• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,952 Outstanding

1 Follower

About xBromanx

  • Rank
    Jug is love! Jug is life!

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,045 profile views
  1. The P-47 is fast, but it won't outmaneuver any single engine fighter unless you're referring to its decent roll rate, or the P-47N, which actually has exceptional maneuverability. Yak-9 and I-185 easily have better maneuverability, so if you lost a turnfight to a P-47, you clearly did something wrong. With that said, the P-47Ds are actually overperforming considerably, depending on how you view things. They are suppose to be modeled as 56"HG P-47Ds, which means it should have a top speed at sea level of around 530kph. Currently, it can reach 565kph with proper MECs. The higher you go, the less severe it overperforms, being only about 10kph too fast from 3km up to 7km where it matches reality. However, one could also argue that it's actually underperforming because 56"HG P-47s were only used until June '44. After that 70"HG was made standard, which brought the sea level top speed up to its current speed in game, and it's mid-alt top speeds up to about 20-30kph faster than they currently (if I'm remembering correctly). The P-47Ds, or at least one of them, should have that 70"HG flight model, imo, so even though they are overperforming for how the game is suppose to have them modeled, they are underperforming compared to how they were irl. With all of that said, at their current BRs the -D models are at a pretty balanced BR, especially the D-28.
  2. I fly the -M every once in a while, but I prefer flying -Ds, just because the pace of battles at lower BRs is more appealing to me. The -M is good, and I've had a lot of success with it, though. Until the most recent update, the -N was underperforming in engine power at most altitudes, making it slightly worse than the -M. However, the update fixed that, and now it's basically an -M that's barely slower, but much more maneuverable. I would say the -N is the superior plane, and it needs to have its BR raised to 5.7 or even 6.0. It's a total club machine at 4.7, but if you're ok with that, then there really is no reason to fly the -M. It is worse than the -N, imo, and at a higher BR (though the -M is still very powerful at 5.3). I disagree with the video completely. He's referring to nerf that occurred, but is no longer a thing. Even with the nerf the plane was very powerful, but now the nerf has been removed / altered so it's not so much of a nerf anymore.
  3. Yes, but I have to be within range that I can still track him after he takes off. It does me no good to fly so far away that I can't see him, only to lose him and waste another 30 minutes trying to find him again. That also means that he can see me, though. It's easier to spot someone above you than it is to spot someone below. If he can see me hovering outside his AAA, 99 times out of 100 he's going to loiter around his AAA. No, you've got it completely backwards. I see both sides of the story. I understand that people will sometimes need to land and rearm / repair, but I don't think they (or I) need to be protected when that occurs. There's no reason for it. If I can succeed without AAA in my planes, then why can't anyone else? What's really happening here is that you're not seeing it from my perspective; from the perspective of having nearly every single match have at least one person on the enemy team that runs to AAA to escape my attacks; from the perspective of being in a 1v3, but being unable to kill a single enemy because they loiter around their AAA, eventually losing because they're able to use it neutralize the positional advantage I had; from the perspective of being in an good 1v1 fight, only to have the enemy immediately dive away from me towards their AAA when they see I've won their 6oc. The list of personal instances where AAA has acted against me resulting in my defeat is almost endless. AAA creates imbalance. Removing AAA makes everyone responsible for themselves. I mean, you wouldn't play Battlefield, or Call of Duty, or Counterstrike, or whatever if every map had a zone where the players could run to to receive immunity, and you would be insta-killed if you tried to attack them while they were in that zone. Players would just camp that zone, and gameplay would be terrible. It would suit everyone's position except those who exploit AAA for protection. It is virtually impossible to punish passive play in the moment that it is occurring, and often times whatever solution is presented creates even more issues. For example: Your suggestion might stop people from flying circles inside their AAA, but it would do nothing to prevent people from loitering just outside of that perimeter, so they can quick retreat back to AAA when they are attacked. People already do that in game with the current AAA. Also, what happens if you takeoff, don't get outside of the perimeter, but are attacked? You have to maneuver to avoid the enemy, but that means you might not get outside of the boundary in time, or what if you take damage and have to RTB? Suddenly you're being punished for passive play, even though you're not flying passively. What if you have a troll on your team that decides to camp the AAA to create the auto-lose just to **** off his team? How about, instead, we just simply remove AAA so there is no inbalance, or wonky mechanic to exploit?
  4. Right, but it increases RPMs, which increases temps much more than what those do to cool the engine.... The engine will still run hotter while WEPing than it will at 100%.
  5. P-47s are not easy to learn to fly. They require a certain discipline that isn't really required of other planes. The "correct" way to fly them isn't so intuitive or easy to learn. Most people fly them poorly, and a poorly flown will P-47 will pretty much always lose to any other poorly flown plane. It has bad stats when you look at the entire War Thunder community because of that. However, if you learn to fly, especially if you can fly with another competent wingman, the plane is unstoppable.
  6. Lol. I don't know what to tell you that hasn't already been said. You're romanticizing the P-47M, imagining it to be more than it was, and/or you're underestimating the planes it faces. Sprinkle all of that with a moderate dose of "misconceptions," and it's not difficult to see why you think the way you do. For example, the P-47N had longer wings than the -M, with more wing area. It should be more maneuverable. The P-47M was a beast of a plane, and it is in game. It's clear to me that you're doing things wrong, making mistakes, and struggling to learn from them. You shouldn't be able to fly circles around any plane above 5.0, without thought or strategy. If you make mistakes, you will be punished for it. I can't really tell you anything else, especially since you don't share any replays of your encounters.
  7. Ok...but how does that prove that WEPing would cool the engine to a lower temp than 100%?
  8. All of the engines you from your source were prototypes, and not the ones we have in game. Not sure why you're sharing that information. According to the same Wikipedia post, but with less cherry-picking: The I-185, designed in early 1940, was based on the I-180, which was itself a development of the I-16, but was virtually a new design. The monocoque fuselage was similarly built of 'shpon', molded birch plywood, and also had an integral fin, but it was considerably longer than that of the I-180. ******The two-spar, all-metal wing was smaller and thinner than the I-180's wing, nearly as thin as that of the Supermarine Spitfire's wing at 13% at the root and tapered to 8% at the wing tip.[1] Their fuselage was made of wood, I'll grant you that, but a wooden fuselage has very little impact on max dive speed. It's the wings that are most susceptible to failure, and the I-185's wings were made of metal. Concerning the fabric control surfaces, I can't comment on what kind of impacts that might have, as I honestly don't know.
  9. I don't understand what any of that has to do with anything I've said.... I wanted you to prove that the temps at altitude were cool enough to keep the aircraft's engines from overheating
  10. You're not even reading what we're typing now... I-185 is not made of wood. There is no evidence or reason to believe it couldn't achieve 800kph in a dive. 800kph isn't even that fast when you consider the P-47 can achieve at least 950kph. I-185 cannot out-accelerate, nor can it outrun a P-47M at altitudes above 6km. I've actually done the tests and shared the results with you. If you still insist I'm wrong, show me a replay or a test that proves it.
  11. Evidence?
  12. RESULTS OF IN GAME TESTS (since you refuse to do any yourself) Top Speed at 6km P-47M ----- 705kph I-185 M-71 ----- 676kph Time to Climb from 6km to 7km (maintaining 280kph IAS) P-47M ----- ~49 seconds I-185 M-71 ----- ~68 seconds P-47M is faster at 6km, gaining a greater speed advantage the higher you go above that, and has a better climbrate, thus, a better rate of acceleration above 6km compared to the I-185M-71. You are wrong on all accounts. Please stop. Also, Gaijin is often not the most accurate in their tutorial videos. 6km is not high altitude, it's medium altitude. They're also discussing the I-185M-82, which is the 4.0(?) variant; the slower variant. So now you're complaining because it's difficult to win when you're outnumbered.....it should be
  13. 1) You are naive if you think the enemy will leave their AAA knowing you are above them waiting to pounce on them as soon as they do. Sure, it happens sometimes, but easily the most common scenario is: > you leave the enemy to let them repair / rearm > they takeoff > they climb just within range of their AAA > you're forced to let them get significant altitude because you can't do anything about it, though you can still maintain an altitude advantage > they get high enough that you can attack them without getting insta-gibbed by AAA so you dive on them > they avoid your initial dive, and drag the fight back closer to their AAA > you have to back off again or risk getting rekt by AAA > rinse and repeat until the monotony breaks you, and you risk an attack into their AAA, or until you've thrown away your energy / positional advantage, allowing the enemy to gain an advantage over you. or > they fly away from AAA > you attack > they immediately run back to AAA 2) Yes, you're talking about the very rare instance where someone legitimately runs to their airfield because they're out of ammo, and not the overwhelming majority of instances where people run to it to escape an enemy that has an advantage against them. Even if the former was more common, as I already suggested -- and you seemed to ignore -- protecting planes that need rearming creates an imbalance against planes that have high endurance.
  14. 1.) Between both P-47Ds --- 1629 matches, 1686 spawns. So, 57 matches out of 1629 where I had to land and rearm / repair (Assuming that's the only reason why I landed and respawned (It's not)). In the P-51d-30 --- 215 matches, 215 spawns. 0 landing for rearm and repair. Though, admittedly I'm not quite as good in the P-51s as I am in the P-47s. In fact, you can look at any planes I've ever flown and you'll see a very similar trend, regardless of their ammo counts. I'm glad you mentioned that point about the P-47s have high ammo loads, though. It brings to light how unbalanced AAA is against planes with high endurance. Planes with lower endurances are compensated for that weakness. They get all the performance advantages that come with being light-weight, but don't have to deal with being vulnerable when their low ammo loads run out. Meanwhile, P-47s don't get any performance boosts to compensate for all that weight their carrying. 2.) Yes. If the enemy team defeated yours to turn the fight into a 5v1, and you can flee to / camp a zone that makes you impervious to their attacks because you are outnumbered and want to deny the enemy a victory that they rightly earned, they are being punished for doing so well.
  15. In other words..... Git gud. I don't need AAA to hold my hand because I've spent over 1600 battles in the P-47 going out of my way not to use it. It definitely wasn't easy when I first started, but it really does make you a better player. This is a team game. If your team fails, the enemy team shouldn't be punished because of it.
  16. The source you linked is referring to instances where the amount of oxygen in each piston of the engine is low enough that not all of the introduced fuel is able to combust. In those instances, increasing fuel-flow would result in more unburned fuel, which would act to cool the engine as the excess liquid fuel absorbed the heat from the engine. However, that's strictly referring to increasing fuel mixture at a given RPM. In other words, at 2000 RPM, you can increase the fuel mixture to the point that you have too much fuel for the amount of oxygen, which will result in liquid fuel remaining after compression, which will cool the engine down. However, if you increase the RPM as you would see when you engage WEP, say to 2800 RPM, the speed of the rotating pistons increases, which increases friction, which increases engine temp. Now, at the higher RPM, if you increase fuel mixture resulting in excess liquid fuel being expelled after combustion, you may see this new higher temperature decrease a little, but the overall engine temperature is still higher than what it was at 2000 RPM.
  17. p-47n

    Well, clipped wings do result in reduced maneuverability. See the clipped wing Spit. The issue, and source of my error, is that the P-47N's wings aren't "clipped." Clipped wings, referring to the shortening of a wing by cutting its tips, reduces maneuverability by reducing wing surface area. The P-47N doesn't have clipped wings as I initially stated. It has larger wings that are simply squared off at the ends. I wasn't thinking of the fact that the -N's wings are actually larger than previous P-47s. Regardless, the difference in maneuverability between the -N and other P-47s is significant. Do the slightly larger wings really give it that much more maneuverability? I'm pretty sure this plane can maintain a tighter turning radius than pretty much any plane that isn't a Yak, Spit, or Japanese plane...
  18. Not "in theory." In Fact http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html A. The R-2800-63 can be operated at 65.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, in level flight and climb without water injection when using 44-1 fuel. It can be operated at 70.0" Hg., 2700 RPM with water injection with 44-1 fuel. Climbs at high power must be limited because of high cylinder head temperatures and carburetor air temperatures. Short climbs can be made without difficulty. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-50030-final.pdf 4. The outstanding limitation on high power operation appeared to be in high blower military power between altitudes of 18,000 - 20,000 ft. In this condition, it is virtually impossible except at outside air temperatures below 10 degrees C above standard to keep the carburetor air temperature below the maximum of 43 degrees C You can find more if you search for them yourself. Regardless, it only makes sense that an increase in power would result in an increase in temperature. More power equals stronger, and more frequent compressions and explosions of fuel in the engine. Larger and more frequent explosions equals more heat. Plus you have increased friction from higher RPMs of the engine. If that weren't the case, there would be no limit to engine power output.... EDIT: It was called "War Emergency Power" for a reason. You were only expected to use it in emergencies due to the risk of damaging the engine with extended use.
  19. p-47n

    Is there a reason why the P-47N is so much more maneuverable than the other P-47s? I flew it out today to try the new model, expecting the maneuverability to be nerfed based on the rumors I'd heard that it was overperforming, but the plane still maneuvers like a champ even with any changes that might have been implemented. I know it has an overall increased wing area, but I thought clipped wings resulted in decreased maneuverability.
  20. I have never heard of WEP cooling an engine down. All test flight data I've ever seen concerning engine temps has shown that WEPing increases engine temps.
  21. Why did you create another thread about Assault Mode? There's already one created by you that's still active....Just keep posting there....
  22. It seems the Tempest V has a more accurate FM now. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html
  23. Listen. Until you start backing up what you say with evidence, I'm going to have to abandon this discussion. "The I-185 is superior to the P-47"....evidence? "I find it to be not correct representation of historic data"....What data? "In practice, some field equipment was not able to operate at all, because in warm humid conditions moss covered the whole interior. Turned out that paint,insulation and covers where special delight for one specific moss. In theory, superior equipment. In practice, nothing. Zero." .....Evidence? "There are countless examples of that happening" ....Evidence? It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who can just simply make stuff up out of thin air....
  24. It was the general "quantity before quality" mindset of the Russians. They could more easily, and less expensively produce higher quantities of Yaks and Lavochkins to throw at the Germans.
  25. The I-185 didn't enter production because it was more expensive to produce compared to the Yaks and Lavochkins that were already in production. It seems to me that you've already answered that question for yourself, regardless of whatever the actual answer may be. Evidence? There are people alive right now that are saying the earth is flat. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/ Perhaps you should believe them as well.... Since it seems apparent you have no intention of actually backing up your claims with evidence, I'll share a video with you showcases how I've dealt with I-185s in the past.
  26. You've already made up in your mind what you want to believe. There's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. The P-47 was a good plane, and my favorite WW2 era fighter. It was not without weaknesses, though.
  27. That's not a cheap kill. The only reason you were in that situation is because you made a series of errors. It's your fault, not theirs.
  28. The Spitfire and 109 were practically identical in weight. The 109 had a slightly stronger engine, and was perhaps slightly more aerodynamic, but I'm not really certain about that. The fact that a Spitfire pushing its nose down into a dive would kill the engine meant the 109 would easily separate, but otherwise there was no difference between them. If the 109 was able to outdive it, it was almost certainly due to the carburetor float, and the excess drag of the Spitfire. Again, comparing the 109 to the Spitfire as evidence of weight playing no role in dive is pointless because they were nearly identical in weight. The Hurricane was roughly 10% heavier, but it had a weaker engine with more drag, and still suffered from a dead engine when pushing the nose down into a dive. Once again, comparing the Hurricane to the 109 as evidence that weight is meaningless in a dive is pointless because there are so many other factors to consider, all of which could explain the 109's ability to outdive the Hurricane. Now, answer my questions please. How do you explain the historical fact that P-47s would leave 109s and 190s in the dust in a dive? How do you explain the P-47 being only slightly outmatched in a dive against one of the most aerodynamic air frames of the war (P-51). The P-47 was one of the most draggy planes, but anytime its nose pointed downward, there were very few planes that could keep up with it. Why?
  29. Lel. The 109E weighed roughly 6,000lbs. The Spitfire I was roughly 6,200. The Hurricane was roughly 6,600 lbs For all intents and purposes, their weights were insignificantly different. Weight would not have been a factor when comparing their dive rates. Drag, yes. Engine power, yes. The fact that British planes lost power in a dive, yes. But not weight. How exactly does a P-47 out dive a 109 if the P-47 has considerably more drag? How does the P-47 keep up in a dive with one of the most streamlined fighters of WW2? The answer is weight.
  30. I'm pretty much an exclusive P-47D pilot with ~2500kills between the two of them. I've fought many Yak-3s at all altitudes and can guarantee you that Yak-3s will suffer greatly at altitude against a well flown P-47. I have virtually no issue flying against them above 5500m. Again, with the I-185, you need to share a replay of one matching your P-47 in a dive. It's not my experience that that is possible, and I'd be willing to bet you are making some kind of error in your flying. We need to see a replay of your encounters to know for certain, though.
  31. Don't burst his bubble, man. Ignorance is bliss, and it would only be more embarrassing for him to realize he's completely wrong considering all the big boy talk he gave me earlier on. lelelelel
  32. Well, for the next week I'm away from my gaming PC, so I can't actually test it right now, but regardless, it's not on me to compile the evidence. If you're making a claim that something is broken, or not behaving as it should, it's on you. Concerning the handling of the I-185 at 6km, if I'm not mistaken, that's right around where its critical altitude is, so it should still be performing relatively the same as it would at lower altitudes. I don't really see any issues there.
  33. It's known that 109s were far slower in a dive than a P-51 and a P-47, both of which were several thousand lbs heavier, with the P-47 being 3 to 4,000 lbs heavier than the P-51. The P-51 was considerably more aerodynamic than the P-47, yet at least a few test reports give them similar dive performance, or give the P-51 the slight edge. It seems weight may be more important than you believe, though I can't say for certain that you're wrong.
  34. It's a shame you're not willing to discuss the issue, and instead resort to condescending rhetoric and insults. Despite such arrogance, you're still wrong. I asked about level speeds because, in fact, planes do have a terminal velocity in level flight. That is the speed where the forward force of thrust from the engine and propeller is equal to the reverse force of drag, aka their top speed. Well, in a dive, all you do is move the forward thrust downward, and the drag force upward. Without gravity, those two forces would still cancel out and result in a terminal velocity. However, here on earth we do have have gravity, which creates the weight force that pulls the plane downward. So all you do is add the downward force of thrust and the downward force of weight together to get a large single force vector. Eventually, at a higher speed than that found in level flight, a friction force will be reached that is equal to the sum of those two forces, and another terminal velocity will be reached. EDIT: Again, this is ignoring the possible reduction in propeller efficiency at higher speeds. I've heard that at a certain speed, a rotating propeller blade actually creates excess drag, which would actually reduce the terminal velocity compared to if it wasn't rotating. In that case, a higher terminal velocity could be reached by removing thrust from the equation completely. Again, though, I have no idea how true this is, as it's beyond the scope of my knowledge.
  35. Answer the question please. Do planes in level flight have infinite speeds?
  36. Yes, which is why I distinctly mentioned that we were comparing two planes that were exactly the same in all ways except weight. You are correct, though. A more aerodynamic plane will have a higher terminal velocity than a less aerodynamic plane. The combination of those two variables is what makes comparing dive performances of two different planes so difficult. Are drag and weight equally important to the terminal velocity of an object? Is one more important over the other? I don't know the answer to those questions. So in level flight planes should be able to reach an infinite speed?
  37. If you are comparing two planes that are exactly the same in all ways but weight, the plane with the lower weight will have a lower terminal velocity in free fall. That means, in order to reach the heavier plane's terminal velocity, it will need to use the thrust from its engine to reach the heavier plane's terminal velocity, while the heavier plane needs no thrust. Now, if the heavier plane uses the same amount of extra thrust, it will accelerate to an even higher speed that the lighter can't reach unless it applies even more thrust. Basically, the lighter plane will always need more thrust than the heavier plane to reach the same terminal velocity, which means that, if the heavier plane has the same thrust output as the lighter plane, it should always be faster at the upper limits of the dive, with better acceleration as well. Now, this is ignoring any possible issues with propeller efficiency at high speeds, which is something I can't speak on with any amount of certainty.
  38. I don't think we've seen any evidence that any of that is actually true...
  39. The scale measures how much you push down on it. Your mass creates a downward force (weight) that exerts itself on the scale. If you have more mass, you have a larger downward force, and you push down on the scale more. Therefore, weight does actually "pull an object down," and the strength of that downward force is stronger as you increase in mass. Now, getting back to terminal velocity...Terminal velocity is achieved when all resultant forces are equal to 0 in the direction that an object is moving. That means if you are falling in a downward direction, all upward forces are equal and opposite to all downward forces. In freefall, the only downward force acting on an object is its weight (Gravity isn't really a force. It's an acceleration, which is different and requires an understand of special relativity to understand.....which I don't, completely). There is also an upward force, which is friction / drag, which increases in strength as speed increases. Once again, terminal velocity is achieved when the downward force of the weight of the object is equal to the upward force of the friction on that object. Weight is a static force, so it won't change in strength. Friction will increase as speed increases until a speed is achieved where the force of friction is equal to the force of the weight of the object. If you have a heavier object, that object will require more friction to cancel its weight, which means it will reach a higher speed before terminal velocity is achieved. See above. I agree with your explanation of surface area and drag. The less surface area an object has, the less friction forces it will experience at a given speed, which will increase its terminal velocity. However, mass creates weight, which as you already stated is a force. That force must be accounted for when calculating resultant forces on a free falling object. I didn't misspeak, and my wording wasn't wrong. Weight is downward force on an object that causes it to fall that pulls that object downward. Mass influences how much weight that object has. Mass doesn't "pull an object down," weight does.
  40. What happens when you stand on a scale?
  41. tl;dw: Weight pulls an object down. Air friction force resists the downward motion of that object, and increases in strength the faster the object moves. Eventually, a speed is reached where the force of weight and the force of friction are equal, and the terminal velocity is reached. The more weight you have, the more friction you need to cancel out that weight, which means a higher speed can be reached before the friction force equals the force of weight. More weight (mass) = higher terminal velocity.
  42. If you're talking specifically about the P-47M vs an La-9, then sure, that might be a decent summation. The La-9 is just a very good plane, and 1v1 I think the La-9 would have to make serious mistakes to lose to a P-47M. With that said, the P-47M, like many US planes thrives when flown with a competent wingman. If you get into a 2v2 with P-47Ms vs La-9s, the odds of the La-9s being able to overcome the P-47Ms are much lower. In this kind of scenario, I would take the P-47Ms any day of the week. Concerning the P-47M vs any other "medium altitude plane," as you put it, the P-47M is more competitive, especially when you consider that the P-47M can fly against 4.3 planes....Doras and Kurtfursts will provide some challenge, but they are less agile and energy-efficient compared to the La-9, with worse low altitude performance. You will have much more success fighting them at lower altitudes compared to the La-9. Other than that, just about every other plane is grossly outmatched performance-wise. Anything 5.3 and lower you shouldn't have any issues fighting against, regardless of altitude. That's not always the case. I can't demonstrate anything concerning the P-47M vs La-9 1v1 matchup, but I can showcase some P-47D flying vs various Russian planes that would be similar matchups. That's not even considering what happens when you utilize squad tactics with a competent wingman. Second video has several La-9s vs P-47Ms at <6km altitude You are using IAS for your speed. Switch to SPD in your interface options. That will give you the 700 kph numbers that you want. Also, at higher altitudes you'll want to drop your mixture. It should be fine at 100% all the way up to like 8km, then you want to drop it to below 60%. I don't the exact numbers, so you'll need to test that if you're curious. Mass does nothing initially. It does help increase terminal velocity, though. The heavier you are, the faster your max speed in a dive is, assuming everything else is equal. Because of that, at a certain point the heavier will lose acceleration at a slower rate, allowing it to reach higher speeds quicker, thus, allowing it to gain separation from the lighter object.
  43. Then you have energy advantage. Commence BnZ.
  44. It's definitely debatable. Having the performance advantage at altitude is definitely one of the most powerful advantages in the game, imo.
  45. Mass does help in a dive, but so does being streamlined. Mass lets you punch through the resistant friction forces created by the air around your plane, and being streamlined lets you slice through it. The La-9 is much lighter, but it's also much more streamlined. Initially, yes, but as their speeds increased, friction from the air would become a factor. The heavier object would be able to punch through the friction, reaching a higher terminal velocity than the lighter object, which means that at some point the heavier object would be falling faster. There are very few planes that are capable of going toe-to-toe with a well flown P-47M. You're just comparing it to the top-of-the-line postwar Russian "super prop." I think the La-9 is the superior plane, but only by a little. Take the fight to 8km and you shouldn't have any real issues with the La-9.
  46. You really should share a replay then, so we can see what was going on The P-47Ms max speed was attained at ~10+km altitude. It wasn't capable of that speed at all altitudes. If you compare the P-47M to the La-9 up to the La-9s critical altitude of 6km, the La-9 is easily the superior plane. At 6km the P-47M is capable of just over 700kph in level flight. The La-9 is capable of ~690kph. However, the La-9 will still hold the climb / acceleration advantage, and will win out in maneuverability. You have to take the fight up to ~8km before you start to get any kind of meaningful performance advantage. That's what you get when you pit a 1945 plane vs a 1947 plane. Firstly, I would need to see some actual evidence that the P-47s are not doing what they should do. Your anecdotal claims do not count as evidence. Secondly, it's true that the P-47's engine was incredibly powerful, but it only worked in conjunction with the P-47s turbo supercharger. The combination of the two made the P-47s the largest and heaviest single engine propfighters ever built. Being large creates a lot of drag, which slows you down, and being heavy reduces your climb rate and acceleration. The P-47M had 30% more horsepower than an La-9, but it had ~100% more mass, and it's frontal profile was almost twice as large as well. These all work against the P-47 despite its incredibly powerful engine.
  47. I'd be interested in seeing a replay. Also, to the OP, are you sure it wasn't an La-9 that chased you down? I just perused through your replays, and found one instance from yesterday where you were flying the P-47M. What happened in the replay is almost exactly what you stated here, except it was an La-9 that followed you in a dive instead of an I-185.
  48. I think before we start calling out UFO / broken flight models, we need to see a replay of the incident. I think it's also important to consider that, during WW2 when pilots were talking about the P-47's exceptional diving capabilities, they were considering several factors and they were also used to a different standard. That is to say, IRL once you were outside of 500m of your enemy, the odds of you being hit were much lower than they are in game, where you have to get close to 1000m before you can really feel safe. You have to extend from your enemy nearly twice as far, and for twice as long (if not more), which really nerfs the effectiveness of using speed as a strength. If I were to bet money, I would say the game actually models dives quite realistically, and the OP was actually experiencing realistic dive performance; accelerating away from his enemy, but the rate of separation just wasn't fast enough with the incredibly unrealistic weapon accuracy mouse aim provides to players at longer ranges. We need to see a replay, though, before we start jumping to conclusions.