Ready for the P-47D15-23 series

[Tank-Ace]

Karnak, was the G-6/AS actually faster than the G-6, or did it just peak higher? I've always been under the impression it was about 420mph at 28k, making it about 30mph slower than the K4, not 50.

[Karnak]

Karnak, correct me if I'm wrong (and if you happen to know), but the G-6/AS did about 420mph at 28,000ft, correct?

About that.  Bf109s are not my strong point.  The fact is that comparing the K-4 as a substitute for the G-6/AS to the D-25 as a substitute for the D-23 and claiming is about the same difference is pure hyperbole.

[Tank-Ace]

I don't disagree; the K4 is far more capable than the G-6/AS, but I was just curious as to what degree. I've heard it compared with the G-10 at high altitude, though the G-10 would own it in a low altitude fight.

[Seadog36]

The D-23 would fill a small gap.  The Spitfire Mk Vc,  Bf109G-6/AS or Seafire Mk III would fill  a large gap, a gap in which the performance of the aircraft being used historically at those times is very different from the performance of the aircraft used in AH as substitutes.
within some nations, and a focus on production numbers to the exclusion of all else.

Massive production numbers are very significant in which aircraft belong in the game. As you have acknowledged several times already the D15-23 series represent a large gap~ unlike a micro subvariant like the G6/AS  or even the Seafire Mark III which sounds like, asides the better performance, was an engineering disaster from a carrier plane standpoint~
"The Griffon powered Seafires had some serious faults; the main problem was a result of the increased power yielded by the Griffon engine; the increase in torque meant the pilot had to continuously correct the flight of the aircraft (to prevent the frame of the aircraft rotating in the other direction to that of the propeller). This was huge problem when attempting to take off and land from an aircraft carrier. The torque also affected the lift of the right wing (the Griffon engines rotated anti-clockwise) which would lose lift and even stall at reasonable speeds. The increased weight of the engine meant that the take-off had to be longer and proved very dangerous from most British carriers. The increased weight of the engine further affected the centre of gravity that Mitchell had concentrated on so carefully in the original Spitfire. As a result the handling of the aircraft suffered. Eventually most of these problems were fixed in Seafire 47 when the 6 bladed contra-rotating propeller was adopted." ~ HTC chose well with the Mark II.

Sure, production numbers would be relevant in the extreme, but nobody is suggesting some double digit production aircraft would bring more to the game than the D-23.

And yet you do~ looking for another micro run 109 variant just 30mph slower than the K4 with Ta152 production numbers... If these are best "must have" variants you can offer, maybe you need to keep browsing wikipedia for something else.

[Fish42]

Massive production numbers are very significant in which aircraft belong in the game. As you have acknowledged several times already the D15-23 series represent a large gap~ unlike a micro subvariant like the G6/AS  or even the Seafire Mark III which sounds like, asides the better performance, was an engineering disaster from a carrier plane standpoint~
"The Griffon powered Seafires had some serious faults; the main problem was a result of the increased power yielded by the Griffon engine; the increase in torque meant the pilot had to continuously correct the flight of the aircraft (to prevent the frame of the aircraft rotating in the other direction to that of the propeller). This was huge problem when attempting to take off and land from an aircraft carrier. The torque also affected the lift of the right wing (the Griffon engines rotated anti-clockwise) which would lose lift and even stall at reasonable speeds. The increased weight of the engine meant that the take-off had to be longer and proved very dangerous from most British carriers. The increased weight of the engine further affected the centre of gravity that Mitchell had concentrated on so carefully in the original Spitfire. As a result the handling of the aircraft suffered. Eventually most of these problems were fixed in Seafire 47 when the 6 bladed contra-rotating propeller was adopted." ~ HTC chose well with the Mark II.

Ah The Mark III spit was a Merlin powered aircraft.

The Seafire F Mk III was the first true carrier adaptation of the Spitfire design. It was developed from the Seafire Mk IIC, but incorporated manually folding wings allowing more of these aircraft to be spotted on deck or in the hangars below. Supermarine devised a system of two straight chordwise folds; a break was introduced immediately outboard of the wheel-wells from which the wing hinged upwards and slightly angled towards the fuselage. A second hinge at each wingtip join allowed the tips to fold down (when the wings were folded the wingtips were folded outwards). This version used the more powerful Merlin 55 (F Mk III and FR Mk III) or Merlin 55M (L Mk III), driving the same four-bladed propeller unit used by the IIC series; the Merlin 55M was another version of the Merlin for maximum performance at low altitude. Other modifications that were made on the Spitfire made their way to the Seafire as well including a slim Aero-Vee air filter and six-stack ejector type exhausts. The shorter barreled, lightweight Hispano Mk V cannon were introduced during production as were overload fuel tank fittings in the wings[6][7] This Mark was built in larger numbers than any other Seafire variant; of the 1,220 manufactured Westland built 870 and Cunliffe Owen 350. In 1947 12 Mk IIIs were stripped of their naval equipment by Supermarine and delivered to the Irish Air Corps.

And yet you do~ looking for another micro run 109 variant just 30mph slower than the K4 with Ta152 production numbers... If these are best "must have" variants you can offer, maybe you need to keep browsing wikipedia for something else.

30mph is a far greater difference then any shown in the charts I have.

[Seadog36]

Great find Fish~ What a storehouse of information @ http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

[bustr]

Looks to me like you should just wish for the D-22.

[Xavier]

Massive production numbers are very significant in which aircraft belong in the game.

Ta-152

Great find Fish~ What a storehouse of information @ http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

Did you read the charts? It mentions the D-25 and D-23 top speeds. The D-23 is 3mph slower.

The D-23 should be faster, accelerate better, and climb better if for no other reason because it has a much cleaner airframe.

We've seen it's not faster, it's marginally slower than the D-25. You've been arguing that it was a model needed because it's got different performance, and we've seen it's not the case. I'll repeat it again: it's just 3mph slower than the D-25. If you want (another) 47 added so badly you'll have to give good reasons for it besides production numbers. We already have a truckload of P-47s.

Now, about the G-6/AS you like to mock so much. Our Stock Bf-109G6 tops at about 391mph at 22K. The G6/AS tops at 406mph at 28K. That improves the top speed by a full 15mph (5 times what you lose in D-23/D-25) but, more importantly, that top speed is reached a whopping 6K higher, and that's a huge difference.


The 47 has the densest version coverage of the whole planeset, and the D-23 would just give us cosmetic changes and a hardly appreciable performance decrease. I'd really like to hear what arguments you have for adding it besides "I like it a lot".

[Seadog36]

Ta-152

With 43 built, another stupid addition to the  game, yes thank you~ you get my point. They make P-47M, with 130 examples, seem like mass production. The Me 262 has a far more relevant place in the game with 1,400 examples built. With few exceptions significant production numbers are a primary consideration for models in the game and you know it.

Did you read the charts? It mentions the D-25 and D-23 top speeds. The D-23 is 3mph slower.

And the identical D-22 is 6 mph faster~ Could you possibly comprehend that +/-3 mph is a normal variation in sampling error?  Speed, climb rate, range and payload are significantly upgraded from the very early 1943 model razorbacks that the D-11 represents. The whole point is not some vast improvement in performance or some moronic experimental cannon loadout. It's about making the prevalent physical model available in the game. A completely valid and worthy request, and relatively easily executed as well.

We've seen it's not faster, it's marginally slower than the D-25. You've been arguing that it was a model needed because it's got different performance, and we've seen it's not the case. I'll repeat it again: it's just 3mph slower than the D-25. If you want (another) 47 added so badly you'll have to give good reasons for it besides production numbers. We already have a truckload of P-47s.

Now, about the G-6/AS you like to mock so much. Our Stock Bf-109G6 tops at about 391mph at 22K. The G6/AS tops at 406mph at 28K. That improves the top speed by a full 15mph (5 times what you lose in D-23/D-25) but, more importantly, that top speed is reached a whopping 6K higher, and that's a huge difference.

Surely the G-6 which I rightly mock will achieve an extra 10 mph at 28k as most aircraft will in higher atmospheric conditions~ most pilots understand that the higher a plane flies the better the groundspeed because of less wind resistance~ making it nearly identical to the G6 AS +/-3mph in top speed. How many thousand of that particular G-6 subvariant were built? Less than the Ta-152 not unlikely.

The 47 has the densest version coverage of the whole planeset, and the D-23 would just give us cosmetic changes and a hardly appreciable performance decrease. I'd really like to hear what arguments you have for adding it besides "I like it a lot".

How about I like it a lot times 7,000. Good luck with that G-6 AS, I predict we will see that...NEVER.   Look you are getting your AS handed to you. Say thank you.

[Seadog36]

On a lighter note~ please enjoy this graceful footage of one of the 2 flying P-47G Curtiss built Razorback examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI4NFuCN6Fo

[Arlo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KnwIYwEh6o

[Xavier]

How about I like it a lot times 7,000. Good luck with that G-6 AS, I predict we will see that...NEVER.   Look you are getting your AS handed to you. Say thank you.

I'm quoting this first to remember why I won't take you seriously anymore. Geez, this is a forum about airplanes in our little toy world! I won't lose any sleep over not having the G6/AS, there's plenty of nice aircraft to fly  

With 43 built, another stupid addition to the  game, yes thank you~ you get my point.

It seems like you didn't get mine. Could you wonder why an aircraft with such a small production run was added? It's because it added something to the game. It was a different aircraft. So let this sink in: an aircraft doesn't need to be produced in the thousands to be a worthy addition. And vice versa! Just because an aircraft was widely manufactured doesn't automatically make it a good addition.

The whole point is not some vast improvement in performance or some moronic experimental cannon loadout.

But you said the differences weren't all cosmetic. You told us that there would be an increase in speed, climb and agility over the already existing D-25, and that's not the case. Therefore, the only differences are cosmetic ones.

Surely the G-6 which I rightly mock will achieve an extra 10 mph at 28k as most aircraft will in higher atmospheric conditions~ most pilots understand that the higher a plane flies the better the groundspeed because of less wind resistance~ making it nearly identical to the G6 AS +/-3mph in top speed.

I'm gonna break this down into several smaller pieces because I'm having a little trouble here. I don't know if you simply didn't read my post or you're trying to bend the facts.

Surely the G-6 which I rightly mock will achieve an extra 10 mph at 28k as most aircraft will

Your 10 mph speed difference at 28K is based on fantasy. A Bf-109G6 will make about 380mph at 28K. The G6/AS will make a nice 406 mph. That's a 26 mph difference. Again, I really don't know where the 10 mph figure came from. But having seen how little you know about the P-47 you like so much, I didn't expect you to know the dirty poophead 109 any better.

making it nearly identical to the G6 AS +/-3mph in top speed.

I'll try to make it even more clear:

109G6        391mph
109G6/AS   406mph

As you see, the absolute speed difference is about 15 mph, and it climbs to 26mph at 28K. I absolutely don't know where your 3mph figure came from.


I'll try to keep this to one question:

Why should the D-23 have more preference than other aircraft or versions, like the G6/AS?

[Seadog36]

To quote you, and I have no idea what your source is~ "Our Stock Bf-109G6 tops at about 391mph at 22K. The G6/AS tops at 406mph at 28K"

...You realize 28K is 6K higher than 22K don't you? Even my Bonanza flies 15-25mph faster at 12K vs 6k.

Speed increases with altitude gained in graph 31? It works for 109s too.

Please start a thread to convince us that another 109G6 variant that goes 15mph faster 6k higher,that is almost identical to 109K performance, that looks exactly like the 6 other 109s is the top candidate to enhance the game.

I will be the first to congratulate you and Karnak for pulling that feat off. It would be very much like the D-21/23, a fairly easy addition in terms of manpower with none of the wow.

Furthermore if the glaring and undisputed fact that the late model Razorbacks are the dominant variant at this point and based on that reality alone warrants a place in the lineup over another G-6. That is the argument, and yes, the very different shape of the airframes is important to many whether you agree with it or not.

[Xavier]

Hello~ to quote you, and I have no idea what your source is~ "Our Stock Bf-109G6 tops at about 391mph at 22K. The G6/AS tops at 406mph at 28K"

...you fly that stock Bf-109G6 to 28K and it will fly faster than 391mph. You realize 28K is 6K higher than 22K don't you? Even my Bonanza flies 15-25mph faster at 12K vs 6k.

So let's just say conservatively, the stock G6 flies 10 mph faster at 28K, you have virtually no appreciable change in performance between the two sub variants. That is why I dumbed it down for you~ you don't even pay attention to your own variables. Notice how the speed increases with altitude gained in graph 31? It works for 109s too.  http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6500/p47dclimbandspeed7kd.jpg

Now it's clear that you know nothing about aircraft performance, but can you at least read a graph? Do you aknowledge that not all aircraft behave like a P-47?

The 109G6 is slower at 28K than at 22K. It's a simple fact that you seem to be unable to grasp. That's why I posted the graph.

you have virtually no appreciable change in performance between the two sub variants. That is why I dumbed it down for you~ you don't even pay attention to your own variables

I showed you the 26mph speed difference at 28K. You chose to ignore it. But don't keep telling me there's no speed difference.

Furthermore if the glaring and undisputed fact that the late model Razorbacks are the dominant variant at this point and based on that reality alone warrants a place in the lineup over another G-6.

I've seen your sole reasons for a new P-47 is personal preference. It would not add anything to our gameplay.

[Karnak]

Surely the G-6 which I rightly mock will achieve an extra 10 mph at 28k as most aircraft will in higher atmospheric conditions~ most pilots understand that the higher a plane flies the better the groundspeed because of less wind resistance~ making it nearly identical to the G6 AS +/-3mph in top speed. How many thousand of that particular G-6 subvariant were built? Less than the Ta-152 not unlikely.

You don't seem to understand the dynamics of piston engines and altitude.  Look at the following chart:

Both of those Spitfires use Merlin 60 series engines.  The full throttle altitude for the Spitfire F.Mk IX's Merlin 61 is at about 27,000ft and the Spitfire LF.Mk VIII's Merlin 66's is at about 21,000ft.  Those are the highest respective altitudes that their engine's superchargers are able to provide maximum air pressure and above those altitudes the engine's power drops off sharply, reducing the aircraft's top speed and its climb/acceleration performance.  The Spitfire Mk VIII's Merlin 66 is actually slightly more powerful than the Mk IX's Merlin 61, but due to its lower critical altitude the LF.Mk VIII is not able to match the F.Mk IX's maximum level speed.  Bf109s also used mechanical superchargers of the same nature.  The P-47 used a turbcharger, a method that removes the performance steps you see on those Spitfire charts at the cost of some power.  The critical altitude for the P-47's turbocharger was about 30,000ft, which is what make the P-47 such an awesome fighter at altitude.

So basically, climbing higher only means more speed if you can maintain your engine power as the air thins.  If the air gets too thin for whatever blower you are using to maintain pressure power drops off, and so does top speed.  That is what the Bf109G-6/AS is much faster than the Bf109G-6 at 26,000ft.


As to numbers, the aircraft would be used to represent both the Bf109G-6/AS, Bf109G-14/AS and any other higher altitude tuned Bf109 prior to the Bf109K-4.