the P47 "the Unbreakable"no more

[steppie]

the new G loading on aircraft has wreak the P47
you can't dive bomb in the 47 no more with breaking or damaging the aircraft were it will not fly properly.It that bad i can dive bomb in a spit and not break up and try and do the same in a p47 break my wings off. in some of my test did i don't even get blackout before the aircraft is breaking up.
Because the way the G loading is model it hasn't taken in account for aircraft like the P47.

[Sven]

Interesting I thought the "Jug" has a very high dive speed. It also looks like it could withstand enormous G load. I think it has something to do with the bomb load as well Steppie.

[swiss]

i don't even get blackout before the aircraft is breaking up.


Welcome to the club.
Same goes for the 190.

[[URU]Amraam]

This video shows the dive restrictions of the P-47, I think it´s a good source to compare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NWaHlnI_LQ&feature=channel

[Tempest123]

I just tested several 500 mph pull outs starting from 3000m after bomb release with full fuel from around 70 to 80 degree dives with no breakup, certainly it stressed the aircraft a few times but this all depends on how hard you pull out (lol), what would you expect from a several ton aircraft. If you pull out of a steep dive with 500 pounds of bombs on each wing bad things are gonna happen, but I didn't notice a problem with no bombs. Still keeps energy very well, and zooms back up like it should. In short I didn't see a problem, it still out dives nearly everything.



What angle and speed are you diving at, with bombs? and how much fuel? and what speed is your pullout?

[IceFire]

Bombs and fuel are now critical factors to what you can do during a dive bombing run. I've run a few dive bombing runs in the FW190, P-47 and Tempest which are all bomb carrying aircraft with historically above average strength airframes. I haven't broken any of them yet...except when I went nuts and I did a hard pull out in which case all of them exceeded the airframe limits as specified in the game and the aircraft broke.

I think this patch has been harder for people who in the past have treated the aircraft as unbreakable and stressed them to the limits at all opportunities. Although I flew like this in the first couple of years of playing the game I later learned that the better way to fly was smoothly and calmly with deliberate and planned out action. The benefit pre-4.10 was a aircraft that flew better and faster. Now those benefits are realized in not breaking the airframe as well.

[Zorin]

Bombs and fuel are now critical factors to what you can do during a dive bombing run. I've run a few dive bombing runs in the FW190, P-47 and Tempest which are all bomb carrying aircraft with historically above average strength airframes. I haven't broken any of them yet...except when I went nuts and I did a hard pull out in which case all of them exceeded the airframe limits as specified in the game and the aircraft broke.

I think this patch has been harder for people who in the past have treated the aircraft as unbreakable and stressed them to the limits at all opportunities. Although I flew like this in the first couple of years of playing the game I later learned that the better way to fly was smoothly and calmly with deliberate and planned out action. The benefit pre-4.10 was a aircraft that flew better and faster. Now those benefits are realized in not breaking the airframe as well.

quoted for truth

[mazex]

When flying IRL manouvre speed (Va) is one of the most important things to know for an aircraft, especially when flying aerobatics which I have done quite a lot. It's nice that we now have it in this game too. I'm pretty sure that the P-47 was famous for high speed dives as it did not get control surface flutter and compression problems, and not due to the fact that you could pull the stick in your belly at near mach speed?

[JtD]

The P-47 suffered quite a bit from compressibility and certainly wasn't pleasant to handle at high speeds. It was famous because it was fast in a dive and because it usually survived the problems so the pilots could tell the tale.

[TinyTim]

Are you sure you are dropping all bombs before pulling up? If you drop only wing bombs, your underbelly bomb will cause problems during pull up.

[KG26_Alpha]

Amraam;214517']This video shows the dive restriccions of the P-47, I think it´s a good source to compare.



No snap rolling and no inverted flying !!!

Dive speeds from the video max 500mph IAS under 5000ft

[Bricks]

The real problem is not the damage-model as it is now, but that it simply wasn't there before.

This allowed a lot of people to grow some habbits, especially with BnZ that allowed them to rule the skys and defy the laws of physics. Now somebody flipped the switch and those who mastered using the gameflaws before, now have a hard time to adapt.

It's not the modelling, that's porked. It's the habbits some people nursed for 10 years.

[robtek]

The real problem is not the damage-model as it is now, but that it simply wasn't there before.

This allowed a lot of people to grow some habbits, especially with BnZ that allowed them to rule the skys and defy the laws of physics. Now somebody flipped the switch and those who mastered using the gameflaws before, now have a hard time to adapt.

It's not the modelling, that's porked. It's the habbits some people nursed for 10 years.

QFT
should be posted in the bomb fuzing thread also!

[JG52Uther]

And the 'my Spitfire is porked' thread...

[Kittle]

LOL, +1 to both of the above. Thats the problem with a realistic game that has been around for 10 years. People get set in their way early, and then sice they don't often have anything else to compare to, think this is realistic. And then when a patch comes around that changes some fundamental thing to make the game better, or maybe closer to real life, they are upset cause they think it's not realistic since it's different from what their used to. It will just take time, and any new folks wont be put off since they don't know what the difference is anyway.

[DrJet]

Well, it's the matter between playability and historical accuracy, isn't it? I was flying 190 with 500 kgs bomb and got bounced by p51. In a gentle turn with speed less than 350 km, I heard air frame wracking sound yet again, which forced me dropping my bomb and started one on one fighting with p51. I managed to survive and get a kill but I had to fly back to base to bring another bomb that wasted 20 minutes. I would greatly appreciate if anyone can provide any historical proof that this could happen in real plane and why Oleg had not introduced this feature for the last 9 years!
Salute,
DrJet

[Bricks]

Well, it's the matter between playability and historical accuracy, isn't it? I was flying 190 with 500 kgs bomb and got bounced by p51. In a gentle turn with speed less than 350 km, I heard air frame wracking sound yet again, which forced me dropping my bomb and started one on one fighting with p51. I managed to survive and get a kill but I had to fly back to base to bring another bomb that wasted 20 minutes. I would greatly appreciate if anyone can provide any historical proof that this could happen in real plane and why Oleg had not introduced this feature for the last 9 years!
Salute,
DrJet

If I may remind you: There are many things that were introduced with numerous patches and addons. The IL2-1946 was by far more than the original IL2 was!
We always begged for more realism, Luftwaffe and Allied pilots the same. Just remember the numerous Spitfire-complains about unrealistic maneuvers and stuff like that. The same way FW190 was claimed to be uber.
Now both are more realistic and you still whine? What's the point?

And about that example you made: Sorry, but the FW-190 is not an A-10. If you don't think a simply 500kg-Bomb would make that much of a difference, maybe you should read some books. The FW empty weight was only 3 tons!
That means you added 1/6th of it's total weight + a lot of drag and wonder why you can't dogfight with it any longer? Are you kidding?

The more I read about these complains, the more I'm remembered to this (slightly changed) famous quote:
Crowd: "I want the truth!"
OM: "You can't handle the truth!"

Seems some people really can't. IMHO it's alright, but they shouldn't come here and tell people IL2 was more realistic without taking weight and structural integrity into account.

[Arrow]

Well, it's the matter between playability and historical accuracy, isn't it? I was flying 190 with 500 kgs bomb and got bounced by p51. In a gentle turn with speed less than 350 km, I heard air frame wracking sound yet again, which forced me dropping my bomb and started one on one fighting with p51. I managed to survive and get a kill but I had to fly back to base to bring another bomb that wasted 20 minutes. I would greatly appreciate if anyone can provide any historical proof that this could happen in real plane and why Oleg had not introduced this feature for the last 9 years!
Salute,
DrJet

Even in F-16 when you hang bombs on it you are limitted to 5.5G. If you have a 500kg bomb on a bombrack and you are pulling 3Gs the weight of the bomb is 1.5 tons that the bombrack and the airframe has to hold.

[mazex]

The P-47 suffered quite a bit from compressibility and certainly wasn't pleasant to handle at high speeds. It was famous because it was fast in a dive and because it usually survived the problems so the pilots could tell the tale.

Well, I have never flown any plane that is pleasant to fly near Vne (Velocity never exceeded) - all movement in the air feels like riding over a road bump in a car and you sure understand without patch notes for 4.10 that sudden stick movements are a "no no" above Va (manouvre speed which is the maximum speed for full deflection of the control surfaces). That's the problems with sims - you don't get the stiff feeling of the air getting "harder and harder" as the speed increases ;)

The fact that the P-47 could get close to mach 1 in dives must for sure tell that it was less prone to control surface flutter (which is really nasty - can tell you that from own experience), or compressability problems with rudders that are "locked" due to design of ailerons or elevator. I'm pretty sure that it was not the ability to withstand excessive G load during the pull ups that made it famous for surviving those dives... The planes with the problems mentioned before could not get high G:s - that was the problem as the controls where either torn away from flutter or "locked" due to compressability. I guess you had to be really smooth after shaking the 109 that when down straight into the fatherland with an elevator that was "stuck" after going 800 km/h in a dive... Not due to ripping the wings pulling 12 G:s...

[JtD]

Early P-47 tail design broke in a wind tunnel at 468 mph due to control flutter.
Flight tests of P-47 regularly state that the elevator froze in high speed dives and that trim was necessary to recover from it.

[mazex]

Early P-47 tail design broke in a wind tunnel at 468 mph due to control flutter.
Flight tests of P-47 regularly state that the elevator froze in high speed dives and that trim was necessary to recover from it.

OK, but I guess they corrected that in the late D-models? And compared to the 109 at least I guess it was a lot better as the 109 was infamous for very stiff elevator controls at high speed? I once flew with an old 109 pilot (that was to old to keep his license) that spoke of very nasty behavior at deep dives with "locked" elevator. The worst thing was landing that beast of a crate with it's narrow gear and high wing loading though ;) (he was flying late G and K models in 44-45). Which plane was better than the P-47 regarding these issues? I'm not that well read up on the P-47 so I'm not gonna keep on pressing my point much longer :)

[DrJet]

If I may remind you: There are many things that were introduced with numerous patches and addons. The IL2-1946 was by far more than the original IL2 was!
We always begged for more realism, Luftwaffe and Allied pilots the same. Just remember the numerous Spitfire-complains about unrealistic maneuvers and stuff like that. The same way FW190 was claimed to be uber.
Now both are more realistic and you still whine? What's the point?

And about that example you made: Sorry, but the FW-190 is not an A-10. If you don't think a simply 500kg-Bomb would make that much of a difference, maybe you should read some books. The FW empty weight was only 3 tons!
That means you added 1/6th of it's total weight + a lot of drag and wonder why you can't dogfight with it any longer? Are you kidding?

The more I read about these complains, the more I'm remembered to this (slightly changed) famous quote:
Crowd: "I want the truth!"
OM: "You can't handle the truth!"

Seems some people really can't. IMHO it's alright, but they shouldn't come here and tell people IL2 was more realistic without taking weight and structural integrity into account.

Please tell me your definition of realism. Based on your argument, 190 in 4.09 was not realistic and now it is realistic? I don't understand your attitude also. In my argument, I mentioned that I did a gentle turn and still heard frame wracking sound. Does it sound that I want to dog fight with p51 with my bomb on? Don't assume that everyone would be the same as you are.

[Richie]

OK, but I guess they corrected that in the late D-models? And compared to the 109 at least I guess it was a lot better as the 109 was infamous for very stiff elevator controls at high speed? I once flew with an old 109 pilot (that was to old to keep his license) that spoke of very nasty behavior at deep dives with "locked" elevator. The worst thing was landing that beast of a crate with it's narrow gear and high wing loading though ;) (he was flying late G and K models in 44-45). Which plane was better than the P-47 regarding these issues? I'm not that well read up on the P-47 so I'm not gonna keep on pressing my point much longer :)

From what I've read a late model G such as a G 10, G 14/AS, G6/AS could be a very capable fighter with a good pilot at the controls.

[mazex]

From what I've read a late model G such as a G 10, G 14/AS, G6/AS could be a very capable fighter with a good pilot at the controls.

They sure where capable fighters, but they where harder to get out of a fast dive than a P-47 which is what we are discusding here? The fact that they where nasty to land for an 18 year old pilot with 100 flight hours doesn't mean anything regarding their fighting capability either - it was just a boring anecdote ;)

[Bricks]

Please tell me your definition of realism. Based on your argument, 190 in 4.09 was not realistic and now it is realistic? I don't understand your attitude also. In my argument, I mentioned that I did a gentle turn and still heard frame wracking sound. Does it sound that I want to dog fight with p51 with my bomb on? Don't assume that everyone would be the same as you are.

Yes, it was less realistic before. That has nothing to do with my attitude. An airframe is not a solid construction. Its designed to move and bent under pressure. Thats what makes the noise. Thats realistic. Unrealistic was the behaviour before 4.10: the aircraft under pressure just suddenly broke up or exploded.

Imho you misunderstood the sound. The sound does not mean you aircraft was destroyed. It means that the aircraft is under a lot of pressure and in danger to ne damaged or destroyed, if you stay in this maneuver or increase stress.

[Richie]

They sure where capable fighters, but they where harder to get out of a fast dive than a P-47 which is what we are discusding here? The fact that they where nasty to land for an 18 year old pilot with 100 flight hours doesn't mean anything regarding their fighting capability either - it was just a boring anecdote ;)

Agree 100% on the diving part but if I had the chance to talk to any WWII pilot nothing he says would bore me. :)

[zipper]

As a G-load related aside ...

... it should also make a difference where the extra weight (bombs) are carried. The airframe should be able to pull more Gs with a 500 pounder under each wing versus a single 1000 pounder on the centerline. Spreading the weight across the span reduces the peak load at the center.

This is assuming the shackles aren't themselves the G-load limiting factor.

[FC99]

the new G loading on aircraft has wreak the P47
you can't dive bomb in the 47 no more with breaking or damaging the aircraft were it will not fly properly.It that bad i can dive bomb in a spit and not break up and try and do the same in a p47 break my wings off. in some of my test did i don't even get blackout before the aircraft is breaking up.
Because the way the G loading is model it hasn't taken in account for aircraft like the P47.
Blackout is not instant, in planes with relatively light controls and at high speeds you can pull lot of G's without blacking out but that amount of load is something that wings might not support.

P-47 is strong plane but that is related to its ability to sustain battle damage. In terms of overload resistance it is in similar category as most of the other fighter planes.

FC

[Ernst]

I think 190 and P-47 are close to its g limits, but there is some major discrepances. Spitfires and Zero taking more than 9 Gs and Hellcats taking less than 7 to overstress at default configs.

[Splitter]

i'm still playing with stuff to figure out the new FM's, but I can safely say the new "stress limits" are a tremendous improvement.

These planes were not tanks. They had to be caressed, not beaten. Some withstood G forces better than others, but all of them could be torn apart.

I remember an interview with a 109 pilot who said it was possible to turn the plane hard enough to rip the wings off. What we saw previous to 4.10 was a sample of what such planes COULD do if they were indestructible. Now, we are seeing something close to what they could do realistically.

Splitter

[JtD]

And if all that is too much to deal with, you can switch it off in the difficulty section.

[Mysticpuma]

Okay, so the P-47 was renowned as being a real tough bird. I posted this on the ubi forums in 2008 and if you give it the chance and download the audio file, you will here Art Fiedler of the 325th, who flew P-47's and P-51's (He was an Ace in the 51) talking about the problems that pilots encountered in the P-47 and also the fact that he never once saw a wing break of a P-51 except when an undercarriage malfunctioned.

Here is that post;

In August I travelled to the US to visit and interview Art Fiedler of the 325th Fighter Group/ 317th Fighter Squadron, and to watch the Camarillo Airshow which he helps organise.

On the final evening I was invited along to a Barbecue at Art's house, where along with Monguse, we took the chance to set up a video camera and record Art talking about some of his time in the USAAF.

After the video interview, I asked if it was okay to leave the sound recorder running while he chatted with guests at the meal, and with a beaming smile Art said "Sure!".

You'll be glad to know that I have edited away the dead space (walking around, nothing being said, etc,etc) and left in just the conversation related to his time in the USAAF.

Covered in this audio file are P-47 gunnery training, P-51 wing snapping (or lack of it), engine noise, flames on exhausts, weapon and tracer load-out, the use of long range fuel tanks as weapons, plus many other topics.

Asking most of the questions is myself, but the other voices you will here are 325th_Swoop and Monguse (he comes in right at the end asking about P-51 markings).

Guys, the audio you will hear was all recorded at a Barbecue, so there is background noise going on, but Art was fully mic'd up so when he and I talk, all the voices are very clear and the background chatter is just ambient.

The file is just under 30-minutes long, and is compressed in mp3 format, and is 26mb in file-size.

I hope you enjoy listening to Art talk about some of his incidents as much as those gathered there did, he truly is a remarkable man and it was a real honour to spend time talking with him.

The audio starts as 325th_Swoop has just told me he is 62-years old and is learning to fly a Helicopter. Art then comes over and the conversation gets going.

BTW Swoop doesn't look a day under 62 Wink (kidding..he must have had an easy life!)

Would like to hear what you think, cheers, MP.

The file can be downloaded here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?mywjimzwgjm

[FC99]

Okay, so the P-47 was renowned as being a real tough bird. I posted this on the ubi forums in 2008 and if you give it the chance and download the audio file, you will here Art Fiedler of the 325th, who flew P-47's and P-51's (He was an Ace in the 51) talking about the problems that pilots encountered in the P-47 and also the fact that he never once saw a wing break of a P-51 except when an undercarriage malfunctioned.

He never saw that because pilots were not stupid enough to kill themselves for nothing. Luckily, USA planes are well documented and lot of these documents are available. When we were making G Limits model we used USA planes to calibrate the model.

If we are talking about P-51 this is snippet of what Air Technical Service Command has to say about it.
In order to reduce the possibility of structural failures of the wings on P-51D,P-51K, F-6D and F-6K, two commonly held misconceptions regarding fighter type aircraft must be corrected. These are:
a) The belief that fighter airplanes are designed to such high load factors ("G's")that they are practically indestructible by any readily applied air load.

b) That since the possible loading conditions are relatively few, that unbalance resulting in instability is impossible.

FC

[robtek]

But of course you'll wont find a RL pilot tell about wing snapping, those guys wanted to survive!
A 109 or 190 on your tail MIGHT kill you, a snapped wing WILL kill you, or at least the crate your flying.
Also those people had much, much more feedback from their rides.

[Mysticpuma]

He never saw that because pilots were not stupid enough to kill themselves for nothing. Luckily, USA planes are well documented and lot of these documents are available. When we were making G Limits model we used USA planes to calibrate the model.

If we are talking about P-51 this is snippet of what Air Technical Service Command has to say about it.


FC

He flew 67 Missions and was involved in multiple combat fights with the enemy, as-were his other friends (Barrie Davis, Jack Sherbourne, Frank Mertely). The only time they ever saw a wing snap was a pilot who was carrying bombs in a P-51 (then a new tactic) in a dive and as he pulled out, the undercarriage on the right-wing 'fell-out', which soon became fixed. This put the structural integrity of the wing into a failure and the wing tore off.

I am sure there were possible occasions that a p-51 would or could lose a wing, but this was the only time any pilot of the 325th recalled seeing it happen. It was never documented in the P-47's flown by the group other than from enemy action.

I however do trust your information, mine is from pilots who flew and knew how to fly them ;)

Cheers, MP

[Rainmaker]

Please tell me your definition of realism. Based on your argument, 190 in 4.09 was not realistic and now it is realistic? I don't understand your attitude also. In my argument, I mentioned that I did a gentle turn and still heard frame wracking sound. Does it sound that I want to dog fight with p51 with my bomb on? Don't assume that everyone would be the same as you are.

DrJet there is no point in disscusing with that guy, he is just ignorant, probably watching history channel every day

They sure where capable fighters, but they where harder to get out of a fast dive than a P-47 which is what we are discusding here? The fact that they where nasty to land for an 18 year old pilot with 100 flight hours doesn't mean anything regarding their fighting capability either - it was just a boring anecdote ;)

I am laughing my ass out on this one. LOL
Giant piece of metal P-47 can get out of a fast dive better then the Bf-109 ahhahaha.

[FC99]

I however do trust your information, mine is from pilots who flew and knew how to fly them ;)

And what do you think how Air Technical Service Command formed its opinion and issued Technical Order to all units?

Simple fact is that if you fly the plane within its limits nothing wrong will happen, obviously Art Fiedler and his friends flew the plane the way it was supposed to be flown and the same apply to the game. You will not damage your plane unless you exceed the limits but that doesn't mean that it is impossible to destroy the plane if you mishandle it.

Here are some limits for P-47
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1285/p47k.jpg

[DuxCorvan]

JtD already said:

*option switch*

But, of course, that won't please the "I-master-full-real" armchair-macho crowd.

[robtek]

Well, some play a game and some want a simulation, no reason to downsize one group.
But, as the servers compete for users, if its a option, it might get watered down to suit the most.
Not what i want, the watering down.

[mazex]

DrJet there is no point in disscusing with that guy, he is just ignorant, probably watching history channel every day



I am laughing my ass out on this one. LOL
Giant piece of metal P-47 can get out of a fast dive better then the Bf-109 ahhahaha.

Well the signs says no feeding so...