1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-10-2012, 09:19 AM
RegRag1977 RegRag1977 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
Possibly, maybe.


But, that might just be realistic. In the historical dogfight described above, Shaw refers to Robert Johnson as "one of the greatest natural fighter pilots" while we don't know how good the Spitfire pilot was.

Also, it was a mock dogfight, so there was no damage. The Spitfire was in a position to take shots which could have ended the fight before Johnson was able to get into firing position.

So, realistically, in a maneuver fight at low altitude, the Spitfire's superior overall maneuverability, climb rate and cannon armament might give it the edge over the jug's slightly better speed, zoom climb and roll rate.
Good points.

However we must take into consideration that Shaw refers to Johnson's book in order to make a "scientific" point: it IS possible for a heavy energy fighter such as the P47 to win against T/B fighter in a dogfight.

Here P47 wins -no question- against Spitfire.

It is not just about pilots different skill levels (ace vs noob), it is about what can be done if an aircraft is flown correctly. Remember that Shaw does NOT care about opinions: he rather tries as engineer and pilot to make scientific statements (read: things that actually work in the real world) about how one can win against a disimilar aircraft. His book is something that must help fighter pilots to survive and win, not something that could lead to death.

Surely Shaw would not make a statement or illustrate a point with an inapropriate example: he knows what he's talking about. I don't see why he would describe a mock combat if it was of any use in an actual combat. My understanding is: during a well executed engagement a properly flown P47 could hold the fight against a properly flown Spitfire.

This is why i find BlackBerry's questionning very interesting and why i wanted to ask for aces pilots around here to do a demo showing how it is possible to hold a fight in a P47 against a Spitfire under 5000 ft ceiling.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-10-2012, 09:25 AM
RegRag1977 RegRag1977 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBerry View Post
Yes. but I doubt that P47C could beat spitfire IX at low alt in il2.
Indeed, but if it can, i want to know how to do it too!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-10-2012, 10:46 PM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBerry View Post
It seems that il2 fm couldn't guarantee you beat a spitfire IX in your P47C, 1 vs 1. Zooming at 30 degree? 45 degree? Neither works.
I'd have to try it but I rarely jump to blaming the IL-2 FM for my own failings. I know both planes pretty well and I'm not sure.

We don't have a P-47C so we can't test that directly. With any of the P-47D's I know I could easily out dive a Spitfire and put some serious distance between myself and the Spit. The pull up I'm somewhat less certain of. I'd have to read up on the technique involved for sure.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-11-2012, 12:15 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBerry View Post
1)P47C, not P47D. AI is stupid.
Sadly, the P-47C isn't in the game, even though it was the pioneering U.S. long-range escort fighter in the ETO. The only razorback jug available is the P-47D-10. You go with what you got.

But, you make a good point. The P-47D had a vastly improved rate of climb, so there's no excuse for it to get consistently out-climbed by the Spitfire in the game, especially when zooming.

AI isn't bad, other than being aggressive about taking head-on shots. Not up to an ace human pilot's skill, but challenging enough for ordinary players. But, it certainly doesn't know how to take advantage of the P-47's strong points.

My point was that the P-47 isn't as hapless in the game as people claim it is, although it certainly isn't going to win a maneuver fight against a Spitfire with its current FM/physics modeling.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-11-2012, 12:20 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegRag1977 View Post
This is why i find BlackBerry's questionning very interesting and why i wanted to ask for aces pilots around here to do a demo showing how it is possible to hold a fight in a P47 against a Spitfire under 5000 ft ceiling.
I'd love to see this myself. I'd also love to try to do it myself but I don't fly online and I don't have rudder pedals. There's no way I can take advantage of the P-47's strengths if I can't do a decent barrel roll!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-11-2012, 01:36 PM
FC99's Avatar
FC99 FC99 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegRag1977 View Post
This is why i find BlackBerry's questionning very interesting and why i wanted to ask for aces pilots around here to do a demo showing how it is possible to hold a fight in a P47 against a Spitfire under 5000 ft ceiling.
This is only possible if you have Spitfire pilot who is willing to "cooperate". In other words, if Spitfire pilots knows what he is doing, P-47 can't do anything in a dogfight with Spit, in game and in RL.

And when we are quoting Shaw this is the part that precedes the paragraph quoted by BlackBerry.

Quote:
Climbing extension/pitch-back tactics cannot be expected to work for
the inferior fighter in this scenario, since the opponent has a Ps advantage.
The other energy tactics discussed, which are intended to bleed the bogey's
energy with a nose-to-tail turn (or nose-to-nose in the case of a very small
bogey or one equipped with all-aspect missiles), can still be effective
against an inexperienced or a careless opponent.
Key part being "inexperienced or a careless opponent".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-11-2012, 03:23 PM
Ace1staller Ace1staller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: somewhere in the united states
Posts: 125
Default

something new its makes me want to fly a p-47 (:
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-11-2012, 04:21 PM
RegRag1977 RegRag1977 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 139
Default

I see -not surprising, since we are all humans- that everyone can have another interpretation when it comes to quoting a text, i'm just proposing my cheap one that's all:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FC99 View Post
This is only possible if you have Spitfire pilot who is willing to "cooperate". In other words, if Spitfire pilots knows what he is doing, P-47 can't do anything in a dogfight with Spit, in game and in RL.

And when we are quoting Shaw this is the part that precedes the paragraph quoted by BlackBerry.


Key part being "inexperienced or a careless opponent".
True: "inexperienced or a careless opponent" is a key factor inside the part you quote!

But later when talking specifically about Spitfire IX and Thunderbolt P47C, Shaw doesn't go on with the double inferior argument since P47C is faster (superior top speed) and accelerates faster in a dive, thus neutralizing excess power of the "double superior" aircraft. The Spitfire in the example given is not completely a "double superior" (even with 25% better power loading, 25% lower wing loading advantage the Spitfire does NOT have top speed advantage or dive acceleration advantage) aircraft. Here is the difference with the part you quote, which completely correct in its context.

The part you are quoting precisely refers to: " Excess power OFTEN results in excess speed and a tendency to overrun or overshoot the adversary." Robert L. Shaw, p.183

The key word being "often": that means "not always", just like in the P47c vs Spitfire IX example described later:

"The Thunderbolt only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P47's heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance. Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension." idem, p.184

It is not something like cooperating enemy to me...

This is why i still find BlackBerry's questionning valid: i think he has good points actually. But that is just my interpretation.

Last edited by RegRag1977; 08-11-2012 at 04:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-11-2012, 04:27 PM
RegRag1977 RegRag1977 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
I'd love to see this myself. I'd also love to try to do it myself but I don't fly online and I don't have rudder pedals. There's no way I can take advantage of the P-47's strengths if I can't do a decent barrel roll!
No problem Pursuivant, i did not ask it to you personally, just to some online guys here!

True for pedals, you would need them no question for such a test.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-11-2012, 11:11 PM
FC99's Avatar
FC99 FC99 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegRag1977 View Post
But later when talking specifically about Spitfire IX and Thunderbolt P47C, Shaw doesn't go on with the double inferior argument
C'mon, he is starting the story with this:
Quote:
The following episode, found in Thunderbolt! by the World War II
USAAF ace Robert S. Johnson, is one of the best examples available of the
use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch-back) to defeat a double superior opponent.

Quote:
since P47C is faster (superior top speed) and accelerates faster in a dive, thus neutralizing excess power of the "double superior" aircraft. The Spitfire in the example given is not completely a "double superior" (even with 25% better power loading, 25% lower wing loading advantage the Spitfire does NOT have top speed advantage or dive acceleration advantage) aircraft. Here is the difference with the part you quote, which completely correct in its context.
P47 is just marginally faster, not enough to have any decisive zoom advantage. Dive advantage is more pronounced but dives are not increasing your E,in most of the cases.

Quote:
"The Thunderbolt only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P47's heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance. Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension." idem, p.184
It is not something like cooperating enemy to me...
Spitfire pilot who burned all of his E in hard turns, allowed marginally faster opponent to build enough separation and speed to zoom above him. Sounds like the novice pilot to me . Whole this fight is actually an example how to lose less E than your opponent.There is a myriad of things Spit pilot could and should do to prevent the described outcome of the fight. As it seems that you have Shaw's book you can find some counter measures to E fight in the same chapter. With an ace Spit pilot that would never happen.

I never fought Spits with P-47 in game but I fought many Spits with FW and what happened in the Johnson's story is absolutely possible to do in game if Spit pilot is not very good. And for all we know Spit pilot from the story could be an ATA ferry pilot pitted against one of the best American pilots.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:23 PM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.