Does anyone fly IL2 as well? Question on thoughts of p47 handling

[sublime]

Hi guys.  I don't own the 47.  If you own Il2 you'll know the p47 is a total dog in that sim.  I was wondering how well it handled in dcs - is the limitations in Il2 because planes in Sims are flown a historically at low alts etc or is it modelled poorly?

Are you able to dogfight competitively below 25-30k feet? Etc

[Hub]

I own both, and exclusively fly the jug form the most part. It is a complete Terd in Il2 . Feels like flying a bus around, can’t get out of its own way, no hitting power and doesn’t dive any better then the other planes . The Scientologist will chirp in with their talk of physics and momentum and 109 acceleration etc.. not buying it.
In DCS it isn’t great down low, but the 50’s do damage and I can be competitive in a dogfight down low. It dives well and all seems to match how it was historically portrayed by the guys who flew in it. I only get a few turns, but it’s way better then Il2 .
Love the DCS P47 and for those brief reasons I have stopped playing Il2 .
Hub


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sublime]

I too find myself flying Il2 less and less and less.  Dcs' warbirds have truly come a long way.  Years ago when I first got the p51 there was like one or two German aircraft and that's it.  The p51 totally felt out of place. Since the maps and assets etc... It's hard to fly IL2. I used to prefer it a lot more for ww2 but I think I prefer dcs now for ww2 as well especially as I'm mostly doing SP right now.

And yes the p47 is a turd in Il2. I haven't flown the dcs p47 and I was curious how the model stacks to Il2; if there were similar issues. On the Il2 forums all the problems are basically blamed on the fact that video games don't show the huge numbers and strategic effects of war; that the fighting is at lower alts always etc. While this is definitely true I've wondered how much is also the flaws in the Il2 engine.

Thanks for the answer.. I'd like to hear anymore thoughts or other people's answers.

Oh also when I did fly the p47 in Il2 I'd link the throttle to turbo etc.  Can you do that in DCS?  Also o/t but you know the intercooler doors on the side 'waist' of the plane?  What do you or others usually fly with those at?  Half open? I'm clueless to their use and would leave em halfway as that'd seem to leave the skin flush with the doors as it were..

Edited May 9, 2021 by sublime

[thrustvector]

fly both, and dont have a prob with it in either, theres a lot i like in both, and dislikes too, some down to graphics some in the handling etc,for the jug alone it seems to have more power in dcs, but on the whole i find the plane pretty uninspiring to use

[Art-J]

This thread rides on the edge of breaching rule 1.15, so I think it'll be nuked by the admins.

 

DCS Thunderbolt has less issues than "competition" in some areas - it's much less stable in pitch and yaw and thus is overall very responsive to controls at all atlitudes indeed, a bit like DCS Spitfire actually. It retains energy in steep zooms and vertical maneuvers somewhat better at low altitudes, although the difference is not that big. Haven't tested enough at higher ones.

 

It has, however, some of its own issues and quirks that are not present "on the other side". The low stability mentioned above means it's also more difficult to control and trim it out at low indicated airspeeds, especially with auxilary tank full - the plane just wobbles all over the place. Compressibilty doesn't seem to be modelled at all, so you can power-dive without any controllability consequences. The only thing that prevents you from doing so is overreving and seizing the engine (which, as noted in the other thread, probably happens at lower RPM than it should). It doesn't have a manifold pressure regulator (might be correct for this variant) and thus requires more fiddling with throttle and boost levers to get the most out of the engine. All of that, together with recently introduced master rod bearing failures means the plane requires more workload here than in the other sim (which is cool in its own way).

 

Yes, linking throttle and turbo levers is possible in DCS as well.

 

Intercooler doors - well, you use them in such a way that carb temp stays within limits. For just flying around half-open is sufficient. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Art-J

[grafspee]

5 hours ago, Art-J said:

This thread rides on the edge of breaching rule 1.15, so I think it'll be nuked by the admins.

 

It will be as soon as moderators will get back to work

[catchforusthefoxes]

The only thing I notice is that in DCS the jug has a shit ton of side slip, whereas in IL 2, its completely absent, that's it really. Didn't notice to much of a difference in weight or feel.

[Andy1966]

 I hit compressibility last week, I think I kept a track, it was so coo[. Very severe shaking, then it went away at lower alt. At least I think that is what it was, as it went away. I didnt have a chance to use the recovery flaps....

 

[grafspee]

12 minutes ago, Andy1966 said:

 I hit compressibility last week, I think I kept a track, it was so coo[. Very severe shaking, then it went away at lower alt. At least I think that is what it was, as it went away. I didnt have a chance to use the recovery flaps....

 

I tested recovery flaps, they work, give nice pull out pitch. Only useful when diving from high alt 30k-40k, Jug w/o diving flaps regains elevator authority below 17k ft so when diving from 20k you wont see difrence.

[Черный Дракул]

20 minutes ago, Andy1966 said:

 I hit compressibility last week, I think I kept a track, it was so coo[. Very severe shaking, then it went away at lower alt. At least I think that is what it was, as it went away. I didnt have a chance to use the recovery flaps....

 

Compressability isn't about shaking, it's about loss of elevator authority.

[Andy1966]

Exactly, I had no elevator control, I had to use trim to get the nose to come up, then it goy low enough in alt. the plane came out of it. like graf spee said it was slightly above 15,000 feet. I started the dive about 32,000 chasing a 190d below me.

 

[SmirkingGerbil]

Own both titles. There is only one of them that gives me the full P-47D as I would want it to be.

They both however scratch an itch, and they both have their place.

[sublime]

So is it everyone's consensus then that the planes are similarly modelled?  Is it that the other games plane faces more high powered opposition? (Though we have 109K and 190D anyways..)

I don't really know what forum rule this really breaks; nor do I know why someone would point this out (like they want it closed? Why else say anything?) Then put a really interesting post about it anyways (it's like saying this is wrong; now here I'll try it)

I don't think this breaks a rule or is trollish or anything of the sort.  Im really interested because the P47 *does feel useless In the other game* and is one of the most disliked planes around.  Yet here it doesn't seem near as hated and seems people get a lot more results.

Im interested in why.  Obviously I pointed out the altitude problem and other problems that playing games won't model that historically were there.

Still there seems to be a lot more acceptance of the capabilities (and perhaps the plane is just more capable as modelled) in DCS. 

Of course Id love to hear anyone's thoughts too on which model is more accurate.

I have to say as a P51 pilot (I don't have any other warbirds) the new damage model etc was the final nail in the coffin for me flying the other game.  It has more flyable warbirds for me but can't really compete otherwise.  There's things I think DCS still has to catch up on; but the differences in DCS' favor I've noticed make it almost impossible for me to play Il2 without looking at it with a jaundiced eye.

[Art-J]

That's the rule:

 

"1.15 Discussions of other game companies products are not recommended as they can create personal friction with users who enjoy such products and potentially create issues with competitve manufacturers which is not helpful. We do not allow the reviewing of, or direct comparison of other competitive software here. Posting news updates or advertising other products or games is also forbidden (unless approved by an admin). Abuse of other companies and/or anyone related to those companies will not be tolerated. ED also reserves the right to remove any thread or post about another game or company it deems doesn't comply with this rule."

 

I pointed it out to you only so that you wouldn't feel surprised if your thread got locked instead of developing into long, interesting discussion you were probably after. Threads pointing to other simulators tend to have a short life here, that's all. Nothing personal.

 

Looks like the admins feel this thread is still acceptable for the time being, however, so let's discuss while we can.

 

In general, I think people accept Thunderbolt more in DCS, because, despite still being a dog down low (though more responsive and marginally better in energy retention), it's more competitive up high, while in the other sim, it's kind of still a dog even at altitude. DCS makes it more believable when we know the -47 fought Luftwaffe hard and on equal terms in '43 until Mustangs came. Granted, in DCS two late war German hotrods are not "historically typical" opposition either, not to mention physics shenanigans done by simplified AI over here, but at least you can feel like flying an effective combat airplane when used right.

 

I guess the best option for you is to wait until next "free trial" period comes in DCS again, download and test the machine yourself. I think you might like it.

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Art-J

[sublime]

I wasn't trying to be snarky man it just seemed like a 'well now they're definitely gonna because they got called on it' moment .  I apprece it but nothing would surprise me here anymore.  I was banned for awhile/ couple years when a forum member named P***ad basically flamed me, insulted me, and I responded.  He ran right to the mods and I got banned (for a shockingly long time - to be fair I didn't bother coming back for awhile as I was annoyed)

Yes I've thought of waiting for the trials.  I did like a couple other planes last trial in January. I'm already pumped for the mi24 as well.  I also am just genuinely curious as I've played sims since Aces Over Europe and Flanker 1.0.  I'm always interested in how planes fly versus what real life anecdotes say blah blah.  I think you understand as you're here too.

I really take interest in you noting the other p47 doesn't do well at altitude.  I have a morbid curiousity about how DCS is modelling engine heat and stuff; though I know a new system is slated.  I say morbid because on the other game when I found out that it was all timers on engines it really took a lot of joy of the game out for me. 

Regardless I have tried I can't really enjoy myself in it anymore; the career mode was a big draw to me but it's so soulless.  I had a lot of fun; but DCS is so much better (if you can afford a comp and track or/hotas) 

I really like the new DM too right now. When I hit enemy planes and a jet of fire comes from it's engine/etc it looks and feels more right than before.  I also really hosed a 190 in my p51 and its landing gear fell down (I have read a report where this happened too) and it rolled on its back and the pilot bailed out. It was quite photgenic

How hard is it to fly compare to the mustang?  Is it really busy or are you able to sort of 'forget' settings for combat etc?  

 

Fwiw sorry for being a d*ck vaguely in my post; today's been messed up irl but I shouldn't let it affect my posting.

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by sublime

[Art-J]

12 hours ago, sublime said:

How hard is it to fly compare to the mustang?  Is it really busy or are you able to sort of 'forget' settings for combat etc?  

 

Can't comment on combat all that much to be honest, because I just don't have a lot of time for virtual flying nowadays. When I do take Thunderbolt for a spin, I more often just fly around for the sake of it rather than shoot things. 

 

The plane is more labour-intensive and definitely less ergonomic for the pilot. It's a chronologically earlier design and you can feel it. Compared to the Mustang, the cockpit is littered with stuff installed all over the place not always in intuitive locations, it's generally much darker (people still argue if it's the problem with cockpit textures or the way the lighting and shading works in this particular module); instruments are smaller, poorly marked and more difficult to read; all important cooling flaps/doors have to be operated manually when / if you notice things getting too hot; lack of MAP regulator plus mysterious operation of turbo regulator plus risk of turbo surging if mishandled means you need to be checking the MAP gauge more often and fiddle with throttle and turbo levers accordingly; last but not least recently added implementation of master rod bearing damage means you have to be careful during dives to avoid seizing your engine; visibility from behind the massive engine is worse as well for obvious reasons (especially during landing approach and flare-out); very sensitive controls mean more effort required to trim out this beast properly.

 

All and all, I understand now why units which converted to Mustangs usually didn't look back (apart from 56th FG of course, but we know they loved Jugs  ). Performance aside, Mustang is just more convenient and pilot-friendly plane to operate.

 

That being said, Thunderbolt has its own distinctive brutal charm and I like flying it every now and then for a change. It's fun in its own, challenging way.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Art-J

[SmirkingGerbil]

On 5/12/2021 at 5:42 AM, Art-J said:

 

Can't comment on combat all that much to be honest, because I just don't have a lot of time for virtual flying nowadays. When I do take Thunderbolt for a spin, I more often just fly around for the sake of it rather than shoot things. 

 

The plane is more labour-intensive and definitely less ergonomic for the pilot. It's a chronologically earlier design and you can feel it. Compared to the Mustang, the cockpit is littered with stuff installed all over the place not always in intuitive locations, it's generally much darker (people still argue if it's the problem with cockpit textures or the way the lighting and shading works in this particular module); instruments are smaller, poorly marked and more difficult to read; all important cooling flaps/doors have to be operated manually when / if you notice things getting too hot; lack of MAP regulator plus mysterious operation of turbo regulator plus risk of turbo surging if mishandled means you need to be checking the MAP gauge more often and fiddle with throttle and turbo levers accordingly; last but not least recently added implementation of master rod bearing damage means you have to be careful during dives to avoid seizing your engine; visibility from behind the massive engine is worse as well for obvious reasons (especially during landing approach and flare-out); very sensitive controls mean more effort required to trim out this beast properly.

 

All and all, I understand now why units which converted to Mustangs usually didn't look back (apart from 56th FG of course, but we know they loved Jugs  ). Performance aside, Mustang is just more convenient and pilot-friendly plane to operate.

 

That being said, Thunderbolt has its own distinctive brutal charm and I like flying it every now and then for a change. It's fun in its own, challenging way.

 

I fly the P-47D for the same reason I fly the A-10C as my main sled. Different, labor intensive, has unique strengths that other aircraft don't have and once you learn to leverage them effectively, your impact on the battle field is immense.

Don't get me wrong, I am learning the F-16, and appreciate the airframe for what it is, and truly enjoy the speed, the model, and what ED has given us with the F-16, so it will become my "other sled", just like the P-51.

For whatever reason, I really enjoy being able to tweak the throttle/pitch on a gun run in the P-47, and letting the torque walk my guns onto the targets as I make a pass - sometimes don't even need to hit the rudder or the stick. The engine torque does all the alignment for me.

[Moriarty]

On 5/9/2021 at 8:54 AM, sublime said:

 

Are you able to dogfight competitively below 25-30k feet?

Sure, if I absolutely had to, but that would mean I already screwed up. “Dogfighting” rarely goes well for anyone involved, whether in the moment or 60 seconds later when the next guy you didn’t see gets saddled up on your now lower, slower 6. Then someone kills that guy, too. Best to avoid grubby work like that and fight smarter. 

[Strong05]

Recommend you check out "Greg's airplanes" on youtube.  He has a very comprehensive series on the P-47.  That info may help you understand which sim has the more accurate model.

 

The cliff notes from his series (if memory serves):  Only the spitfire can match a 47 in dive performance and that's only at certain altitudes bands (up high only I believe).  The turbo gives the 47 an edge at altitude over most other fighters.  

 

Haven't flown the other sims version, so I will not comment on which is more accurate.

[grafspee]

36 minutes ago, Strong05 said:

Recommend you check out "Greg's airplanes" on youtube.  He has a very comprehensive series on the P-47.  That info may help you understand which sim has the more accurate model.

 

The cliff notes from his series (if memory serves):  Only the spitfire can match a 47 in dive performance and that's only at certain altitudes bands (up high only I believe).  The turbo gives the 47 an edge at altitude over most other fighters.  

 

Haven't flown the other sims version, so I will not comment on which is more accurate.

I don't know from where this opinion comes from, P-47 wasn't excellent diver, quite opposite i must say. Compressibility flaps weren't mounted just for fun.

Spitfire indeed is the fastest diving prop plane ever.

Engine simulation, turbo, ram air pressure is simulated far superior in DCS this is what i can tell for sure.

And i mean across all planes.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by grafspee

[Strong05]

5 hours ago, grafspee said:

I don't know from where this opinion comes from, P-47 wasn't excellent diver, quite opposite i must say. Compressibility flaps weren't mounted just for fun.

Spitfire indeed is the fastest diving prop plane ever.

Engine simulation, turbo, ram air pressure is simulated far superior in DCS this is what i can tell for sure.

And i mean across all planes.

 

 

Enjoy!  It's a 9 part series with a lot of references to manuals and NACA data.  I've linked the one on dive speeds.

 

 

 

Here's a time stamped link to where he says nothing is faster then a P-47 under 10k feet.  Of course you will need to watch the whole video if you want to see all of his references to get to this conclusion.
 

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Strong05

[grafspee]

I watched that, greg used some weird speed for P-47 because someone tested that plane at that speed. And took speeds for other planes from manuals. I dis agree with that.

Below 10k it was fastest plane, issue here is that you don't have much space to utilize that, you need to pull out quick, but dives from high alt P-47 suffered lost of elevator control, and this was big issue. greg didn't mention that, He said that having nose down tendency when throttle is cut off is  an advantage wow. He said a single sentence about dive recovery flaps.

also he used M,N model for comparison which is way different from D. D wasn't so good as N.

For comparison P-51D which we have in DCS is average faster and safer at high speed dives the P-47D. P-47 could be faster at low alt below 10kft.

For me, when you lose control of the plane in dive, this is no longer useful diving, enemy can pull out and you are doomed.

With dive recovery flaps you can regain control of P-47 but only partially, because those flaps induce steady pull out which decrease with lowering Mach number.

So higher mach number dives flaps will pull out harder.

For comparison 0.75 mach is max safe speed for P-51, but this plane was tested at much higher speeds iirc 0.86 mach was reached, plane survived it and pilot could say his story. Early P-51s has problems in compressibility range, but late versions not. After introducing fix for that all remaining P-51s were retrofitted on fields.

Mean time P-47 had to use diving flaps in case of lost of elevator control(clarification Pilot had ability to deflect elevator in compressibility range, this thing was tested and calculation show that about 20G pull out would be induced if elevator authority was there. By saying elevator control i mean elevator authority  ), which was dangerous. In DCS we have ww2 pilots who can withstand 8-10G pulls, but in RL that was not case, so going 500mph straight down at 10k ft was death sentence.

I will add that he messed up part in which he describe throttle, turbo operation in P-47. After watching his video i had impression that 52" is available with throttle alone not only that, also that you can maintain 52" in climb, which is not true. Manual say it clear that 46" is max throttle alone and 52' is achievable only with turbo. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by grafspee

[sublime]

Thanks all.  I just like starting conversations about planes

Edited May 15, 2021 by sublime

[Strong05]

On 5/15/2021 at 3:40 AM, grafspee said:

I watched that, greg used some weird speed for P-47 because someone tested that plane at that speed. And took speeds for other planes from manuals. I dis agree with that.

Below 10k it was fastest plane, issue here is that you don't have much space to utilize that, you need to pull out quick, but dives from high alt P-47 suffered lost of elevator control, and this was big issue. greg didn't mention that, He said that having nose down tendency when throttle is cut off is  an advantage wow. He said a single sentence about dive recovery flaps.

also he used M,N model for comparison which is way different from D. D wasn't so good as N.

For comparison P-51D which we have in DCS is average faster and safer at high speed dives the P-47D. P-47 could be faster at low alt below 10kft.

For me, when you lose control of the plane in dive, this is no longer useful diving, enemy can pull out and you are doomed.

With dive recovery flaps you can regain control of P-47 but only partially, because those flaps induce steady pull out which decrease with lowering Mach number.

So higher mach number dives flaps will pull out harder.

For comparison 0.75 mach is max safe speed for P-51, but this plane was tested at much higher speeds iirc 0.86 mach was reached, plane survived it and pilot could say his story. Early P-51s has problems in compressibility range, but late versions not. After introducing fix for that all remaining P-51s were retrofitted on fields.

Mean time P-47 had to use diving flaps in case of lost of elevator control(clarification Pilot had ability to deflect elevator in compressibility range, this thing was tested and calculation show that about 20G pull out would be induced if elevator authority was there. By saying elevator control i mean elevator authority  ), which was dangerous. In DCS we have ww2 pilots who can withstand 8-10G pulls, but in RL that was not case, so going 500mph straight down at 10k ft was death sentence.

I will add that he messed up part in which he describe throttle, turbo operation in P-47. After watching his video i had impression that 52" is available with throttle alone not only that, also that you can maintain 52" in climb, which is not true. Manual say it clear that 46" is max throttle alone and 52' is achievable only with turbo. 

 

 

He shows the P-47D max airspeed at 10k ft as well.  

 

He addresses all of your compressibility concerns by talking about Mach limitations vs KCAS limitations.  The Spitfire has a higher Mach limit but a lower KCAS limit.  As previously mentioned on this thread the compressibility problems occur at high Mach not KCAS for the P-47D.  Which means that compressibility would only have been a problem at higher altitudes, mainly above 13k ft. So below 10k feet compressibility is not a problem for the P-47.  He also talks about, but does not address in this video dive acceleration.  Which the P-47D does extremely well in.

 

Bottom line, the top speed of a P-47D in a dive is just over 500 KCAS vs the 450 KCAS for the spitfire, at or below 13k feet.

 

Do you have a reference for the throttle settings you are referring too?  P-47's almost always operated with the throttle and boost control linked, pretty sure he even talks to that so I don't know why or how you think he would talk to them being unlinked for a climb.  I'm also not sure what your point is by bringing up throttle settings for climbing, it has nothing to do with dive speeds or dive performance.

[gavagai]

The way those guys make flight sims the Sopwith Camel would probably run down the P-47.