Official Fulqrum Publishing forum
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   the P47 "the Unbreakable"no more (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=18287)

mazex 01-21-2011 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD (Post 214960)
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 01-22-2011 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricks (Post 214903)
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 01-22-2011 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazex (Post 214966)
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 01-22-2011 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie (Post 215120)
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 01-22-2011 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJet (Post 215115)
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 01-22-2011 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazex (Post 215139)
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 01-22-2011 04:30 PM
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 01-22-2011 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steppie (Post 214468)
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 01-22-2011 09:10 PM
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 01-23-2011 06:14 AM
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


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 PM.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.