Planes

[David603]

Originally Posted by mondo

The P47 had a pretty good roll rate. Its extremely agile in a rolling scissors.

If you get into the scissors flying a P47 with me in a Bf109 I will let you slow down, then break out and leave you struggling to regain energy, and don't even think about anything dependent on rolling abilities against a Fw190.

[mondo]

I'll let you slow yourself down and break off If I didn't immediately have the advantage by the 2nd pass.

At 25,000ft or in a high speed rolling scissors? Any P47D would be able to gain its energy back easily and certainly out zoom a mid to late 109G (possibly even a K4) at that height. Not to mention at high speed the elevator response on a 109G would let it down horribly if it tried to follow a sharp zoom. Any 190, even the D9 has problems up high too. At an escort height of 25 to 30,000ft even a 190A9 or D9 is at a distinct disadvantage with the P47D. There is a quite a high chance that a 190 would just stall out at that height in a rolling scissors if not be left behind due to its power band being crap at that height.

At low speeds + low altitude I'd agree but then you have to fly to the planes best heights and abilities and down and low isn't the P47's forteit. 7 years of online IL2 has taught me that!

[David603]

I guess its not entirely related to real life fighting, but when flying in Il2 I tend to fight lower down than the P47s peak altitude, which has probably biased me to a certain extent against the Thunderbolt. I like light, powerful fighters with a good climb rate and decent firepower, which usually means a Bf109 for me although the Spitfire XIV has become a firm favourite of mine since the mod for it came out.

If I'm trying to kill B17s or B24s with a fighter, which is about the only place you are likely to go up against P47s in their element, I will almost always be flying a late model Bf109 with the centreline 30mm cannon and no gun pods. The Mk108 isn't really a gun for dogfighting, but over time I've become quite proficient at hitting fighters with it, and even one hit will ruin the day of any enemy fighter pilot. It helps to set the gun for long range, around 800-1000m, because not only does this mean you can shoot bombers from outside the effective range of return fire, but the upwards angle of the gun helps correct the low muzzle velocity which usually makes shells go behind where you would be aiming to pull a deflection shot on a fighter.

In their favour, P47s are one of the few aircraft that can survive a 30mm round without having to be very lucky, but even they will often be crippled by it.

[mondo]

I can't say I'm a fan of the 30mm 108. I much prefer the MK103 for bomber killing but the gun pods do horrible things to the plane! I agree, the XIV is awesome for a late war fighter.

The D_late is still quite good lower down though, at 10,000 its a tough opponent and prety fast in a straight line. I guess at that height its more about who see's who first and who has the height/energy advantage. Still, I'd take a D9 for fighter on fighter at that sort of height. Depends on which side I'm flying for.

I try to fly more co-ops though with realistic scenarios although on some DF servers like Warclouds you'll get high altitude fights which are always good fun.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by thundermuffin

Now, I'm not very knowledgeable with planes so most of this conversation is going over my head. But the Yak 3 looks a lot like the Spitfire (I don't know which model numbers). Is that intentional, or is the Spitfire design suitable for an all-around plane. A response with out starting like:
"Oh the little you know," or " God, you are a moron," would be much appreciated.

Well like most Soviet fighters during WW2, they weren't exactly meant for high altitude. The Red Air Force saw fighters as basically low to medium altitude fighters, that could support ground forces if needed. The Spitfire on the other hand, was almost the complete opposite. It could if needed assist ground troops, but was mostly meant to deal with medium to high altitude aircraft.

About the engine and cockpit, those are probably just a coincidence. I don't recall the Soviet's taking the Merlin and making their own. Though they did do that with some of the Aircobra's and P40's they were given.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by mondo

Thats not true at all! It excelled as a fighter, its only problem was range and low altitude speed (which was still on par with a Spitfire IXLF). Just look at its loss record. It had one of the best of the entire war. Above 20,000ft where they operated in 1943 they held all the cards over the 109G6's and 109A5's. Even later on when it was moved to ground attack it still excelled as a fighter due to its excellent roll rate and ability to hold its energy.

Unless your fighting at a fairly high altitude, and are not in a turn and burn dogfight; the P47 was chewed up. Me-109's whether it be a "F" or a "G" model, the P47 was given a good work over. Now if your flying a Me-109G6, then it's more of an even match since both planes are heavily weighed down, and aren't very turn and burn. But against the faster more nimble 109's the P47 was worked over.

[mondo]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

Unless your fighting at a fairly high altitude, and are not in a turn and burn dogfight; the P47 was chewed up. Me-109's whether it be a "F" or a "G" model, the P47 was given a good work over. Now if your flying a Me-109G6, then it's more of an even match since both planes are heavily weighed down, and aren't very turn and burn. But against the faster more nimble 109's the P47 was worked over.

Kill/Loss records from both the Luftwaffe and USAF would disagree with your opinion The P47 was by far the safest combat aircraft of the war. Its loss rate to enemy aircraft is quite ridiculously low!

Thats a completely inaccurate blanket statement. The performance differences between say a G2 and G14 were extreme and the F2/4 model was outclassed completely by 1944. And by then P47's were using 150 grade fuel which gave a major performance boost at low and medium altitude and gave them a similar top speed and acceleration to match 109's used at that point like the G10 at any altitude. The 190 was more of a threat...as JG2 and JG26 were both equipped with them and very few 109's and met much of the initial threat posed by aircraft from the UK in 43/44.

You need to stop watching history channel and read some combat reports and some books based on official records.

[David603]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

But against the faster more nimble 109's the P47 was worked over.

When picking a 109 to fly, you are always trading speed for manoeuvrability, or vice versa. There is only one point in the 109s history where the next version was both faster and more manoeuverable than its predecessor, and that is the jump from the E to the F, which is rightly regarded as the point in the Bf109s history where it was most competitive compared to its contemporaries.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by mondo

Kill/Loss records from both the Luftwaffe and USAF would disagree with your opinion The P47 was by far the safest combat aircraft of the war. Its loss rate to enemy aircraft is quite ridiculously low!

Thats a completely inaccurate blanket statement. The performance differences between say a G2 and G14 were extreme and the F2/4 model was outclassed completely by 1944. And by then P47's were using 150 grade fuel which gave a major performance boost at low and medium altitude and gave them a similar top speed and acceleration to match 109's used at that point like the G10 at any altitude. The 190 was more of a threat...as JG2 and JG26 were both equipped with them and very few 109's and met much of the initial threat posed by aircraft from the UK in 43/44.

You need to stop watching history channel and read some combat reports and some books based on official records.

Well, I haven't watched the History Channel for some years (Got rid of cable/satellite), so I couldn't tell you what they've been saying about the P47. Most of my knowledge about P47's either came from interview/documentaries with actual P47 Pilot(s) (i.e. Gabby Gabreski and a couple of others) or from several books about the P47. So if your not taking an actual P47 Ace's now how of how the plane was, then I just don't know?

All I was saying, was that against a smaller more nimble plane, the P47 would be chewed up. Not that it couldn't defend itself, just that in a turn and burn dogfight, the P47 was out of it element.

[mondo]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

All I was saying, was that against a smaller more nimble plane, the P47 would be chewed up. Not that it couldn't defend itself, just that in a turn and burn dogfight, the P47 was out of it element.

But it wasn't, the P47 relied on power/energy fighting and roll rate which was good throughout the speed range. Of cause if you start turning with a plane thats good at turning your going to end up in trouble unless you have a plan (again, something like a high speed yo yo would favour a P47D over a late 109G). Its as much about the pilot and the situation prior to combat as anything else but on an equal footing such a blanket statement is completely incorrect.

Every other plane is came up against was smaller than it yet it has the by far the best record of any plane during the war with the possible exception of the F6F which totally outclassed its opposition (again, a large aircraft vs a much smaller and better turning but poor rolling A6M).