Friedrich-4B Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Also from the 9th AF document, on D-Day the P-47s provided high cover over the beach-heads, operating at 8 - 10,000 feet, while low cover (3 - 5000ft) was provided by the RAF: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
Crumpp Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Here is the P-47 sorties on 6 June 1944: All done without 100/150 grade... Here is it looks like they DID NOT just get shot out the sky as poor sitting ducks. All done without 100/150 grade... :music_whistling: Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250
MiloMorai Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Thank you F-4/B for the confirmation that the 9th AF was based in and operating from the UK, and not based in and operating from Italy in 1944 as some ppl claimed. That should put an end to any more of such nonsense being posted.:thumbup:
Friedrich-4B Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) And looking at October thru December 1944, the time period our planeset covers, there are even fewer P-47's squadrons using 100/150 grade. It can safely be concluded as a fact, the most common P-47 variant was NOT using 100/150 grade. 8th AF Fighter Groups using the P-47 June- December 1944: 56th FG stayed operational on P-47s thru to May 1945 78th FG started conversion to P-51s December 1944 last P-47 missions January '45 353rd FG started conversion to P-51 November 1944 356th FG started conversion to P-51s November 1944 (info from http://www.amazon.com/American-Eagles-Vol-Mustang-Units/dp/1903223199 ) 4 of the 8th AF's 14 FGs still used the P-47, including P-47D-30s, during the time ED's planeset covers. End of discussion! See...that did not take 50 pages if I just let you guys post all the facts! That sums it up nicely, thanks. :thumbup: Edited March 6, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B forgot 353rd FG [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
Aurora juutilainen Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 I would gladly accept a 100/150 P47 if it meant giving a percentage of people their pacifiers. I'm fine with both sides being represented with the equipment that was most common at the time. In fact I think each aircraft should have full access to the various fuel grades, sights, and boost systems that way the mission designer can accurately replicate a engagement with the proper equipment for each unit at the time. 2
Friedrich-4B Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 I'm fine with both sides being represented with the equipment that was most common at the time. In fact I think each aircraft should have full access to the various fuel grades, sights, and boost systems that way the mission designer can accurately replicate a engagement with the proper equipment for each unit at the time. +1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
The_Pharoah Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Where can I find P47 tactics? Given the weight, etc of the a/c, I'm sure there were specific tactics that the Jug pilots used - would be good to get some info upfront. AMD AM4 Ryzen7 3700X 3.6ghz/MSI AM4 ATX MAG X570 Tomahawk DDR4/32GB DDR4 G.Skill 3600mhz/1TB 970 Evo SSD/ASUS RTX2070 8gb Super
Friedrich-4B Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Where can I find P47 tactics? Given the weight, etc of the a/c, I'm sure there were specific tactics that the Jug pilots used - would be good to get some info upfront. For starters, pilot's combat reports can help; eg: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
Krebs20 Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 I would gladly accept a 100/150 P47 if it meant giving a percentage of people their pacifiers. I'm fine with both sides being represented with the equipment that was most common at the time. In fact I think each aircraft should have full access to the various fuel grades, sights, and boost systems that way the mission designer can accurately replicate a engagement with the proper equipment for each unit at the time. I feel leatherneck has proven through the load out menu, the DCS engine can change cockpit textures and models. See Mig21 jamming pods. By this logic, it is feasible that changing fuel types could be added to the P-47 and future WW2 Fighters. Again controlled by the mission editor loadouts. If the ground work can be laid with the p47. All future mods will have the framework to build on. Truly a wish list item for the p47. And why stop with just 100/130 and 100/150? Let's put a 100LL option in for people wishing to fly on modern low octane fuel? Will this same discussion come about for the spitfire? ( Rhetorical) To mods: I had a similar post to Aurora's earlier, it was removed for reasons unknown to me. I do not feel it broke any forum rules. And it was quite on topic to the p47 when in contexts. I feel Aurora's post is important to the conversation as it shows a best of both worlds approach. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Friedrich-4B Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Of more immediate importance than fuel types, is what types of weapons will be available & what types of drop tanks? Taking the drop tanks; the main options: 1) 75 US gal aluminum tank 2) 108 gal "paper" tank 3) "Flattened" 200 gal tank designed specifically for the P-47 (also note 3.5 in rocket clusters): [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
Crumpp Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Where can I find P47 tactics? Here is a good resource. Shaw's Fighter Combat-Tactics and Maneuvering. Read the gun solution chapter and dissimilar tactics to start out. The whole book is good but not all is applicable to WWII era fighters. That being said, I highly recommend a copy for the bookshelf, too. It is a great read. The second one was written for another game. The tactics are sound and in most cases mirror Shaw's.Fighter_Combat-Tactics_and_Maneuvering.part1.rarFighter_Combat-Tactics_and_Maneuvering.part2.rarinpursuit.pdf Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250
alfredo_laredo Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Just a little example A.K.A. Timon -117th- in game
Friedrich-4B Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Thanks alfredo lerado; however, AFAIK the P-47 didn't use the British 5 in rocket and rails - certainly not in Europe. Of course, the P-47 had a built in armament of 8 x Browning .50 cal M2s; attached is a manual on the M2 (2 parts): Edited March 7, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B manual in 2 parts [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
Friedrich-4B Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 Some D-30 color schemes (from Republic P-47 Thunderbolt "Bubbletop" ): [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
saburo_cz Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 So after 109k4, P47 is the next wwii airbird? yes and 5th will be DCS spit IX :) may be, sometime aaaafter them next... F6F P-51D | P-47D | F4U-1D | Mosquito FB Mk VI | Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K | WWII Assets Pack Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic F-4E | F-14A/B | F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC |
Echo38 Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 After that Spitfire, the next WWII fighter that was originally scheduled was the P-38, but that was before the original project sorta crashed and ED moved in to pick up the pieces. I do hope that's the next one, though! Oh, man, I hope!
ED Team NineLine Posted March 15, 2015 ED Team Posted March 15, 2015 P-38? Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Solty Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 After that Spitfire, the next WWII fighter that was originally scheduled was the P-38, but that was before the original project sorta crashed and ED moved in to pick up the pieces. I do hope that's the next one, though! Oh, man, I hope! I don't remember P-38 beeing at any point mentioned in 1944 project.:huh: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies. My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS. My channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA
Vampyre Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 P-38? Me-410 :thumbup: Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"
Echo38 Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) Me-410 That definitely wasn't one of the planned aircraft for this project, neither before nor after ED picked it up. I mentioned the P-38 because someone wondered what was supposed to come after the Spitfire. The original plan was that the P-38 was going to be the next WWII fighter after the five we're getting, but that was Luthier's plan rather than ED's. This isn't the thread for future aircraft speculation, really. Edit: Hrm. I can't find mention of it being the next in line; that was the Me 262, evidently. The P-38J-15 is mentioned on the Kickstarter page I'm looking at right now, but only as a sort of hopefully-in-the-future, along with four other aircraft (none of which have been announced as being planned by ED). I wonder if I'm grossly misremembering, or if there was a different page for this project which had different information? I'll look some more. Edit2: This English translation of one of Luthier's posts on the Russian section of the ED forum is the closest I can find to what I'm sure I saw before: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1855507&postcount=1 This may be where I got the idea that the P-38 was next, because it lists the P-38 first in the paragraph about stretch goals. "With successful Kickstarter funding of stretch goals, the project will include more famous historical aircraft, such as the Lockheed P-38, de Havilland Mosquito, Messerschmitt Me.262, and even a flyable version of the Boeing B-17." This appears to have been no more than wishful thinking, sadly. Edited March 15, 2015 by Echo38
Bullfrog_ Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) Yes, unless VEAO's P-40 comes out first. I bet their P-40 and F8F will beat the P-47 here. Both are marked for Q2 2015, Idk if you can really call the F8F a WW2 bird though Edited March 15, 2015 by Bullfrog_
Foul Ole Ron Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 Idk if you can really call the F8F a WW2 bird though Might not have seen combat in WW2 but it was operational by late May 1945 so it'll still fit in ok.
Crumpp Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 Might not have seen combat in WW2 but it was operational by late May 1945 so it'll still fit in ok. For air racing servers...it would be great. It would ruin any World War II scenario for me as much as the napkin Luftwaffe 46 designs do. It just simply was not a world war II bird. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250
Recommended Posts