Krusty, if Bullhockey was a commodity, you would be the Bill Gates of cow pies.....
You, sir, are an insulting old fart, who would rather post misleading numbers on reports while jumping to conclusions about my posts, rather than read the point of my post for your own eyes.
My point is and was to counter many many complaints. I have repeatedly said I KNOW the two models are not the same, HOWEVER, the P-47N is damned close to it, if loaded out lightly.
1My point was NEVER to say the 47M and 47N were identical, but I was merely pointing out that folks griping and b****ing that the 47N is nowhere near the 47M .... are liars. My point in comparing EMPTY weights (which you harped about) was only in response to other gripers mentioning differences in empty weights, and my comments as to how that can be corrected with less fuel or ammo or both. It was not an absolute comparison, simply a relative one.
However, since the
MIGHTY WideWing has seen fit to dump trash on me, let's examine what's been dumped, shall we? You brought this up, not me.
So let's look at your charts... First off:
I do find it funny that on the surface the 47M only has a few mph over the tested 47N EXCEPT at 32,000feet... oh, wait, it says "32k is estimated"... Funny, that.
However that's not the worst point of the charts you posted. I've checked at least half a dozen references online to get the average numbers for my previous post. Your P-47M numbers line up nicely but 47N are plain wrong.
I don't know what whacky circumstances they used to run those tests, but the only way to reach the specified weights on a P-47N in AH2 for comparison testing is less than 50% fuel and NO AMMO of any kind!! Further, the 47N numbers are significantly lower than most other examples given. These numbers are a red herring. You think "Oh, it's almost 20mph faster!!" but when you look at the real top speed of the 47N it's a far smaller gap. Nothing negative being said about the 47M, just that the implied leap from one to the other is a false one.
Going back to the tested weight... Makes me wonder why they're testing planes "empty" where most wartime test at least have ballast or some kind of notation about this. Also makes me wonder why an empty plane is being tested, especially when the results are slower than most armed planes of the same type. So if the 47N is flown so lightly, how about the 47M? 1/4 gas? NO ammo? No guns?? Note no weight listed for the 47M. No info of any kind listed. Top speeds aren't affected as much by lighter loads, just a couple mph. However, climb rates can drasctically be inflated by reducing weight. So in what condition did the P-47N with a weak engine (sup-par top speed) climb 500fpm faster than a normal 47N? In what condition did this 47M skyrocket at 4000fpm from sea level? It begs the question if the 47N is wrong, what's wrong about the 47M numbers?
Assume the 47M speed numbers are right because they jive with other references. However, the 47N numbers don't.
None of the numbers listed show any resemblance to the AH2 modeled P-47N in any of the climb rates listed. Nor do the speeds match up properly. Even if the speed of the P-47M is correct, the speeds of the P-47N are not.
You'll see at 32k the P-47N in AH (even with more fuel load) reaches the high 460s easily.
Not some made up numbers. These are found in books and online everywhere. So common that HTC used them to model the 47N in-game after whatever test this came from.
I'm going to make my point clearer, using an example:
No look at AH's own climb charts.
You might think the 47N was a worse climber, is the common response. The charts, as we all know, have the 47N carrying more gas. Taking 50% fuel in the 47N and full guns vs the 100% fuel and full guns on the D40, you get the following results:
The 47N outclimbs the 47D40, even when it's a little heavier. Numbers taken in-game, 1k results were oscillating, may not be accurate. You want more comprehensive numbers get 'em yerself, I stopped at 10k for simplicity's sake.
But this test is unrelated, right? It's not directly related, but I'm going somewhere with this:
You can see that the widely-known-better-climbing D40 is actually outperformed when similar loadouts are taken. Now you can extrapolate from the top speeds on the 47M and the top speeds on the 47N, that
when similarly loaded, weight-wise, they will perform very close to each other. However the 47N would apparently still have a better rate of roll due to the squared wingtips.
Let me quote my own post, that you dumped crap all over because you thought I somehow personally insulted you (I'm still confused on that).
maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet.
WOW! Imagine that!!! I was 100% right!!! Gee whiz! But, wait... what was that I said about the P-47M?
400 mph at 10,000 feet, 453 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 470 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 3500 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2650 feet per minute at 20,000 feet.
So, not counting your wonky climb rates, guess what??
I'm right again! By your own charts!!! SO WHAT'S WITH ALL THE watermelon YOU THROW MY WAY??? You never even READ my threads before dumping on them. In the F7F thread you totally blew a gasket because I quoted the article YOU provided for us to read! My GOD man!! Somebody actually READING something and commenting on it?!? Please show me where I've warranted the abuse you throw in response to my posts? Do you simply take offense at my mere presence in
your favorite topic? Please tell me, so that I may avoid anything you ever post!
Frankly, widewing, I really love most of the input you give to the community, but lately I'm really getting pissed off at your attitude towards me, and your inability to read what I post (and comprehend what I'm posting) BEFORE you jump down my throat. You've been extremely rude to me on several occasions recently, and that never used to be the case.
As for Bronk, your "ankle-hump-anybody-you-think-insults-Krusty" act gets old. Please drop it.
