DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion

[Kev2go]

What do you mean? Yes, I know that interview. Anyway, he's a pilot and still speaking by ear about models he hasn't possibly flown because they don't exist any more (109F), and models he hasn't flown at all (Spit V). You don't need to be a pilot to speak by ear “because I read somewhere”, and this forums are the proof of that :lol:.

 

Anyway, can you explain me how is that related to energy management, and combat tactics? Oh wait, you just want to turn like the video says, so still my point :smilewink:.

 

 

S!

 

 

well no, thats only half the story. and your missing the point. It wasnt about the 109f vs spit V comparison. both pilots flew the P51Ds, and 109G ( think it was the G6). and in another interview, same pilot praises the 109, acceleration and climb ability. It was NOT all ear talk, both models flown, evne if its not the K4 it was still a 109 that would have been around in the western theatre, not to mention a earlier model, that could still give a P51 pilot a difficult time.. and its nice to see that there are american pilots IRL who can predicate and actually enjoy flying a foreign former adversary aircraft, vs putting them down and spouting the usual history channel esque comments . perhaps fly the 109s before making judgments that people who fly it only turn, or the plane itself is only going to be for good turning., By generalizing the people who fly them, or aircraft itself,you are making yourself come off as biased. becasue 109 is still a Energy based fighter. If anything the Spit's gonna be "the" Turn N burn aircraft of the bunch at lower altitudes.

you could break it down like this. Any type of fighting can arguably be called energy fighting. You need energy to turn, and you need energy to "BnZ" you need energy to keep the aircraft in the air.....

 

Now if you havent figured out, How does turning relate? umm maybe because air combat maneuvers,(irregardless if X plane turn better than Y plane ) won't end at pitching your aircraft up and down, for climbs and dives.. and neither does it stop there....

 

fact: right now the P51 is kinda mediocre in the acceleration and climb Dept, even if it does have some advantages of the 109 such as better e retention, or superior maneuverability at higher speeds. . For E fighting, acceleration & climb rate is important too, which you dont seem to want to give enough credit for. I think myself, most pilots enjoy the the mustang more, with 75 HG, and 8th AF engine settings, but right now its just okay, not "great". i think that those engine settings will very much put the p51 on a better playing field against the German aircraft, and improve pilots efficiency in getting successful kills.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Kev2go

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I speak about T&B versus B&Z because that's exactly the point and why I commented on Tomsk OP. He explains very well, including advantages and disadvantages of P-51, he don't miss a thing and he's far from being naive about real possibilities of Mustang/P-47. He's quite aware K4 is still a better aircraft, but you can play your game and bring the combat into your strong points.

 

 

… both pilots flew the P51Ds, and 109G ( think it was the G6). and in another interview, same pilot praises the 109, acceleration and climb ability. It was NOT all ear talk, both models flown, evne if its not the K4 it was still a 109 that would have been around in the western theatre, not to mention a earlier model, that could still give a P51 pilot a difficult time.. and its nice to see that there are american pilots IRL who can predicate and actually enjoy flying a foreign former adversary aircraft, vs putting them down and spouting the usual history channel esque comments …

Both have flown a Spanish built Buchón (built 100 meters away from were I'm sitting now, I don't disown it at all :smilewink:), a lighter aircraft than original, better powered than original with a Merlin, so at the end of the day with a far better weight/power ratio, and anyway a civil aircraft today as any Buchón keeps original equipment (it would be pointless, Spanish one, not German), they don't even have a self sealing fuel tank as Spanish builder was unable to reproduce it with the available technology (circa 1956 :music_whistling:), and BTW built on G2 airframes.

 

I know they weren't bad at all (just outdated by far…) as they fought Spits and Hurricanes every time available between film shots in Battle of Britain 1968 film, and Spanish pilots won almost every "battle", in part because they were trained Spanish AF pilots, but also because Merlin powered 109 had a stunning performance compared to civil Spits trying to keep it alive, so that allowed them to over climb and dive on Spits all the time (MH434 was among them indeed). There are pilots stories telling they saw some fellow pilots wrapping a scarf on their necks to hold the blood and be able to overturn Spits, as they didn't used G's suits.

 

I know all of that mate, but Buchón was far better powered than original 109G2 (with a 15 years more modern engine :smilewink:, also a civil one featuring 1000 hours between overhauls but lacking Supercharger, another reason to be lighter), they were very light as they were recovered from scrapyard so everything useless was taken apart, of course Spanish equipment, radios, cannons, etc. You're trying to compare a full equipped, late war, 109K4 with even better engine and more powerful than Buchón (but only using MW50, if not Buchón is still better powered), a K4 with full armament, with armours, with two wing bulges ripping a bit of lift, and so on, with a lighten up overpowered G2 airframe. Yes, I know there are circumstances in were 109 would overturn a Spit, or at least keep with it, but I think K4 strengths are others even though of course it still turns a bit better than P-51. Hence, with module I don't expect you will be able to keep it with a Spit IX capable of using all its power without having to worry how high will be the overhaul bill, not to mention you won't feel all those G's over you :). The day you get a 109F model may be you can turn with a Spit IX, even overturn it by a whisker, but then Spit IX will be the better powered aircraft so the B&Z one, that's called tactics and that's what OP was about :smilewink:.

 

 

S!

Edited November 27, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

[OutOnTheOP]

I think myself, most pilots enjoy the the mustang more, with 75 HG, and 8th AF engine settings, but right now its just okay, not "great". i think that those engine settings will very much put the p51 on a better playing field against the German aircraft, and improve pilots efficiency in getting successful kills.

 

Of course the 75" Hg MP settings would go a long way to equalizing things. I really don't get how ED reps can keep saying "oh, it won't help as much as you think it will", when RAF flight testing showed a ONE THOUSAND feet per minute increase in climb rate going from +67" to +72". It makes a huge difference.

 

...I think the devs are just saying "it would only be a minor tweak" as a means of silencing critique by downplaying the significance of it, by letting the "everything must be correct down to the rivet, burn the heretics!" attitude roast anyone who says the Mustang needs the boost. Keeps their customers from getting too irate about their failure to make a (relatively minor) tweak that is already in-game anyway (as a failure state on the MP limiter).

[Tomsk]

I speak about T&B versus B&Z because that's exactly the point and why I commented on Tomsk OP. He explains very well, including advantages and disadvantages of P-51, he don't miss a thing and he's far from being naive about real possibilities of Mustang/P-47. He's quite aware K4 is still a better aircraft, but you can play your game and bring the combat into your strong points.

 

Yup, very much so. Both the Bf109 and the P-51 are great aircraft, they each have strengths and weaknesses. IMO it's all about playing to your aircraft's strengths, and exploiting your enemy's weaknesses.

[Kev2go]

I speak about T&B versus B&Z because that's exactly the point and why I commented on Tomsk OP. He explains very well, including advantages and disadvantages of P-51, he don't miss a thing and he's far from being naive about real possibilities of Mustang/P-47. He's quite aware K4 is still a better aircraft, but you can play your game and bring the combat into your strong points.

 

 

Both have flown a Spanish built Buchón (built 100 meters away from were I'm sitting now, I don't disown it at all :smilewink:), a lighter aircraft than original, better powered than original with a Merlin, so at the end of the day with a far better weight/power ratio, and anyway a civil aircraft today as any Buchón keeps original equipment (it would be pointless, Spanish one, not German), they don't even have a self sealing fuel tank as Spanish builder was unable to reproduce it with the available technology (circa 1956 :music_whistling:), and BTW built on G2 airframes.

 

I know they weren't bad at all (just outdated by far…) as they fought Spits and Hurricanes every time available between film shots in Battle of Britain 1968 film, and Spanish pilots won almost every "battle", in part because they were trained Spanish AF pilots, but also because Merlin powered 109 had a stunning performance compared to civil Spits trying to keep it alive, so that allowed them to over climb and dive on Spits all the time (MH434 was among them indeed). There are pilots stories telling they saw some fellow pilots wrapping a scarf on their necks to hold the blood and be able to overturn Spits, as they didn't used G's suits.

 

I know all of that mate, but Buchón was far better powered than original 109G2 (with a 15 years more modern engine :smilewink:, also a civil one featuring 1000 hours between overhauls but lacking Supercharger, another reason to be lighter), they were very light as they were recovered from scrapyard so everything useless was taken apart, of course Spanish equipment, radios, cannons, etc. You're trying to compare a full equipped, late war, 109K4 with even better engine and more powerful than Buchón (but only using MW50, if not Buchón is still better powered), a K4 with full armament, with armours, with two wing bulges ripping a bit of lift, and so on, with a lighten up overpowered G2 airframe. Yes, I know there are circumstances in were 109 would overturn a Spit, or at least keep with it, but I think K4 strengths are others even though of course it still turns a bit better than P-51. Hence, with module I don't expect you will be able to keep it with a Spit IX capable of using all its power without having to worry how high will be the overhaul bill, not to mention you won't feel all those G's over you :). The day you get a 109F model may be you can turn with a Spit IX, even overturn it by a whisker, but then Spit IX will be the better powered aircraft so the B&Z one, that's called tactics and that's what OP was about :smilewink:.

 

 

S!

 

 

but I wasnt comparing the 109 to the spit at all..... nor did i even say that a K4 can turnfight a spitfire.

 

I know the earlier model 109, and F's were lighter, although those should be compared to the less powerful spit Mk5 at most. not the mk9.

 

Just because a design is older doest make it outdated. making modification to the airframe, and sticking in more powerfull engines, did keep the 109s capable aircraft up until the end of the war. Its not always necessary or practical to make a brand new airframe, when similar results can be achieved if you have a base viable to improved upon. The K4 for a "outdated" design " performs very well. The spitfire, Mk 9 is just a improved since the Mk 1. smae as 109. its not a entirely new dessing, Just improved upon, because its more practical. Again a Mustang a newer design is not Outright superior it it. Its has streghts in some areas, but Not superior in all. Again in case of americans it was simply nesseasy to build a new design becasue the needed to meet a specif role. Long range escort. But had requirements merely been Interception and dogfighting than it would have been arguably more practical, and faster to make improvements based on earlier airframes.

 

Of course the 75" Hg MP settings would go a long way to equalizing things. I really don't get how ED reps can keep saying "oh, it won't help as much as you think it will", when RAF flight testing showed a ONE THOUSAND feet per minute increase in climb rate going from +67" to +72". It makes a huge difference.

 

...I think the devs are just saying "it would only be a minor tweak" as a means of silencing critique by downplaying the significance of it, by letting the "everything must be correct down to the rivet, burn the heretics!" attitude roast anyone who says the Mustang needs the boost. Keeps their customers from getting too irate about their failure to make a (relatively minor) tweak that is already in-game anyway (as a failure state on the MP limiter).

 

yes this is what im getting at. with earlier posts. the 75 Hg would help give parity between the superior performance of the 109s and Doras. no doubt67 HG mustang can still get wins, I still can too, but theres not kid ourselves, the 51s at a disadvantage. they wouldn't have this engine setting IRL. Devs should have gave us 75hg from the Get go, if they intended to add late war German planes. P51D in its current state67 would have been certainly enough if just facing a BF109 G6 or a F190 A8/F8, but thats not the case. ofc air combat is about knowing your strengths and weakness, this isnt new. After all those are the higher engine settings mustangs would have if they met those type of aircraft within the time period. At least the devs have acknowledged this, so a boost in performance can be expected, and will come.

 

i agree i think also are that's probably the reason why devs are somewhat downplaying 75hg. just to quell the criticism.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Kev2go

[Ala13_ManOWar]

but I wasnt comparing the 109 to the spit at all..... nor did i even say that a K4 can turnfight a spitfire.

Ok, you wasn't (even though you aren't talking about tactics, and you posted the very well known video on 109 turning the hell better than Spit), so what's your point then? :huh:

 

 

S!

[Tomsk]

yes, but the P51 should be ( and will evnetually be) perform better for the time period. (8th AF engine settings).

 

I do think the P-51 should get engine settings that match the time period, which seems to be late '44 or early '45 judging by the opposition it faces. I believe ED have said they'll do this after the Spitfire and Normandy map releases. Although IMO, people's biggest problems with the P-51 vs Bf109 matchup is that they don't use the P-51 to its strengths, and an extra 8" of manifold pressure at WEP isn't going to fix that :-)

Edited November 27, 2016 by Tomsk

[Rangi]

It's all a moot point if ED can't get the proper information about flight characteristics, anyone got some good news or leads?

 

I'll just quote myself, we are straying into familiar debates of aircraft performance, mostly not even related to the thunderbolt, but without that information, we will never get to play it out virtually, so anyone got some?

[rel4y]

Both have flown a Spanish built Buchón (built 100 meters away from were I'm sitting now, I don't disown it at all :smilewink:), a lighter aircraft than original, better powered than original with a Merlin, so at the end of the day with a far better weight/power ratio, and anyway a civil aircraft today as any Buchón keeps original equipment (it would be pointless, Spanish one, not German), they don't even have a self sealing fuel tank as Spanish builder was unable to reproduce it with the available technology (circa 1956 :music_whistling:), and BTW built on G2 airframes.

 

...

 

I know all of that mate, but Buchón was far better powered than original 109G2 (with a 15 years more modern engine :smilewink:, also a civil one featuring 1000 hours between overhauls but lacking Supercharger, another reason to be lighter), they were very light as they were recovered from scrapyard so everything useless was taken apart, of course Spanish equipment, radios, cannons, etc. You're trying to compare a full equipped, late war, 109K4 with even better engine and more powerful than Buchón (but only using MW50, if not Buchón is still better powered), a K4 with full armament, with armours, with two wing bulges ripping a bit of lift, and so on, with a lighten up overpowered G2 airframe. Yes, I know there are circumstances in were 109 would overturn a Spit, or at least keep with it, but I think K4 strengths are others even though of course it still turns a bit better than P-51. Hence, with module I don't expect you will be able to keep it with a Spit IX capable of using all its power without having to worry how high will be the overhaul bill, not to mention you won't feel all those G's over you :). The day you get a 109F model may be you can turn with a Spit IX, even overturn it by a whisker, but then Spit IX will be the better powered aircraft so the B&Z one, that's called tactics and that's what OP was about :smilewink:.

 

 

S!

 

Hey Manowar!

 

You are usually spot on, but I think this time you are a bit off man. Or I may misunderstand you. :P

 

The Buchon used a surplus Merlin 500 45 which was a redesignated, overweight (but more rugged) and downgraded (didnt have an intercooler eg) 1944 Lancaster engine. Furthermore the Buchon had heavy HS404 wing cannons as the merlin could not mount one through the hub, some even rocket hardpoints. Now just remember what german pilots said about the wing cannons on german birds. This severly hampered roll rate and turn performance. The Buchon weight actually about 100kg more than the G6/G14 while having almost 200 HP less and a sloppier (bomber) engine than the early 1944 G6 AM/ASM. It was in pretty much all regards inferior to comparable wartime 109s and by no means a step above them.

 

Now I dont know if you are talking purely about post service/ modified Buchons, as these certainly will be lighter without the radio equipment and guns. But the operational Buchons were heavy and no joy to fly from what I have read.

 

Cheers man, no unconstructive criticism intended. :thumbup:

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Now I dont know if you are talking purely about post service/ modified Buchons, as these certainly will be lighter without the radio equipment and guns. But the operational Buchons were heavy and no joy to fly from what I have read.

Don't worry mate, your exposition is clear and fine :thumbup:. Well, I'm talking about post service Buchones, but you're right they aren't all the same. I know back then they used a transport/airliner Lancaster engine Merlin 500/45, that's what I meant about the "civil engine", but obviously I talk about the the ones those pilots in the video could fly, not the Spanish original model that included boundary layer fences due to cannons awful turbulence (also wing had to be reinforced to mount them) and so. Curiously enough, Spanish Buchón had a top speed of 675Km/H (but @altitude isn't said), far better than "later" (as they were G2 airframes) G6.

 

The BoB film was made with dismantled aircraft so I guess Spanish (so Lanc) engines, I had the idea those engines had some 1600HP at least, so that's more than K4 1400HP without MW50, but I might be wrong. Anyway they had, after taking apart useless equipment, a very good power/weight ratio.

 

About modern warbirds, I don't really know the engine model they use to mount/buy, anyway a limited one for sure as they have to pay the bills :lol:. Still those aircraft have a very good power/weight ratio for sure, far from original 109s.

 

 

S!

Edited November 27, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

[rel4y]

Ok, I catch you! :)

 

Well I was just comparing WEP ratings (with MW) of engines and then the G6 AM would have some 1750 HP as well at roughly 100 kg less. It could also do well above 570 kph at MSL, so not much difference there. I really dont know what prop the Buchon was using, but probably it was a more developed one thus with better energy conversion. But yeah without the extra weight of radio and such the Buchon will obviously turn really well, not comparable with wartime 109s. Totally agree.

 

Cheers!

Edited November 27, 2016 by rel4y

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I really dont know what prop the Buchon was using

AFAIK original ones used four bladed rotol, like Spit IX :lol:, I know they came with the engines (for the record Heinkels used Lancaster three blades props), but they were a bit modified to preserve ground clearance by trimming their tips so that's why they don't look like Spitfire props at all. Modern Warbirds are many times fitted with three bladed props, but I have no clue what those are. For the film some Buchones were fitted with Heinkel three blades props, but only the ones to be used as ground atrezzo as it was impossible to make them airworthy. May be modern warbirds use that also? Dunno.

 

 

S!

[rel4y]

Thanks, good info!

 

+1

[NineLine]

We are having some luck, but I know Yo-Yo is busy with the Spit right now.

[Zunzun]

We are having some luck, but I know Yo-Yo is busy with the Spit right now.

 

:pilotfly:

[Rangi]

Great news SiThSpAwN, thanks.

[Barrett_g]

ED needs to get in touch with these guys!:

 

http://www.projects.aircorpsaviation.com/p47-story/

[Buzzles]

ED needs to get in touch with these guys!:

 

http://www.projects.aircorpsaviation.com/p47-story/

 

And get what from them?

 

ED were missing flight related data, not construction info.

[NineLine]

ED needs to get in touch with these guys!:

 

http://www.projects.aircorpsaviation.com/p47-story/

 

I'll drop them a line and see if they have anything interesting laying around that might be helpful, thanks!

[Brigg]

And get what from them?

 

ED were missing flight related data, not construction info.

 

True, but they might know someone or somewhere where they can get the right information.

[Krupi]

I had no idea that the Brazilians had a P-47 squadron in Italy!

 

[Barrett_g]

Check out post 491 and 492 of this thread for an interesting story regarding a Brazilian P-47!

[Krupi]

Wow impressive, thanks for sharing

[Barrett_g]

Neat story!

 

While refurbishing/rebuilding a P-47, mechanics peeled back the skin to find the name of two "Rosie Riveters" named Edith and Eva. Now they are searching for the two! Hope they find them!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/wwii-plane-mystery-eva-and-edith-trnd/index.html?sr=fbCNN020217wwii-plane-mystery-eva-and-edith-trnd0201PMStoryLink&linkId=34043533

[nick10]

So is p47 next or what?