the P47 "the Unbreakable"no more

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by [URU]Amraam

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.