so let us hope those nasty irrelevant eggs don't get included.
-
Take one up to 30k or higher... It owns almost everything up there.
A P-47N can maintain 460 mph at 40k.
My regards,
Widewing
That is exactly the PROBLEM.. you take it up to 30k ... then what? your alone... your in your peak performance envelope with no one to perform against.
gotta weigh the designed performance, against its useful performance.. yes at 30K it is a monster.. but its a lonely monster.
-
Sounds like a job for the player base. A few massive B-17 raids with P47 escorts over the HQ might convince some folks. I am just offering up an idea for the next mom.
Infidelz
-
Didn't we just have this thread back in May? :uhoh
-
I love jugs, but the N is not impressive.. and its the BEST jug in the game.. and when compare performance numbers of the best jug to those of to the best 109, best Corsair, best 190, best spitfire, it is hidiously outclassed almost every category. sure there are a FEW things it has over some other 5 ENY planes.. like it has better gun than the hog-4 but the hog has better climb, acceleration, turn, etc etc no comparison.
as far as how it would fit in
If its the version that can carry ord, 5eny and perked the same as the C-Hog
if its the version that cannot carry ord, 5eny and free.
They are all more capable than the P-51s are, unless somethings changed within the past year or so.
-
They are all more capable than the P-51s are, unless somethings changed within the past year or so.
51 has the speed trump card..
if it gets in a bind, it can usually just leave, unless the pilot has just really screwed up, jug no so lucky.
-
51 has the speed trump card..
if it gets in a bind, it can usually just leave, unless the pilot has just really screwed up, jug no so lucky.
Whic P-47N are you flying? :confused: :confused:
-
Whic P-47N are you flying? :confused: :confused:
the poor accelerating one that is as helpless as a baby in the speed department when wep runs out. without it, its slower than the D11.
the Ns biggest, and ONLY above average capability, is speed, and not even sustained speed, speed only when in WEP.. LA7, pony, K4, G2, D9, Tiffie, Yak, C205, can not only hang with the N long enough to run it out of WEP, but ALL of them accelerate MUCH faster, making it unlikely that the N will ever even make it to its top speed before being caught unless it has plenty of air underneath it.
So unless conditions are idea, it cant leave the fight, and when forced to stay is at a disadvantage in almost every category except guns. sub par turning, accelerating, climb, average Roll rate. Not to say its a "bad" plane.. but its not AT ALL IN ANY WAY "plenty good" Which is what many of the people who don't want the M seem to think.
as far a 5ENY MA rides go, the N is among the poorest overall in terms of survivability.
-
add the M, and add the serious engine teething issues along with it.
-
add the M, and add the serious engine teething issues along with it.
the same amount of teething issues as are modeled in the 163, 262.. etc
-
I started flying the P47-N more, why do we need the M the N is well on the deck already.
-
I started flying the P47-N more, why do we need the M the N is well on the deck already.
the N decent, but not great when on wep, when off wep, its performance is poor. especially down low.
that and the fact that we have the best Corsair, the Tempest, best P51, best 190, best spitfire, best 109.. but not the best P47.
-
Best K4 is the one at 1.98ata. Pretty sure there's a D9 with higher boost too. The 51D we have isn't on 150 octane. We don't have the 21, or XII spits running with max earl gray dosage and best tea-ware equipment.
-
Best K4 is the one at 1.98ata.
moot point.. moot :lol
-
It's a moot point that we don't have the best K4 which would be, by your argument, the requirement for adding a matching "Best" 47?
-
It's a moot point that we don't have the best K4 which would be, by your argument, the requirement for adding a matching "Best" 47?
right, but the "non" best K4 we have, is a monster, the best jug we have.. is not.
-
right, but the "non" best K4 we have, is a monster, the best jug we have.. is not.
What's the requirement that the Jug have a "monster" version available? Aside from the D23, we have the most representative versions from the war era in game already. No Jug in the MA will ever be a "monster" because of its weight. And, IMO, the November represents the "best" version of the Jug, and it certainly represents the "best" version historically. Just because the characteristics that made it dominant in real life don't avail themselves to a "monster" MA aircraft doesn't mean anything. The November is more than competitive in the MA as it is.
-
My thoughts too. It's a jug.
-
What's the requirement that the Jug have a "monster" version available? Aside from the D23, we have the most representative versions from the war era in game already. No Jug in the MA will ever be a "monster" because of its weight. And, IMO, the November represents the "best" version of the Jug, and it certainly represents the "best" version historically. Just because the characteristics that made it dominant in real life don't avail themselves to a "monster" MA aircraft doesn't mean anything. The November is more than competitive in the MA as it is.
the N was specialized long-range version designed specifically for service in the Pacific theatre. nothing more.
same engine as the M, but tuned and propped for maximum range, not performance.
the N is not competitive in no real sense at all when compare to the other aircraft it shares the 5ENY pool with. Its acceleration, climb, maneuverability are all below average to poor, put next to an LA7, Tempest, hog-4, spit16 and 14, it looks downright pitiful. Someone who REALLY knows what they are doing, and how to pick their fights can do pretty well in it, but calling it competitive is silly. Competitive rides can be flown with at lease some degree of success in the MA by novice pilots, the N cannot.
the M was the pinnacle of P47 development, superior to the N in every conceivable way except range, and would make a far more attractive ride under typical MA conditions than the N ever will. It would be to the P47s what the -4 is to the Corsairs.
No Jug in the MA will ever be a "monster" because of its weight.
Climb rate of 3,700 fpm
460mph at 28K
400mph at only 10k
it hauled its fat bellybutton around pretty well.
-
The problem with the P-47M is that it was extremely rare (56th FG only as I recall) so adding it to AH isn't about filling in the big gaps in the planeset, it is about giving P-47 fans the absolute best air-to-air P-47 there was, regardless of its significance or lack thereof.
-
It'd certainly climb better... 800fpm better. But 460@28 and 400@10 looks not much different from the N.
-
the N was specialized long-range version designed specifically for service in the Pacific theatre. nothing more.
Anyway you can better marginalize a fighter that could fly 12 hour missions, faster than a D model, and hit just as hard? The November was, technologically, close to the pinnacle of piston fighter development during WWII. Ergonomics, autopilot, simplified engine controls, etc. Sure, a lot of stuff that makes no difference in AH2, but significant none-the-less.
same engine as the M, but tuned and propped for maximum range, not performance.
Wrong. There's no such thing as "tuned and propped for maximum range". You can fly for maximum range, but the powerplants were the same and performed the same. The basic difference between the two aircraft were weight, airframe, and fuel capacity.
the N is not competitive in no real sense at all when compare to the other aircraft it shares the 5ENY pool with. Its acceleration, climb, maneuverability are all below average to poor, put next to an LA7, Tempest, hog-4, spit16 and 14, it looks downright pitiful. Someone who REALLY knows what they are doing, and how to pick their fights can do pretty well in it, but calling it competitive is silly. Competitive rides can be flown with at lease some degree of success in the MA by novice pilots, the N cannot.
Sour grapes. Just because its not easy doesn't make it non-competitive. I'm not going to change your mind, so I won't try. I guarantee if you started a poll, most folks that have been around the game for more than a few months would consider the N-Jug competitive in the air-to-air MA.
the M was the pinnacle of P47 development, superior to the N in every conceivable way except range, and would make a far more attractive ride under typical MA conditions than the N ever will. It would be to the P47s what the -4 is to the Corsairs.
I won't disagree that the M would be more competitive in the MA. But, it was not the pinnacle of P-47 development--it was merely an up-engined P-47D.
Climb rate of 3,700 fpm
460mph at 28K
400mph at only 10k
it hauled its fat bellybutton around pretty well.
And will still get shot down in the MA when it gets low and slow, just like a November Jug.
-
It'd certainly climb better... 800fpm better. But 460@28 and 400@10 looks not much different from the N.
It should be 470 mph @ 28k and 401 @ 10k, compare to 461 mph @ 28k and 392 mph @ 10k.
It's not a great deal faster, between 8 and 10 mph at all altitudes. The biggest difference will be in acceleration, climb and low-speed handling. Being more than 3,000 pounds lighter (fully loaded) will be quite noticeable. It will be significantly better than the N model below corner speed.
That pretty much sums up the differences.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Sour grapes. Just because its not easy doesn't make it non-competitive. I'm not going to change your mind, so I won't try. I guarantee if you started a poll, most folks that have been around the game for more than a few months would consider the N-Jug competitive in the air-to-air MA.
Most people on these forums could get kills with a Cessna 172 armed with a 9mm pistol. This prevents them from analyzing the plane vs. plane situation rationally.
The N is an under performer in where the typical MA fight occurs (its ENY is an abomination). The M will be a notch better, still not an uberplane. IMO, the N deserves an ENY of about 15 and the M will need one of around 8-10.
-
The problem with the P-47M is that it was extremely rare (56th FG only as I recall) so adding it to AH isn't about filling in the big gaps in the planeset, it is about giving P-47 fans the absolute best air-to-air P-47 there was, regardless of its significance or lack thereof.
We have Ta-152s, 163s, C-Hogs, and 3 gun La7s. Rarity is apparently not a consideration.
-
The problem with the P-47M is that it was extremely rare (56th FG only as I recall) so adding it to AH isn't about filling in the big gaps in the planeset, it is about giving P-47 fans the absolute best air-to-air P-47 there was, regardless of its significance or lack thereof.
Yes, that's true. But how many other planes have their best model added, despite there already being plenty of models? I understand your position, but given the fact that several other planes have their best model in the game, the P-47 shouldn't be any different.
-
It'd certainly climb better... 800fpm better. But 460@28 and 400@10 looks not much different from the N.
those numbers are without WEP.
-
Yes, that's true. But how many other planes have their best model added, despite there already being plenty of models? I understand your position, but given the fact that several other planes have their best model in the game, the P-47 shouldn't be any different.
Which ones? None of the British ones are their best. I understand that neither the 109K-4 or 190D-9 are their best versions. The N1K2-J may be best, but the Ki-84 is not. The P-51D is not the best version, perhaps the F4U-4 is?
-
I'm all for the P-47M being added in AH. How long till then who knows but once it comes it will surely make a impact. However, the P-47N is far from a target boat in the MA. Yes, with WEP it's a monster and without it it's a loaded piglet BUT it's still a P-47 none the less.
8x50 cals of love and fuel to fly for well over a hour plus the speed advantage to tangle with most planes in the MA. Now just as with any P-47, they are far from easy to fly and far from easy to learn to dogfight with surely but it can be done. I've flown the P-47 quite a while back and while i was with the 56th for my brief period I learned to love the November. It's the only P-47 that can abuse it's horsepower in the zoom climb as well as getting low and slow with her.
Once you learn the P-47 models you'll gradually progress into the N and once you've flown both the D models and N you will favor the N over the entire set because of it's usefulness with WEP. All it takes is proper WEP management, SA and gunnery to become proficient in the Nato but most load it out like a bomb truck and expect it to out run and out turn crap that it wouldn't. If i can recall correctly, doesn't ALL P-47 models have the 5 minute WEP limit? :confused:
-
Which ones? None of the British ones are their best. I understand that neither the 109K-4 or 190D-9 are their best versions. The N1K2-J may be best, but the Ki-84 is not. The P-51D is not the best version, perhaps the F4U-4 is?
I believe all these planes are performing as best they can without higher octane fuels, which HTC has not chosen to add. All of these planes are great LW planes, except for the P-51D, which is merely good, and very competitive.
Karnak and company, if your sense of fairness and balance doesn't tell you why adding a better LW version of a presently somewhat marginal fighter to the LW arena is more important than adding an even more uber uberplane, then I'm not sure I can get it across to you.
-
Karnak and company, if your sense of fairness and balance doesn't tell you why adding a better LW version of a presently somewhat marginal fighter to the LW arena is more important than adding an even more uber uberplane, then I'm not sure I can get it across to you.
What sort of idiot are you? None of us are advocating "uber" planes be added. I have no idea how you got the exact opposite message from what we are saying. We are saying that adding a historically insignificant fighter just because it is "uber" is not a good idea in our opinions. If HTC adds the P-47M, they add it, but I think the time would be better spent on other, more significant, aircraft like, say, the Ki-43 or Yak-1 or Yak-7 or Beaufighter or C.200 or G4M2 or He111 or Wellington or Pe-2 or ect, ect...
-
If they added the "M", even as a perk, I'd drop the "N" as my every-mission-plane....."N" is just enough superior to the D40 to be competitive at lower alts with inferior numbers (faster than spit16/niki, between 7-15k is slightly faster than Lghey). Buuut, doesn't look like it will happen, so the N's have it, mind-numbing climb rate and all
-
those numbers are without WEP.
Well.... Why didn't you say so? :lol That and 3000 pounds lighter (and the correct speed numbers) are the figures you should've mentionned :) I'm not against the M at all, it's one of the top 10 I'd like to see asap myself. But the N isn't such a bad plane as you describe.
Thanks Widewing.
-
I put the N in a lower than it deserves, to offset the folks that say things like "its as competitive as the spit16, or LA7 in the MA"
+1, -1..... 0 order returns.
:lol
-
What sort of idiot are you? None of us are advocating "uber" planes be added. I have no idea how you got the exact opposite message from what we are saying. We are saying that adding a historically insignificant fighter just because it is "uber" is not a good idea in our opinions. If HTC adds the P-47M, they add it, but I think the time would be better spent on other, more significant, aircraft like, say, the Ki-43 or Yak-1 or Yak-7 or Beaufighter or C.200 or G4M2 or He111 or Wellington or Pe-2 or ect, ect...
Sorry Karnak...from your response I guess I came off more confrontational than I meant.
What I mean is, I hear people say as regards the 47M "Well, we don't have a Spit21 or a P-51D running on 150 octane or 400mph OTD D9 either...", well, that is true. But the Spits, Ponies, and Doras we do have are competitive in performance at typical low alts in a way the 47s aren't. If the fights were from the deck to 30K, the 47s would have their own bailiwick where they would be highly competitive...but they are not, they are from the deck to 15K at most 80% of the time. The M still won't be an La7, but its addition would make a grand old "plane of fame" a tick more competitive in the weeds, and I think this is worthwhile, especially considering the presumably lower labor involved in modeling it because of its similarity to the D.
As for adding other planes, well, I like new toys as well as the next guy, so I can't say anything against any alternate suggestions.
-
We are saying that adding a historically insignificant fighter just because it is "uber" is not a good idea in our opinions. If HTC adds the P-47M, they add it, but I think the time would be better spent on other, more significant, aircraft like, say, the Ki-43 or Yak-1 or Yak-7 or Beaufighter or C.200 or G4M2 or He111 or Wellington or Pe-2 or ect, ect...
This is the key, and has been repeated in just about every other P-47M thread since I've been around, including one I started way back when I was a new player, and impatiently asking for the M-Jug. I certainly expect it to be added at some point in the future. In the meantime, all the Jugs are still competitive in the LW MA, warts and all. The M will certainly be a better MA aircraft than the N--no one is arguing it won't. But, decrying the drawbacks of the existing in-game Jug as justification for adding the M is, in my opinion, a poor argument. If you're flying a Jug air-to-air in the MA, you're not doing it because its the most capable aircraft, you're doing it because you like to fly the Jug. So, I contend everyone who chooses to fly the Jug in the LW MA should lose the chip on their shoulder and enjoy being a P-47 fanboi in spite of its drawbacks, and take pride in blowing the hell out of La-7s, Spit 16s, etc. merely because it demonstrates the superiority of heavy, loud, inefficient, American iron over those dainty little magic carpets that any 3rd grader can fly... :aok
-
I flew the P-47N for only the second time in February of this year. These were my non-scientific impressions:
I had an 8 kill sortie in the N last night. It's fast, handles smoothly, is lethal, manouvers well enough (I outmanouvered a Yak on the deck) and, unfortunately, climbs like a Jug. I think I like it better than the D11 or D25. It's just so smooth to fly. I think I even prefer it to the 51D.
Preferring the N Jug to the D Pony with an ENY of 8 it seems as though 5 ENY is right although possibly both of them could be raised.
I'm not sure why we would need the M but hey, I'm all for more aircraft to fly.
-
Once you learn the P-47 models you'll gradually progress into the N ...
You'd regress right back to the D11... :)
We are saying that adding a historically insignificant fighter just because it is "uber" is not a good idea in our opinions. If HTC adds the P-47M, they add it, but I think the time would be better spent on other, more significant, aircraft like...
...Like the D23 which would be the best non-M jug dogfighter. Any other razorback with WEP and paddle blade prop would do just fine. Not only this is a significant kind of jug, it is the most significant kind of jug. However, fixing the mosquito must take priority :)
-
If the M model is added all the other jugs would become hangar queens.
-
If the M model is added all the other jugs would become hangar queens.
First, it would carry a perk price probably. Second, as a result, it would see about as much use as a F4U-4, at least after the initial shine of its introduction wore off, and folks realized it was just a more powerful D model. Depending on how its configured, (the 56th FG combat version with a dorsal fin and wing pylons, or the factory version without either) it could see a lot of use in the air-to-air role, but limited use in air-to-ground. Even if HTC gives it pylons, which could fit bombs, it would be without rocket rails, and those that use the Jug merely for bomb-trucking would up a D-40 or N before an M.
-
I'm all for the P-47M being added in AH.
+1
-
If the M model is added all the other jugs would become hangar queens.
not really
1: probably no ord, defiantly no rockets.
2: 5eny or perked.
that and, with jugs at least, there are people who will still prefer the razorback ,or the D25...
-
What sort of idiot are you? None of us are advocating "uber" planes be added. I have no idea how you got the exact opposite message from what we are saying. We are saying that adding a historically insignificant fighter just because it is "uber" is not a good idea in our opinions. If HTC adds the P-47M, they add it, but I think the time would be better spent on other, more significant, aircraft like, say, the Ki-43 or Yak-1 or Yak-7 or Beaufighter or C.200 or G4M2 or He111 or Wellington or Pe-2 or ect, ect...
Last time I checked the B-239 was a historically insignificant plane to everyone except the Finns, but that is added. On top of that there were what, 44 produced? It seems like your requirements for what "should" be added are rather inconsistent.
-
The 2 planes we are getting in the next release are good scenario planes. The M would be a good (but not great) MA plane. With WEP on, its speed, climb and acceleration would be very similar to that of a 51D. Without WEP its climb and acceleration would be on the poor side, and it's top speed would not be impressive particularly considering the poor acceleration. This is not an aircraft which is likely to push N1Ks, Spits, 51s or LAs down the popularity list. Except for the jabo role, the existing 47s ARE hangar queens. They just aren't that good below 15k where 99% of the MA action takes place. After the newness has worn off the 47M would probably hold a place in the 2nd tier of popularity in fighters (109s, F4Us, 190s, Kis, F6Fs): Something that would not be rare but certainly not pervasive like Spit XVIs. It would be nice to have a 47 that was competitive in the MA.
-
Last time I checked the B-239 was a historically insignificant plane to everyone except the Finns, but that is added. On top of that there were what, 44 produced? It seems like your requirements for what "should" be added are rather inconsistent.
As soon as you add "except" to the comment an aircraft is no longer insignficant.
There are several P-47s in AH that are competitive in the MA.
-
The 2 planes we are getting in the next release are good scenario planes. The M would be a good (but not great) MA plane. With WEP on, its speed, climb and acceleration would be very similar to that of a 51D. Without WEP its climb and acceleration would be on the poor side, and it's top speed would not be impressive particularly considering the poor acceleration.
for starters, top speed has nothing to do with acceleration, look at the K4 VS the 51D, K4 accelerates like a scaulded ape, the 51D like a dead goat.. but the 51D has a higher top speed.
climb rate is tied to acceleration (for the most part) but top speed takes in many more factors (drag coefficient for example)
furthermore.
the M's climb and acceleration are far better than the 51D, top speed without wep is the dark side of 400mph at only 10k. It would be a VERY competitive MA ride, good speed, acceleration, climb, great guns. Hell it would need to be perked.
the said thing, is the information you would have needed to read before making such an uninformed post, is right here in this thread...
Climb rate of 3,700 fpm
460mph at 28K
400mph at only 10k
-
The P-47M will *not* deserve a perk on the basis of its a2a capacity. At typical MA alts it will still be a fast plane with a relatively high wing loading and an unremarkable climb rate. When the 5 minutes of joy are exhausted, it won't even be remarkably fast at low alts, and several planes will still be as fast or faster under typical MA conditions. The La7 for instance, will still out-run, out-climb, out-accelerate, and out-turn the M, the Spixteen will still out-everything it in every respect against speed. The M will not be in the same league as the F4U-4, a plane which very little unperked can out-run, and which can turn with virtually everything in the game. That is why I hope our version *doesn't* have ordinance if people insist perkage revolve around that matter. Perking it would virtually guarantee that it was rarely used as an ord truck anyway, so we might as well get the fighter version. Lack of pylons will make it that much hotter anyway. :aok
-
The P-47M will *not* deserve a perk on the basis of its a2a capacity. At typical MA alts it will still be a fast plane with a relatively high wing loading and an unremarkable climb rate. When the 5 minutes of joy are exhausted, it won't even be remarkably fast at low alts, and several planes will still be as fast or faster under typical MA conditions. The La7 for instance, will still out-run, out-climb, out-accelerate, and out-turn the M, the Spixteen will still out-everything it in every respect against speed. The M will not be in the same league as the F4U-4, a plane which very little unperked can out-run, and which can turn with virtually everything in the game. That is why I hope our version *doesn't* have ordinance if people insist perkage revolve around that matter. Perking it would virtually guarantee that it was rarely used as an ord truck anyway, so we might as well get the fighter version. Lack of pylons will make it that much hotter anyway. :aok
That largely describes the N
-
The 47M's powerloading is only a little better than the 51D's, compared to the K4. The D11's is slightly better than the M's.. This is as far as acceleration to respective top speeds goes.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3433/3695507907_a45ef8fbb8_o.png)
That's in dogfighting trim (ammo for 10 kills, ~12-15min fuel @ wep). They're less competitive when loaded.
-
The 47M's powerloading is only a little better than the 51D's, compared to the K4. The D11's is slightly better than the M's.. This is as far as acceleration to respective top speeds goes.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3433/3695507907_a45ef8fbb8_o.png)
That's in dogfighting trim (ammo for 10 kills, ~12-15min fuel @ wep). They're less competitive when loaded.
are you saying the D11 would accelerate faster than the M?
how is that even remotely possible?
does that take into account the M having the Curtiss Electric paddle prop?
its hard to imagine how the M, could have so much higher rate of climb than the D11 (or any other jug) and not also accelerate faster.
and for those who keep saying the M would be similar or not much better than the N, take into account that the M has almost the same rate of climb at 52Hg, as the N does at 72Hg.. pulling 72Hg the M hits just shy of 4000fpm..
-
"Respective to their top speeds". How different, aerodynamically, are the N, M, and D-11?
-
"Respective to their top speeds". How different, aerodynamically, are the N, M, and D-11?
I see, so its not like the 200-350mph acceleration rating (as seen on sodas) but more a % of top speed.. got ya :aok
the razorback is more slippery than either, the M is about 300 pounds lighter than the N, about 300 heavier than the D11. so I guess the D11 being lighter and more streamlined would indeed lend itself to faster acceleration than expected..
this does not seem to be true in game though, so far as I can tell, its acceleration is pretty much indistinguishable from the D40.
-
I'm no aerohead Wingnutt. I'm just trying to piece together what bits I do know matter, so that this argument on the M is accurate and understandable for everyone :)
From what I've read recently, weight doesn't mean much for top speed. It's important for acceleration, obviously (F=MA). You mentionned the M's prop was something special? Can you quantify exactly how the D-11 is more slippery than the others?
Just realized that I misread the charts. Disregard my comment on the D-11's powerloading.. Do you know exactly how much power our D-11's engine makes? 2535hp is what I've found, but it's not specified for which D model that is. And our N does make 2450hp, doesn't it?
This page says it used the R-2800-21, making 2300hp @ wep.
edit - way too many inconsistencies in what I've said, disregard it.
-
I'm no aerohead Wingnutt. I'm just trying to piece together what bits I do know matter, so that this argument on the M is accurate and understandable for everyone :)
From what I've read recently, weight doesn't mean much for top speed. It's important for acceleration, obviously (F=MA). You mentionned the M's prop was something special? Can you quantify exactly how the D-11 is more slippery than the others?
Just realized that I misread the charts. Disregard my comment on the D-11's powerloading.. Do you know exactly how much power our D-11's engine makes? 2535hp is what I've found, but it's not specified for which D model that is. And our N does make 2450hp, doesn't it?
This page says it used the R-2800-21, making 2300hp @ wep.
the D11 is more streamlined butcause it doesent have a bubble canopy.
(http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraft/p-47/images/P-47D25_Christensen.jpg)
(http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraft/p-47/images/P-47D11_Williams.jpg)
-
The 47M's powerloading is only a little better than the 51D's, compared to the K4. The D11's is slightly better than the M's.. This is as far as acceleration to respective top speeds goes.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3433/3695507907_a45ef8fbb8_o.png)
That's in dogfighting trim (ammo for 10 kills, ~12-15min fuel @ wep). They're less competitive when loaded.
This is based upon sea level HP, correct? Power loading is completely dependent upon altitude. For example: The P-51D made 960 hp at 30k, whereas the P-47M made 2,800 hp. Indeed, the P-47M made 2,800 hp from sea level all the way up to critical altitude (approx 32.6k).
At 30k, the M was the fastest accelerating fighter ever tested by the Army up until the time it was tested. The P-38L ranked 2nd. In game, if you do acceleration testing at just 20k, you find that many of the super-uber low level birds are generally not very impressive. As one example; the P-38G and the Tempest have identical times accelerating from 200 mph TAS to 300 mph TAS at 22k. In comparison, the P-38L accelerates from 200 mph TAS to 300 mph TAS in 1/3 less time than the Tempest or P-38G at that same height.
Power loading is totally dependent on altitude, or the ability of an engine to produce power at altitudes from sea level to critical altitude (FTH).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wingnutt - Yeah but I was curious if you had any numbers to quantify that. Anyway, it's not worth trying with this many gaps of info, and when the AH acceleration is a bit unpredictable: Historical docs like the ballpark acceleration comparisons at wwiiaircraftperformance.org show that e.g. the Tempest is supposed to be a pretty sluggish accelerator. Not like in AH. With just powerloading figures (no aerodynamics figures), you get this:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3656/3695749567_52ae8561cc_o.png)
Not the full picture, not conclusive.
Thanks Widewing, SL loading, yes, and that changes everything yep.
-
2200/2800 mil/WEP for the C series R-2800 in the N and M models. The paddle blade props were pretty much standard on later D models. Our D-25 has a paddle blade prop. Our D-11 does not, or should not. D-40 should be 2600 on WEP I think. My books are packed up so I'm going off memory here.
Razorback models may be a little more streamlined, but the extra horsepower of the later D's, N's, and M make up for it. The biggest reason our D-11 is faster is because it doesn't have wing pylons or rocket rails, more so than the "fastback" fuselage. The only difference in weight from the D-11 to the D-25 is basically the wing pylons and more fuel capacity (bigger main tank).
-
Suppose I wanted to make an animated bar graph of a couple of planes' acceleration to their top speeds at a couple of different altitudes. What specifications would I need to calculate the figures to feed into that animation?
-
Suppose I wanted to make an animated bar graph of a couple of planes' acceleration to their top speeds at a couple of different altitudes. What specifications would I need to calculate the figures to feed into that animation?
You would need to calculate total thrust in pounds. This can be done with a simplified formula.
375 x Prop Efficiency X Horsepower / Initial Speed
You need to calculate total drag in pounds. This is more complicated as you need data from which to make the calculation.
With these two data points, you can then calculate acceleration.
One can calculate a reasonably close rate of acceleration if we can determine several unknowns. These are propeller efficiency and drag. We can use a constant for the the prop, but may have to estimate drag.
We can calculate the approximate thrust available at a given speed. To do this, we must estimate the efficiency of the propeller. If we begin at 150 mph, a typical WWII prop will demonstrate approximately 70% average efficiency over its normal speed range (can vary from 60% up to just over 80% and back down again). If this is applied to all examples, it becomes a fair, if not perfectly accurate method. Note that 2,400 hp in the Tempest is at 11 lb boost.
Thus, for the Tempest:
375 x .7 x 2,400 / 150 = 4,200 lb of thrust.
For the Spitfire Mk.XIV:
375 x .7 x 2050 / 150 = 3,588 lb of thrust.
Now that we know the available thrust, we can calculate acceleration in feet per second, per second. Of course, we need to know what the total drag is. This can also be calculated or obtained from a reliable source. In this case, I'm going to use what I believe are close estimates.
Total drag for the Tempest: 1,350 lb
Total drag for the Spit XIV: 990 lb
Thus, thrust - drag / mass (in slugs) = initial acceleration in feet per second, per second.
Tempest: 4200 (thrust) - 1350 (drag) / (11480/32.2) = 7.99 feet per second, per second.
Spit XIV: 3588 - 1090 / (8500/32.2) = 9.46 feet per second, per second.
Let's toss in the P-51D for comparison. I am calculating based upon an empty rear aux fuel tank (always burned off first on climb-out)
P-51D: 3010 - 845 / (9611/32.2) = 7.25 feet per second, per second.
Results, initial acceleration rate in g:
Spitfire Mk.XIV: 0.294 g
Tempest Mk.V: 0.248 g
P-51D: 0.225 g
Initial acceleration in the game, full load except for P-51D with 75% fuel. Time to accelerate from 150 mph to 200 mph at 100 feet ASL.
Spitfire Mk.XIV: 8.12 seconds (18 lb boost)
Tempest Mk.V: 8.16 seconds (10.5 lb boost)
P-51D: 10.81 seconds (67 in/hg boost)
The relationship between the Spitfire XIV and P-51D is reasonably close to the calculated acceleration (30% calculated vs 33% actual testing)
However, the difference between the Tempest and P-51D is much different (10% calculated vs 32% actual testing). In short, the AH2 Tempest appears to accelerate much faster than it should for the given boost and horsepower, at least in theory. Even if I reduce the Tempest's drag by 200 lb, it still should not accelerate as fast as it does in the game.
Dean published drag figures for most American fighters in his book, America's Hundred Thousand.
Note that acceleration is not going to be linear as propeller thrust decreases as speed increases. Also, you would have to know the available power at the various altitudes to calculate for each increment. There is also a gradual rise in drag as speed increases, which means an increasing error as speeds rise. All of these variables make accurate data over a speed and altitude range very difficult to pinpoint.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wingnutt:
The observations I made concerning M performance are from the graphs on page 282 of "America's Hundred Thousand". On the deck, p-47M top speed and climb (with WEP/without WEP) are approximately: 365/335 3600/2600. The AH 51D comes in about 370/355 3450/3000. Acceleration and climb are close to proportional because they are both closely related to thrust/mass (the drag which affects the two is somewhat different).
And you completely missed my point about speed and acceleration. P-47s have good top speeds for the MA but because of their poor acceleration, they can't use that top speed to pursue or escape effectively starting from a low E condition. A high top speed just isn't that useful if acceleration is poor compared to the competition.
-
Widewing - So, to make a thoroughly accurate simulation, we're missing PropEff at a range of speeds (150-~400 IAS) and a number of altitudes (say SL, 5k, 10k, 15k), Drag in that same range of speeds and altitudes, and engine Power at those altitudes?
Or does drag behave the same through a range of indicated speed, at any two different altitudes?
I don't mind researching (all this info is available in public records, right?), but all things considered, it's faster and more accurate to record the accelerations in the game (since that's what we're after here), and then try and find the numbers for the 47M (since that was part of the original purpose of this) to see how it's expected to compare.
-
From what I've read recently, weight doesn't mean much for top speed. It's important for acceleration, obviously (F=MA). You mentionned the M's prop was something special? Can you quantify exactly how the D-11 is more slippery than the others?
Just realized that I misread the charts. Disregard my comment on the D-11's powerloading.. Do you know exactly how much power our D-11's engine makes? 2535hp is what I've found, but it's not specified for which D model that is. And our N does make 2450hp, doesn't it?
This page says it used the R-2800-21, making 2300hp @ wep.
The D11 is both lighter than all other model and has less drag. The reduced drag is both due to the razorback vs. bubble canopy and the lack of wing pylons. In addition the razor back adds lateral stability, perhaps the reason the D11 feels better near the stall than the bubbles. This is offset by the lack of paddle blade prop on the D11 (all other models are modeled with it) that knocks off 500-800 fpm from the climb rate (and suppose to add 2-4 mph to top speed). Essentially all razorback that did not come out of the factory with this prop had it installed in the field. The most common and significant Jug configuration in the ETO is a razorback with a paddle blade prop.
All jug engines give 2000HP at mil power. The main difference is the WEP that adds ~100HP for the D40 and is like injecting the engine with cocaine in the M,N.
-
Thanks Bozon, I was just thinking about this... What about exhaust thrust? Because the 152 would really have to be aerodynamically miles ahead of the 47N/M to match their speed there with (IIRC) only ~1300 HP versus their 2800 HP.
-
Super giant radial frontal area = tons of drag.
-
Still.. a ~1200 HP bird like the 152 vs a 2800 HP model like the 47N up in the thin air of 30k.. I'm not seeing such a huge amount of extra drag to cancel out 1600 HP. That's huge!
The question I'm asking though, is whether exhaust thrust plays a non-negligible part in overall thrust, and how difficult it'd make what I had in mind - crunching out accurate enough numbers for the 47M, to compare with what we have already.
-
Still.. a ~1200 HP bird like the 152 vs a 2800 HP model like the 47N up in the thin air of 30k.. I'm not seeing such a huge amount of extra drag to cancel out 1600 HP. That's huge!
The question I'm asking though, is whether exhaust thrust plays a non-negligible part in overall thrust, and how difficult it'd make what I had in mind - crunching out accurate enough numbers for the 47M, to compare with what we have already.
My understanding of exhaust thrust is that it equals approximately 10% more power. I don't know if that changes with altitude though.
-
Well there's got to be more to it than that.. I mean, the 152 makes 2050 HP @SL and only a bit over 1000 at 35k, while the R-2800 puts out 2800 at all altitudes. And yet the 152 and 47N both have roughly parallel speed curves. So there's something amiss because everything else being equal, the 152 ought to be getting less competitive with rising altitude. Drag is constant (comparatively between the two planes), the 152 has a falling engine power whereas the 47 has constant engine power, and the speed curves (the "bottom line" tally of it all) are nearly identical. So, somewhere in there is something that compensates for the 152's dropping engine power.
The two of them can't have proportionally constant exhaust thrusts. If you take the 47 as the benchmark, its performance is consistent with the 152 having lots of ET with rising altitude; but where's the 47's exhaust thrust? I know I've read (IIRC) Frenchy say that exhaust thrust was a big factor for the jugs at altitude. Either the 152 has immense exhaust thrust (very strange when you've got the engine wheezing out like that, but then I'm no gearhead), or the 47N has very little.
I guess I'll only know when Widewing or Stoney, or someone who already knows this solves this riddle for me. I don't think I can figure this one out knowing so little.
Incidentally... The AH charts show that the 152 only does ~460 @ ~31kft... What the heck??
edit - Apparently the Jumo 213E still made 1740HP @ 40k thanks to GM-1. That's still one thousand HP (+60%) difference.
-
Well, a couple of other factors that may or may not impact the discrepancy. We'd have to do some more detailed analysis to see:
Ta-152 has an aspect ratio of around 9.5 compared to the Jugs 5.5. At those altitudes, with dynamic pressure getting so low, induced drag goes through the roof. Especially with a 2,000-4,000 pound weight difference between the two aircraft. That high-aspect ratio wing on the Ta-152 will be much more efficient at that altitude.
Exhaust thrust may be important, but it can't account for that big of a difference.
The P-47 probably has a larger parasitic drag coefficient, but I don't know enough about the 152 design to know for sure. Just because it has a radial motor doesn't really mean its automatically higher. I keep coming back to the weight difference, because induced drag at those altitudes can be a killer.
-
I never understand why anyone wishes to calculate Acceleration. Climb rate is much easier to test and is a 100% linear equation with acceleration.
HiTech
-
Moot:
but where's the 47's exhaust thrust?
What force do you think drives the turbocharger?
HiTech
-
I'm out of my depth. I didn't even know it had a turbocharger (I don't know jugs at all, so I went from memory of a jug fanatic mentionning a long time ago that jugs' exhaust thrust is a major factor). So the N/M P-47s have no major exhaust thrust; or is it all P47 models?
I'm just curious how the 152 with so little power compared to the 47N/M can stay competitive. Is it mostly due to the 47's larger parasitic drag, then? I won't try and speculate so much anymore.
-
Two aircraft of equal weight and thrust will have similar acceleration at low speed, but if one of them has much lower wing loading it will climb better. Acceleration also vary with speed if the two aircraft have different drag properties. Climb rate and acceleration are not always a linear equation, and never 100% so.
A good example is the Spitfire IIa with a constant-speed propeller and a 1,175 hp Merlin XII engine, and 109E-4 with a 1,175 hp Daimler Benz DB 601Aa engine. With equal engine power the Spitfire out climbs the 109, despite being heavier. However the 109 out accelerates the Spitfire in level flight at low to medium altitudes, but at high altitudes the Spitfire's wings again give it the edge also in acceleration.
So in a comparison between a lighter, less powerful plane with glider like wings (Ta 152) against a powerful, heavy, stubby-winged aircraft (P-47) there is no such thing as a linear equation of anything; there are too many variables.
-
Die Hard
Two aircraft of equal weight and thrust will have similar acceleration at low speed, but if one of them has much lower wing loading it will climb better. Acceleration also vary with speed if the two aircraft have different drag properties. Climb rate and acceleration are not always a linear equation, and never 100% so.
wing loading it will climb better.
It will also accelerate better.
By pure definition climb rate and Acceleration are the same thing. And of course we are not comparing Max climb rate with accelerations at different speeds. You must compare acceleration and climbs at the same speed. To put it very simply, climb rate is simply an acceleration against gravity.
If 2 planes have the same climb rate at any given speed, then their acceleration will also be exactly the same at that speed.
HiTech
-
That's correct hitech, but to simply say that the best climber is also the quickest in acceleration is inaccurate (you didn't say that, but it's easy to draw that conclusion from what you said).
-
I'm out of my depth. I didn't even know it had a turbocharger (I don't know jugs at all, so I went from memory of a jug fanatic mentionning a long time ago that jugs' exhaust thrust is a major factor). So the N/M P-47s have no major exhaust thrust; or is it all P47 models?
I'm just curious how the 152 with so little power compared to the 47N/M can stay competitive. Is it mostly due to the 47's larger parasitic drag, then? I won't try and speculate so much anymore.
Well, there is a small amount of exhaust thrust, but as HTC alludes to, most of it turns the turbine that drives the turbocharger. What isn't used for induction exits the aircraft at two points: The waste-gate openings just behind and below the cowl flaps (look for the origination of the exhaust soot on the bottom of the aircraft) and the turbo exhaust just in front of the tailwheel. I can't really see any benefit from the waste-gate exhaust as it exits the aircraft perpendicular to the direction of flight. The turbo exhaust exiting the hood at the aft part of the fuselage would really be the only means for the Jug to gain exhaust thrust, and what comes out at that location is the spent exhaust coming off the turbine--not a lot compared to conventional exhaust systems on supercharged aircraft. This system is consistent across all P-47 models.
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/supercha.htm
Do you have any information on the parasitic drag coefficient of the Ta-152? We can compare it to the known values of the P-47s. Ultimately, we'd need to create some power available tables and some other analysis to make a more accurate comparison.
-
That's correct hitech, but to simply say that the best climber is also the quickest in acceleration is inaccurate (you didn't say that, but it's easy to draw that conclusion from what you said).
That isn't what he said though.
Take the P-51D and Spitfire Mk VIII at sea level. At 200mph the Spitfire will have much more acceleration/higher climb than the P-51D but as we near the Spitfire's top deck speed that will change, at 325mph the P-51D will be able to both outclimb and out accelerate the Spitfire Mk VIII as almost all of the Spitfire's thrust is being used just to maintain that speed whereas the P-51D still has substantial thrust beyond what is needed to maintain level flight at 325mph.
-
Thanks Stoney. I don't remember if I have those specs, but I'll look.
-
This thread was really cool....now my head hurts
-
I'm still trying to figure out why so many people say it would have to be perked.
190D-9, P-51D, Spit Mk XVI, 109K4 all have similiar performance #'s at typical MA fighting altitudes. Like several people have said, it won't be a "dominant" ride til you are way up there in alt, much like the N model. And unlike AH several years ago, it gets lonely and boring up that high, not many fights, so it won't see much action at those alts.
Oh well, I'll believe it when I see it. After asking for it on this BBS and in person at the HTC offices for 8 years, I've all but given up.
-
Stoney is this any help for the drag part of the equation?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3465/3703845931_7fdc56c227.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3465/3703845931_f0556c4ac6_o.jpg)
I'm still working on finding power vs alt figures.
I guess we're off topic now. I'll start a new thread to keep this one clear.
-
Stoney is this any help for the drag part of the equation?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3465/3703845931_7fdc56c227.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3465/3703845931_f0556c4ac6_o.jpg)
I'm still working on finding power vs alt figures.
I'm gonna need some help translating this stuff, but it appears to be an awesome collection of information. Can you give me some pointers on where I might find some drag numbers?