Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Slade on November 25, 2010, 08:23:38 AM
-
Yes there is already an ancient thread on this topic but I was hoping for some new feedback and take on this.
You P-47 fighter jocks, between these two planes (P47m and P-47n) which do you fly and why?
Thanks for your feedback,
Slade :salute
-
M is superior in every way, except higher stall speed, but any tard can fly an M. (Which, when you encounter them, usually proves to be the case) Most use it like ho'ing Lgay with 50's
-
if I want to bomb something, I fly the "N"
if not "M"!
It is really pretty simple!
-
I used N as everyday fight-ride for 3 years or so, certainly not easy (and it utterly fails against K4/Lgay) It's fun on the whole. Mind-numbingly slow climb-speed to 12k cruising alt is heap-big drag
-
any tard can fly an M. (Which, when you encounter them, usually proves to be the case)
Which is proven by the fact that I have more kills in the M than in any other Jug, and I've been here for five years and the M just for one :lol :uhoh
-
I have always loved the P47Numpty. Even after the addition of the P47Monkey. Why? Just feels more comfortable to me for heavy jabo work, and I use fighters other than the P47Monkey for high alt work.
-
M DOES have this quirky "OK...the aerodynamic portion of our flight is temporarily suspended" thing at low speeds, kinda like A8.
-
I fly N more because it won't hurt fighter score (ima score potato) but te M is alot better in most ways
-
isn't the N a better rolling plane? In any case the M got the crazy WEP wich is really needed to fight other late war monsterz
-
isn't the N a better rolling plane? In any case the M got the crazy WEP wich is really needed to fight other late war monsterz
Same WEP in both
-
When you compare the N and M keep in mind the greater fuel capacity of the N. If you want to compare performance they should be at the same weight.
-
Boom & zoom the M, Bomber killer the M, attack ground targets, the N. Neither to me is a suitable fighter against anything other than newbs in TBM or SBD. IMO :joystick:
-
if I want to bomb something, I fly the "N"
if not "M"!
It is really pretty simple!
Ditto for me too. Long time jug driver.
-
P47D11 ftw :rock
-
When you compare the N and M keep in mind the greater fuel capacity of the N. If you want to compare performance they should be at the same weight.
Yeah, this has been rehashed so many times I don't really see a need for yet another thread.
N and M are nearly identical in performance. The N gives you an edge in a few areas (roll rate, wing area, lower stall speed) at the expense of a bit of extra weight.
ANYTHING you do in a 47M, you can do just as well in a 47N. Placebo effect and wishful thinking make folks claim it's the best
-
M has better paint jobs, hence it is the superior plane.
-
I agree with krusty on this one - I tend to select the N more then the M because once the fuel is equalish, th eN performs better I think. . . but I am not an expert Jug pilot and rarely use it. but when I do, it tends to be the N.
Have I been making the wrong choise?
-
M's better plane in 4 of 5 situations, but who wants to Always fly the best plane? We'd see an arena full of F4u4's and Tempests...kinda like DA lake
-
M's better plane in 4 of 5 situations, but who wants to Always fly the best plane? We'd see an arena full of F4u4's and Tempests...kinda like DA lake
Dont forget the chogs
-
P47D11 ftw :rock
I'm with bar on this one!
But between the M and N it just depends if I'm in a PTO mood or an ETO mood. :D Jugs have always been my favorite fighter.
-
Why would they put the extra weight of wing mounts/rails if the M doesn't carry rockets or wing bombs? weird. & Yes I think the paint job makes it fly faster too.. :D
-
It may not carry rockets or underwing bombs but it can carry drop tanks on the pylons. Does that answer your question?
The Republic specification comparison between the two are at a combat gross weights of 16,330 lbs. for the N and 13,275 lbs. for the M. Combat weight includes full internal fuel and full ammunition load. Wing loading is 55lbs/sq. ft for the N and 41lbs/sq.ft for the M at combat weight. Empty weights are 10,998 lbs. for the N and 10,422 lbs. for the M. The N has a useful load of 5,332 lbs while the M has a useful load of 2,852. The N has larger fuel and oil capacity than does the M.
Naturally, given two aircraft (of the same basic design) at the same weight, the one with the greater wing area will perform better in certain aspects. They should probably be very close in performance at the exact same weight but since we cannot compare them "in-game" at the exact same weight, we'll never really know. If HTC has modeled the above statistics correctly (and there's no reason to believe they haven't), we cannot pit one against the other at any given weight, it's not an option. 25% fuel in an N is not the same as 25% fuel in the M, the N has a greater fuel capacity. Also, the empty weights are different so any difference there will be carried through any loadout as well. If we could customize the loadouts, we could then compare the two. Or, if we could add a ballast weight to the M to make it equal to the empty weight of the N and then add identical fuel loads...that would work as well. But since we cannot, at this time, comparing them is out of the question and it whichever is better boils down to personal preference.
I still prefer the N for ground attack and the M for air-air.
-
It is very easy to have the same fuel and ammo load for both. Easiest is in offline when you can play with the fuel burn multiplier to burn the fuel fast to the desired amount and then lower it to minimum so it does not loose fuel during the testing.
In the online arena, you can simply take N with 50% and D25/40/M with 75%. That is quite close in lbs fuel load. The D11 has a smaller internal tank than the others.
-
It is very easy to have the same fuel and ammo load for both. Easiest is in offline when you can play with the fuel burn multiplier to burn the fuel fast to the desired amount and then lower it to minimum so it does not loose fuel during the testing.
In the online arena, you can simply take N with 50% and D25/40/M with 75%. That is quite close in lbs fuel load. The D11 has a smaller internal tank than the others.
Yet the %%@#@#% thing catches fire 3X as much....
<unrelated:N is 10% heavier than the D dry (I assume M is same as D in that regard) and wingspan is 2 feet longer....not sure how to even all that up, except maybe fiddle with gas until they have same flight times>
-
I rather take the P-47D-25. Can fight the N easily but have to work at getting the M shot down.
-
I think that's part of the placebo effect, oak.
-
P47N
{
>> Has the lowest stall speed (at max power output) of all in extremely slow turn fights (ex: VS F4Us);
>> The guns are farther apart(Hard to snap shoot someone < 200 unless the con is passing side to side)... I don't find it a nuisance personally;
>> 25% fuel == 50% fuel in P47M (roughly);
>> Can be pushed the hardest in a turn fight (It forgives a lot near the stall limit). Those who say they can only fight no one [...] other than newbs in TBM or SBD. IMO :joystick:
in it are obviously mistaken;
>> Flat stalls easier (more predictable for combat);
>> Not very good at BnZ for a long time(slow climb rate);
>> Better rudder authority... or rather yaw inertia (at slow speeds);
}
P47M
{
>> Really does climb better at same fuel time, good for energy fights going up (ex: VS 38 or K4);
>> Good all around fighter but not versatile enough for me unless I'm pissed off and want a quick kill at someone in particular :t;
}
|| Both rides entering fights at cruising speed && at 5k is considered not risky AT ALL;
|| Both rides are as much likely to be jumped by cons as mossies or zekes as they are considered to be an easy target.
Keep that in mind when you think about taking them out because they are mistaken;
|| Both rides can DOUBLE fuel economy with RPM down and keep a decent speed. Since these rides are very much dependent on weight for efficient turn fights / climb rate, taking half fuel load can be a blessing;
|| Both rides require patience, practice, and quick decision making to survive... not altitude;
-
Well-stated Lepape :aok
-
Yeah, this has been rehashed so many times I don't really see a need for yet another thread.
N and M are nearly identical in performance. The N gives you an edge in a few areas (roll rate, wing area, lower stall speed) at the expense of a bit of extra weight.
ANYTHING you do in a 47M, you can do just as well in a 47N. Placebo effect and wishful thinking make folks claim it's the best
We had a lengthy discussion on country the other night about this. One thing I am curious about is the effect of the different turbo and prop on the 47N on fuel. It was implied that because the 47N carried more internal fuel that it then had to have greater range. If the engine/prop/wing were optimized for high altitude flight, then would that airframe combination be much less efficient at lower altitudes. Further, an increase in span on the N could alter the C/D. All I am saying, greater fuel load does not always equal greater range.
Personally I prefer the M to the N because of the wing and the low altitude performance, seeing as how the bulk of fights take place low. I think other guys are drawn to the N, because they can fly a fighter in attack mode, and it can run after it drops a ton of ord.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html
This link has some good 47 data in terms of scanned original documents. For those of us without the luxury of possessing the actual plane manuals, owning one, or having flown one in combat, we are only as good as our resources. So, please understand.
-
Your link shows the M has slightly better fuel economy. Comparing 305 gallons internal fuel in the M to 550 gallons in the N makes it clear which has the greater range.
-
Love the M if I'm going out to pick some unsuspecting fools but nothing beats an N as a JABO!!
I'm Captain insano, and I approve this message! :banana:
-
All very good feedback. Thanks for all the posts thus far. :salute
-
P47D11 ftw :rock
ya the D11 is the best to me
-
P47D11 ftw :rock
+1 :aok
-
I'm with bar on this one!
But between the M and N it just depends if I'm in a PTO mood or an ETO mood. :D Jugs have always been my favorite fighter.
Bring on the D-23!
-
if I want to bomb something, I fly the "N"
if not "M"!
It is really pretty simple!
+1. The vast majority of the time I'm picking the latter.
-
Bring on the D-23!
+1 razer back 25 yaaaaaa
-
+1 razer back 25 yaaaaaa
Fyi JOACH1M the D-23 was the last Razorback production block :salute
-
I dont know why but the P47D11 just feels like an armored flying tank with guns. i feel safe in it until i get tatered...
-
I dont know why but the P47D11 just feels like an armored flying tank with guns. i feel safe in it until i get tatered...
That's because they were incredibly safe, and completely under modeled in the game for the weight penalty of their rugged construction and armor.
From the USAF museum fact sheet
"Of the grand total of 15,683 P-47s built, approximately two-thirds reached operational commands overseas and 5,222 were lost in action, including 1,722 non-combat losses. In 1.35 million combat hours flown, the combat loss was less than 0.7 percent, an exceptionally low figure attesting to the strength of the aircraft."
There is a very good reason why it produced the top ETO aces.
-
They also went in when no other planes were ready. They alone took the fight to the enemy, and with sheer numbers were getting most of the kills.
Don't over-glorify it. It's strong all right, but it also takes a solid beating in Aces High. It's one of the easiest planes to lose half a wing with and still survive, land safely, and get a new plane.
-
Your link shows the M has slightly better fuel economy. Comparing 305 gallons internal fuel in the M to 550 gallons in the N makes it clear which has the greater range.
It's the exact same engine. The EXACT same specs. That's why it was easy for HTC to build the -M, because they already did the engine on the -N.
You look up the specs on www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg and it tells you the exact same duration cruising with 205 gallons fuel for both the M and N-5 models: 1.48 hours.
Exactly the same. The only reason the M is 7-9mph faster is because it doesn't have nearly as much weight. More weight means slightly higher angle of attack, which means slightly more drag.
You fly the 47N "lean" and it will perform very much like an M.
Now I just wish the historically incorrect overload ammo was removed from both!
-
Krusty I'm not as certain as you seem to be that all of the drag difference is based on weight.
-
:aok
if I want to bomb something, I fly the "N"
if not "M"!
It is really pretty simple!
-
They also went in when no other planes were ready. They alone took the fight to the enemy, and with sheer numbers were getting most of the kills.
It's one of the easiest planes to lose half a wing with and still survive, land safely, and get a new plane.
True true
-
This is true! Same engine (more or less.... 2800-57 vs. 2800-77 I think) but not the same airframe. :aok There are so many differences between the N and the M I find it silly to try and single out any one thing.
Krusty I'm not as certain as you seem to be that all of the drag difference is based on weight.
-
There are not THAT many differences. The main ones being the wing. A bit longer and more squared. More wing area. The rest of the differences in the airframe (in the fuselage area I mean) are minor by comparison.
FLS, surely you're right. I was attempting to simplify it for comparison's sake. The extra wing area has more parasitic drag, if I've got my terms correct. That probably contributes PART of this 10mph difference. However, 10mph isn't much. You could have 10mph variation out of the factory and still be within acceptible specifications for the military to accept it.
-
N DOES seem to dive better than any of them (the squared off wings?)
-
I'd think the extra weight helps more in a dive. The wings were squared, but longer.
Plus, I read some comment somewhere about rounded wingtips being less drag.
-
ive always been fond of the D-25.
-
But you're cool with saying it's the same exact engine?
I'd think the extra weight helps more in a dive. The wings were squared, but longer.
Plus, I read some comment somewhere about rounded wingtips being less drag.
EDIT:
LLogann can't find an IDIOT SMILEY.
-
Krusty I'm not as certain as you seem to be that all of the drag difference is based on weight.
I would say the majority of it was, as the difference in empty weight was considerable; if you consider the altitudes at which both planes reached their highest speed, induced drag from weight would be reaching extremes. Like Krusty said, there is a bit of extra wing area on the Jug-N, but I would guess, without doing any of the hard math, that the extra weight made up the biggest proportion of whatever combination of factors made the Jug-N slower.
-
This is true! Same engine (more or less.... 2800-57 vs. 2800-77 I think) but not the same airframe. :aok There are so many differences between the N and the M I find it silly to try and single out any one thing.
It really was just the wing construction that changed. Fuselage didn't change.
-
Are the attachments for rockets present on the M's wings? If not, that would account for most of the aerodynamic drag not fully associated with weight and wing span alone on the N. If its all about wing span or wing area, then if there is more lift, there is more drag.
-
Are the attachments for rockets present on the M's wings? If not, that would account for most of the aerodynamic drag not fully associated with weight and wing span alone on the N. If its all about wing span or wing area, then if there is more lift, there is more drag.
No rocket stubs were ever added to a service-condition M that I know of. I doubt it was ever even tested, as the "factory" condition (it was supposedly an air-to-air only design) for the M was no pylons and six guns. Of course, the 56th went ahead and added the pylons and the extra guns in the field.
-
I would say the majority of it was, as the difference in empty weight was considerable; if you consider the altitudes at which both planes reached their highest speed, induced drag from weight would be reaching extremes. Like Krusty said, there is a bit of extra wing area on the Jug-N, but I would guess, without doing any of the hard math, that the extra weight made up the biggest proportion of whatever combination of factors made the Jug-N slower.
I agree Stoney, my comment was regarding Krusty's assertion, since corrected, that the drag difference was all from the extra weight, which at almost 1000 lbs or 10% difference, is obviously a considerable amount. I think the hardpoints on the N, which I don't believe were on the M model in the test that Crusader was referring to, and the wing differences, also contribute to the drag difference.
-
It is a lesser known fact that Ns were first deployed to Europe, but to to delays in their assembly were not available until after the war was over in that theater. They were then re-dissembled and shipped to the Pacific.
It was also assessed that in spite of the wing root extensions the squared off wing tips gave the N a better roll rate than the M.
The Air Force also wanted the (P)F-47 for ground attack in Korea but due to a shortage of spare parts the less suitable (P)F-51 was used for ground attack.
-
Although I do believe the M has the same wing shape as the D-40 and I couldn't find a suitable comparison print of N VS M, I stacked up the N(In green) over a D-40(In Red). Yellow lines are overlapping lines.
What strikes the most is the gun separation and especially the flap area. In stall fights, flaps will prove to be much more effective but also more energy hungry albeit the increased weight of the N model. Other differences include propeller hub, antennas, tail fin, hardpoints, wing fuel tanks, engine power output, and of course weight.
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n150/lepape/P47N-D-Comparison.jpg)
Sources:
http://www.mnbigbirds.com/images/3%20Views/P47/P-47N%201%20RE.jpg
http://www.mnbigbirds.com/images/3%20Views/P47/P-47D%2040%20RA%20Rt%20Side.jpg
-
I agree Stoney, my comment was regarding Krusty's assertion, since corrected, that the drag difference was all from the extra weight,
What do you mean 'since corrected?' I believe I was correct to begin with? :confused:
-
But you're cool with saying it's the same exact engine?
Stoney has already answered, but...
47M here shown with R-2800-57
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-republic-wepchart.jpg
47N shown here with R-2800-57
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-differences.jpg
47N here shown (section III B) as R-2700-57
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html
47M here listed as comprising the 47N fuselage and D30 wing (R-2800-57 listed for 47N on same page)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-differences.jpg
-
engine power output
The M was basically a D-30 up-engined to the C series R-2800. That's all that really changed.
Power on the M was identical to power on the N as it was the same engine with the same rated power. The better roll rate was due to the combination of bigger ailerons that had a longer moment than the D wing. All the other differences were pretty much cosmetic. The wing is the difference (including all the ancillary systems contained therein). From a performance perspective, the wing planform (and its additional weight) made the difference.
-
My bad, not sure why I thought it was a 77, and actually looking up those two, I don't see any differences in engine between either 57 or the 77, at least from a game perspective.
Stoney has already answered, but...
Well, the difference in wing shape does actually lead to several differences. Aside from the "now clear" gun position change, add center of gravity difference, fuel tanks in the N, flap difference, plus lift to drag ratio, amongst all other aerodynamics changes because of the size diff in the wings. One physical change leads to a bunch of differences to flight, adding weight and drag/lift differences and you might call it tens of differences.
It really was just the wing construction that changed. Fuselage didn't change.
:salute
-
You might only do that if you're trying to defend your previous comments which have just been proven wrong.
P.S. The wing layout and wider guns were clearly obvious (without the need for a JPEG to compare them) to anybody that cared 1 wit about the planes prior to now. Even the AH plane wiki and these forums mention the wider guns placement. The wings were only made longer to accomodate a fuel tank in each. It's not like they created a new plane. They just inserted a plug at the wnig root.
-
What do you mean 'since corrected?' I believe I was correct to begin with? :confused:
Exactly the same. The only reason the M is 7-9mph faster is because it doesn't have nearly as much weight. More weight means slightly higher angle of attack, which means slightly more drag.
FLS, surely you're right. I was attempting to simplify it for comparison's sake. The extra wing area has more parasitic drag, if I've got my terms correct. That probably contributes PART of this 10mph difference.
Since you asked Krusty, your original statement and your correction.
-
Lepape2 that's a very nice graphic comparison. :aok
-
Well, the difference in wing shape does actually lead to several differences. Aside from the "now clear" gun position change, add center of gravity difference, fuel tanks in the N, flap difference, plus lift to drag ratio, amongst all other aerodynamics changes because of the size diff in the wings. One physical change leads to a bunch of differences to flight, adding weight and drag/lift differences and you might call it tens of differences.
I understand what you're trying to say, but unless we do the math, we don't know how drastic any of these "differences" are. I keep saying "from a performance perspective" because that's a very important qualifier. I mean, if you really want to get detailed, the N had an autopilot, tail warning radar, rudder pedals that flipped down so the pilot could prop his legs up, a different turbo-charger, different power controls, etc. But the gun position (and landing gear as well--they moved out so that the aircraft had even wider mains) doesn't change how it performs conspicuously. You might say "well, with the guns and gear out further on the wing, it could affect roll rate". I'd say "perhaps, but how much impact do the larger ailerons with a longer moment counteract that?" We don't know unless we do some pretty scary math. What we can characterize is our perceptions in-game. I've flown the N a lot more than the M, but I don't notice a perceptible difference in anything other than climb, acceleration, and top speed (all due to the weight difference). Without looking it up, I'd guess the Cd of both aircraft are very close to each other. On a smaller, lighter plane, the changes that were made would have had a more conspicuous difference, but the P-47 is so damn big, the percentage differences get smaller.
If you get into the larger ailerons, larger flaps, lift-to-drag ratio and center-of-gravity issues, you need to do the math on them to make any sort of comparative statement. Obviously, my contention is suspect as well, because I haven't done the calcs either, but I suspect, especially for the CG, that not much changed from a performance perspective, other than the lower speed and climb due to the increased weight of the plane. You can argue that at very low weights, the N becomes more a better sustained turner due to lower wing-loading (bigger wing at equivalent weights), but again, I wouldn't say there's a conspicuous difference. For the most part, you can assume P-47N and P-47M performance to be equivalent, except for those flight characteristics affected by weight (climb and speed the most glaring).
Good discussion all the way around, and ditto Lepape--the effort to post that graphical comparison is very helpful.
-
[...]
Power on the M was identical to power on the N as it was the same engine with the same rated power.[...]
Yeah I'm sorry I said it was different. Guess I got confused by doing a graphical comparison with the D-40 while this is all about comparing with the M.
Pretty good summary Stoney. I don't think we indeed need all the math (I hope someone is not doing them as I say that :uhoh) to see the true differences. Because in the end, most will take the M or N depending on whether they want more fuel or ords with a slight trade in performance or because they think(if they know it) that 10mph or 1000lbs doesn't make enough difference in most encounters to be considered a No-Go.
Personally, I prefer the N over the M. If there is a fuel leak, there is still some left in the wings. Plus, its got more muscular mass and manliness to it :P
-
That is a very astute assumption sir... :aok And I'm sure we are both in the same "I'm not doing that math" boat. :D
I've flown the N a lot more than the M, but I don't notice a perceptible difference in anything other than climb, acceleration, and top speed (all due to the weight difference). Without looking it up, I'd guess the Cd of both aircraft are very close to each other. On a smaller, lighter plane, the changes that were made would have had a more conspicuous difference, but the P-47 is so damn big, the percentage differences get smaller.
-
That is a very astute assumption sir... :aok And I'm sure we are both in the same "I'm not doing that math" boat. :D
After that last "FW190 is porked" thread a few months ago, I sacrificed my MS Excel to the computer gods... :)