I once worked in the airshow circuit and happened to meet some really interesting old pilots, one of which was a "Jug" head. One of the things he told me is that improper fuel usage can severely impact the performance of the aircraft. Supposedly, you were to take off on the main fuel tank, then immediately switch to the aux tank (located between the pilot and the engine) until it was drained. If you did not do this, the CG of the aircraft would be too far forward and speed and turning performance would be significantly diminished. Another thing was the concept of WEP: the R2800 uses an air-water type radiator intercooler, so maximum power was restricted to 5 minutes to keep the intercooler from overheating. When you backed off the power, it gives the intercooler a chance to cool down, so you can go back up to WEP after a minute or two of cooling off time. The problem was, there was no indicator for this temperature so you had to feel how the motor was operating and know when it was safe to go on or off WEP. He said that he could hear and feel if the engine was starting to ping and lead to detonation, so he would power back as soon as the ping started.
With the P-47, P-51, and exceedingly more so with the 262 coming out to play in Bodenplatte, I would be very surprised if: 1 - AI bomber formations at ~10,000m+ doesn’t become a part of IL-2’s meta. 2 - Bodenplatte’s map isn’t big enough to facilitate that sort of gameplay. This would be a big switch from the way 777 has been going thus far though, especially with their tank integration forcing attention lower rather than higher. But things could get a little wacky without an incentive to get the planes up to those high altitudes. Bodenplatte is closely tied with the Battle of the Bulge; in fact without the poor weather conditions they would’ve directly coincided (which would’ve been insane to watch from a soldier’s perspective, might I add!) The simple fact is that if there are historical objectives for planes in this campaign, they are either: Scout for friendly troop positions in the forests so C-47s can drop supplies, and escort them doing so, Attack the retreating German army or the advancing US army, Protect your forward operating airfields from the Bodenplatte counterattack, OR escort the aforementioned bomber formations as they pass over the Bodenplatte play area on their way to western German targets like Frankfurt or Stuttgart. I’m very interested to see what they do with the rest of Bodenplatte’s development, and will happily watch your content on it. Great to see your continued coverage!
The P-47 is second only to the Mosquito as the most versatile aircraft in WW2. I had the pleasure of meeting a WW2 Vet who flew P-47's in Italy. He flew P-51's as well but liked the Jug more. He always knew he would make it back to base. The Jug is my favorite fighter of WW2.
They should add the 4 engine bombers. They used to have them in their older games. People could make very interesting scenarios with them and create those high altitude fights.
Magz! Scrublord! you DONT gain ammo for the remaining guns when you remove the others. This is not the P-40. only way to increase ammoload is to use the extra ammo upgrade. :P P.S. close your cowl, do you not see the sign in the cockpit stating it is never to be opened at 225+ mph
I'm pretty sure he means rounds per gun. If the total ammo load stays the same but the gun count drops by half, the remaining guns have double the ammo per gun available
@@MikeGoesBoom he says "the guns are removed, but the ammo for them isn't" that is only true for the P-40, on the P-47 the ammo does get removed. ammo load does NOT stay the same
I honestly wouldn’t be too surprised if they patch it later to make the ammo work like the P-40, unless there’s some important historical reason why that wouldn’t have been possible on the real P-47. Removing solely for weight seems like something nobody would actually choose to do unless you’re dead set on climbing to 10,000m right away. Until a “protect the B-17 formation” sort of strategic air war tactic is integrated, there’s not a huge incentive to climb up into the P-47’s sweet spot anyway.
Thank you for the fuel info; it will help. I had already started to reduce my fuel load a bit to get better performance out of the ol' gal. I still need to watch the last of the P-47 training videos I downloaded from the Internet Archives.
The model looks absolutely gorgeous, and in a brief test flight it handled beautifully. It looks like the normal maximum manifold pressure is set up at 52 inches of mercury (or thereabouts), and boosted mode makes the full 64 inches of mercury available. This corresponds with historical figures quite nicely. I would like to point out, though, that neither of these should be connected to running the turbine at overspeed RPM. It's true that there was an option to run the turbine at overspeed for 15 minutes. However this was not actually done (nor was it required) to run the engine at WEP mode. The P-47D-28 might still have a 15 minute continuous limit for the WEP mode (64 inches of mercury), but it should have no relation to the turbine overspeed time limit at all. The way the turbine worked was to supply the engine with air pressurized to sea level conditions (1 atm pressure). In order to regulate turbine speed, a valve was used to either direct exhaust gases to the turbine (increasing its RPM and thus the compression level), or allow exhaust gas to exit the system before entering the ducting that would lead it to the turbine. At sea level, almost all exhaust was directed away from the turbine, and the whole system only spun enough to allow neutral airflow through the compressor. As altitude increased and ambient air pressure dropped, more exhaust gases would be directed to the turbine to offset the difference, and keep providing the engine with 1 atm pressurized air. So when the aircraft climbed higher and higher, the turbine RPM was increased until it reached its normal operating limit. This defined the critical altitude for the P-47, and it was usually somewhere around 6-8 km depending on the exact engine model and configuration. I believe the later P-47M and N-models had slightly lower critical altitude, but more overall power. The turbine overspeed mode was available to the pilot, but it was only ever useful for forcing the aircraft to maintain maximum power at altitudes higher than the normal critical altitude. By allowing the turbine to run at overspeed, it was possible to increase the pressurization provided by the turbine - hence delivering 1 atm air supply to the engine at altitudes higher than the normal rated critical altitude. This could be used to outclimb or outspeed the enemy aircraft at really high altitudes - but that's about it. Running the turbine at overspeed at or below critical altitude would have accomplished nothing. It wouldn't increase the manifold pressure over what the aircraft was set up to use - the automatic boost pressure regulators would kick in and limit it to either 52 inHg or 64 inHg, depending on engine mode. You would just be spinning the turbine at overspeed for no gain at all. By the way - the Bf 109 K-4 is a *beast*, especially with the DB 605DC engine mod. At full throttle, it's like being strapped onto a rocket - the climbing ability feels quite extreme.
DC engine AFAIK was only available march 1945. The equivalent P-47 at this time would be a P-47M. Also, the devs did not model 150 octane fuel - which was used - meaning the performance is worse than it could be.
@@kailae3269 Not sure what to make of your comment. The P-47D-28 here certainly seems to be using high octane fuel because it's running 64 inches of manifold pressure (the requirement for this power setting was high octane fuel). You couldn't use more than 52 inches of manifold pressure without using high octane fuel, so certainly that's modeled in this simulator. The P-47M/N used an engine that was set up for even higher manifold pressure (72 inches of mercury, if I recall right), and they too required high octane fuel. As for the Bf 109K: The DB 605DB and DC engines were literally the same powerplant, the only difference being a few turns of a screwdriver to adjust the fuel configuration settings. The 605DB was configured to run at 1.8ata manifold pressure with either C3 grade fuel alone, or B4 fuel with MW-50 anti-detonant injection fluid. The 605DC was the same engine configured to run at 1.98ata with C3 fuel and MW-50. With that in mind, the K-4 and G-10 used both DB 605DB and 605DC engines, simply depending on fuel availability. However, this is only the technical availability. In practice, there may well have been things like RLM not authorizing the use of DB 605D engines with the higher manifold pressure settings (with C3 + MW-50 fuel combination). I don't know if there's a particular date limit on when this option was authorized, but even after that, the atrocious supply situation would have limited the available options. In practice, the few Luftwaffe units that were still flying in March 1945 would have used whatever fuel was available, and if MW-50 was available that was just sheer luxury.
@@kailae3269 Certainly, but to me it seems like the P-47D-28 here is already using 64 inches of manifold pressure, which to my best knowledge was the highest manifold pressure ratings that were commonly used during WW2 in Europe, at least in operative use. If 130 octane fuel was already sufficient for that, and they never really used higher manifold pressures for this particular aircraft, what difference does it make? Using 150 octane fuel at 64 inches would make about the same amount of power as using 130 octane fuel at 64 inches manifold pressure. There's no significant difference in energy content, just compression tolerance. High octane fuel is not some kind of magic juice that makes your engine produce more power. That only happens if the engine is set up to take advantage of the higher octane rating - by increasing the manifold pressure. If the engine ratings don't change, then 130 octane fuel makes practically the same power as 150 octane fuel. Logistically, it may have made a lot of sense for all aircraft to use 150 octane fuel, though. After all, they used other aircraft which did require 150/100 octane fuel to run at their highest power settings - P-51D for example. If you only have to ship one type of fuel for your aircraft, it makes things much simpler. Secondly, just using one type of fuel reduces the risk of aircraft being fueled with incorrect fuel and suffering detonations in-flight, possibly wrecking the engine and losing the aircraft. The Allies didn't exactly have shortages of fuel, so they could probably afford this at the late stage of the war. Finally, running at 150 octane fuel instead of 130 octane gives a bit more comfortable "buffer" between safe engine operating at maximum power, and suffering a detonation if you happen to run into abnormally warm air for example.
I am very happy to see the jug in IL2, sure its not this absolute beast people seem to think it is but man she is beautiful and just such a joy to fly. I think its my overall favorite prop aircraft ever made and when those K4's shoot me down, atleast I'll look pretty while im helpless.
As someone who loves the Fw-190 and Bf-109's I have to say that the Spitfire Mk.IXe and the P-47D have to be my favorite additions to this game, I can't wait for the Mustang, Tempest Mk.V and the 190 D-9.
In game it says about 4.5 gallons/min at combat settings, thats 17 liters. 15min combatpower consumes about 260 liters. Where did you pull that 28 liters at cruise?
Hey Magz, what is the crosshair sight that sticks up to the left of the main gyro gunsight? Is that some sort of lead indicator, or is it just Incase your main gunsight goes out? I’ve always wondered this.
Now only if I could go all in and just get late war API ammo. Or or a P-47M. That would also be cool. Also HVARs so I can uh be extra with using 127mm Rockets against everything
Magz Ill ask you, after watching a decent amount of 47 gameplay, and one thing alot of people were noting is how "fragile" the plane is. Granted 30mms and 20mms will destroy a plane regardless, but how do you feel on this issue?
I feel the opposite, As I said I got a good working over by a 109's 20's on my first flight and the Jug just kept jugging. At the moment there are a great number of 30mm armed Germans in the sky and I think the misconception about the Jugs durability is coming from people that have somehow come to believe that the Jug could take belts of 30mm and survive. A single 30mm Minengeschoß shell will blow a hole the size of basketball in the wing of any aircraft regardless of what it is, It's a near fatal blow every time. I find the durability to be as expected.
Hi great to see the Jug in Il-2 ! As I was absent for a few months on this sim: hows the status of Il-2 battle of bodenplattle ? Is the bop map and the jug already available in early access ? I have the initial Il-2 BOS (steam version ) and am very interested in bodenplatte .. when can I play bop ? Cheers
The p47D in War Thunder you say? Reminds me of a story... I did not like war thunder and it's ridiculousness. But I had a friend who LOVED it and begged me to play it one more time promising I'd have a great experience. I finally relented and logged in to humor my friend. We took up on the ally side. I used the best I had available which I think was something like the F4F (I think, it's been a while). My friend used something similar. We queued, match found, took off and went hunting. The GERMAN team came into view at super high altitude, and I'm being completely serious here, the entire GERMAN team was flying p47Ds. The axis were flying later model american planes vs early war ally planes. I'm sure you can guess how the match went. Needless to say, I uninstalled WT after this and haven't looked at it since.
im kinda torn on the jug atm. i feel like for the reasons you mentioned its not worth it to use as a fighter over the lighter and more fuel efficient p51 and the other british planes. and in the ground attack role i would much rather pick the a20 as it can carry a larger payload. but for what its worth the jug isnt that bad
American engineering at its finest. =D Cant wait to see the 'stang in the game though. That old gal has got to be my favorite all time aircraft, second ONLY to the C-47.
@@jowenjv4463 Well that big fat ugly yogurt cup can also dive at over 500 mp/h, and carry enough ordnance to level a city block and make the A-20 green with envy, and STILL be able to go toe to toe with some of Germany's finest aircraft of the time. So yeah. 'Murica!
A friend of mine flew Mustangs, they were still using them in the Korean war though mostly as ground support. His last plane was a twin engine Cessna. Really nice, smooth and powerful,(but no rocket mounts). He decided to quit flying one day when he was landing at his little grass strip by the lake ...and forgot to put the gear down. Kind of an "Oh Shit" moment when you expect to feel the wheels touch and they aren't there. He did an excellent belly landing, walked away and sold what was left.
What's the default commands to link the supercharger and prop pitch to the throttle? I'm one button short but don't see how the functions are described in the settings.
I'm considering getting into IL-2, and I have a joystick (logitech 3d pro), but do I need track IR and rudder pedals to be competitive? Or can I have a good control setup without spending a ton of money? Magz or someone else with IL-2 experience, please let me know what you think. Awesome video by the way Magz! Love your channel.
That 3d pro and a bit of practice using the mouse to look around while flying is all you need. Track IR and pedals are nice and I do sand by them but they are not required at all.
To be COMPETITIVE, i.e. to go against other players I think you need something more than just that logitech 3d pro, mate. I have that exact setup, and I have no business going onto multiplayer servers, I get shot down in a matter of seconds. I'm not sure how they do it, all I know is that everyone there seems capable of seeing me from miles away and hitting me from 500 meters no problem. I can't do any of that, and I've been playing these more realistic sims with an affordable joystick and no tracking devices since SWOTL back in the early 90's.
Another game that gives us the P-47 bubble top. What do these developers have against the Razorback? When the Jug was being used as an Escort Fighter by the 8th AF they were Razorbacks. The Mustangs (P-51B/C & D) had arrived and P-47s had been relegated to ground attack roles with the 9th AF by the time there were enough bubble canopies to make a difference. Someday I’ll get my favorite Jug in a game. I hope. ;-)
*"What do these developers have against the Razorback?"* - Nothing, Operation Bodenplatte (the operation this expansion is based on) Started on 1 January 1945, By this time all razorback P-47's were out of service. IL-2 explanations are all set around a particular battle or operation and the aircraft within them are all aircraft that were in service in that location at that time. If you want a razorback you'll need to be hoping for a 1942 based expansion based around a battle or operation involving the 56th Fighter Group out of England.
@@MagzGTV I'm sure there were many older Razorback Thunderbolts still in service by the end of WW2, both in Europe and elsewhere. The first bubble top Thunderbolt was the D-25, which started its combat service in May 1944. War in Europe ended in May 1945. Considering the sheer amount of Razorback Thunderbolts in service, it's almost inconceivable to imagine that all of them would have been phased out and replaced with bubble top Thunderbolts - especially as the R-2800 engines could usually be field upgraded to practically identical specification as the later models had.
@@HerraTohtori "I'm sure there were many older Razorback Thunderbolts still in service by the end of WW2" - Sure, But none in direct front line service which is from where the aircraft for the IL-2 expansions are picked (Pretty sure all front line squadrons operating the Jug had transitioned to the D model by late 43 early 44). There were 41 model IL-2's still operating in 45 during the push on Berlin but if you did a Russian based battle of Berlin expansion you wouldn't pick a 41 model as one of the five aircraft for Russia, you would pick the newest model available at the time and you would pick the 41 model for a 41 based expansion as we see already. I am sure if an early war expansion is done based around a battle that had B-C model jugs in operation they will be added, I was more pointing out that there is nothing against them it's just not the operation for them this time.
@MagzTV I wasn’t specifically questioning the inclusion of the D-28 in this module, just wondering why neither this game nor War Thunder have included any model of the Razorback Thunderbolt. War Thunder particularly seems to have skipped a historically significant variant while including large numbers of bizarre prototypes and the ridiculous captured aircraft.
This morning, I have been watching videos on comparisons between the D 28 and the K 4. So, when you stated the D 28 is over rated or exaggerated in WT, is very true. The K4 in IL2 walks all over the D 28. Now, for off topic: Two years ago you unpackaged the Thrustmaster T - 160000M FCS joystick and throttle in a video. No where have I found any You Tube video where any You Tuber has ever done a follow up video of the Thrustmaster T -160000 M. Could you do a follow up video please. Did you keep it or return it. Did you like or hate it. Two years later, I just ordered the T 16000M, as the Logitech 3D Pro I have been using for the past 5 years has finally developed issues and it was more prudent in my mind to just order a new Joystick. It would be nice to know how you, You Tubers found the T 16000M after using it. My T 16000M will be here in a week. The reviews I have been reading on Amazon is that it is far more sensitive and far more suited for Combat Flight Simulators than the 3D Pro. What is your opinion.
Two years later I still use it, I have another joystick now as my main. The VKB sim Gladiator II but I use the T.16000m in left hand config as both my thruster control left hand stick for duel stick space combat and for operation of the radar systems in aircraft such as Viggen. Still like it, Still consider it to be a fantastic stick overall, I just moved up a tier of Joystick and I will probably be moving up another tier from the Gladiator II at some point next year.
First of all - thank you very much for your speedy response. I must admit, one of the big selling point on the T - 16000M is the fact I can use it left handed. My biggest issue with flying simulator was me being left handed and forced to use a right hand stick. For that part of it at least, I am excited about the T 16000M. Personally, I believe it will help my flight performance immensely with now, being able to use the correct hand to maneuver a plane. Knowing me, I will probably being flying the K4 far more than the D 28. I always drift towards the 109s in IL2. :) Thanks again for your quick response to my inquiry.
@@dr.michaelr.foreman2170 I have a T.16000m since 5 years, and I bought the TWCS throttle alone 2 years ago. Good products for acceptable price. I can recommend it. But I'll like to share with you some drawbacks of the T.16000m : - not many USABLE buttons. I do DCS, Il-2 and BMS. Trust me, in some situations the lack of well placed buttons are pain in the ass (specially in BMS which is far more demanding than DCS in many situations). - Stick is often drifting on the board, maybe you would do a system to prevent this little disagrement. - And I finish with by far the WORST feature of this joystick : this fucking base green/orange light. Fuck it ! In night missions in BMS i just can't see my screen because of this fucking green light reflecting on it ! That's the biggest drawback for me ! I put some shaterton scotch on it but still, you wont have to do this on a 50 buck product. Anyway, cheers.
Yes. Many have complained about the annoying light. However, it appears the manufacturers have no intention of removing it despite all the complaints. Here is the selling point for me which out weighs any other issue: I play WT and IL2 and my current joystick for 5 years has been a Logitech 3D Pro. First of all, it is right handed, and only right handed - I am left handed. This means I do not have the control and dexterity with this or any other right handed joy stick. Thus, the fact the Thrustmaster can be switched into a left handed stick, means I will no longer be flying handicapped. I will be flying with my correct hand and have more control over the stick. To me, and any other lefty, that is the biggest selling point that Logitech and every other manufacturer left off the table. For me then: I will take that damn annoying as hell light, as a trade off for being a better pilot and kicking more ass in the sky. Seems like a great trade off to me.
@@dr.michaelr.foreman2170 I think you put waaay too much importance into the fact that you're left handed. For exemple, F-16 flight controls are a joystick on the right side panel. So it can be manipulated only by the right hand. I bet there are plenty of left handed F-16 pilots. It's not a problem. In real life, I work on Mirage 2000, and I can tell you that it's joystick is only made for right hand. It's very uncomfortable to use it with the left hand even for some short manipulation. Pretty much all combat aircraft have the same design : flight control on the right hand, and throttle on the left hand. So it's basically not a problem. I have no trackir, my right hand is on the joystick, and I have my mouse into my left hand. I controll the camera and i click on the cockpit buttons in DCS and BMS. I learned to use it with the left hand. And trust me : you need way more dexterity for tiping datas into the F-16's DED than for using you stick in a dogfight. I suggest you to not put aside a really good joystick like a warthog just because you're left handed, adapt yourself. Anyway, that's just my opinion, cheers.
I definitely think i would drop 2 of the guns but mabie not 4. pare that with some good ground attack capabilities and I can fly multi role missions with lots of up time which is what i like. Long missions whit lots of engagements.
They should give this plane its historical 70”Hg, not the 64”Hg it’s limited to in IL-2. (The D-28 in War Thunder has 70”Hg, which is partly why it has worse performance than in WT).
Me 262. So looking forward to Bodenplatte so i can fly the 262 i wonder if it will have the throttle issues that early jets had of needing to be very gentle on the accel/deccel to make sure you didnt destroy the engines. Not to mention ya know been a 262 against props and not a 262 against sabres and migs... looking at you WAR THUNDER.
Eh, the russians already have to be good at evading boom n zoom. The 262 will most likely not have a great turn radius, and low fuel load. I feel like all you have to do is evade until they break off and head to the airfield. That is thr moment when the 262 will be at thr most vulnerable.
The worst plane you can meet when flying an Japanese Fighter in IL2 1946 (+ SAS mega mods) Well unless you a sitting in an J5M5 Raiden "Jack" fighter (Godly Interceptor) They made an P-47 version for catching V-1 flying bombs, its fast very fast.
The P-47 is WT is exaggerated? The P-47 in IL-2 is worse!? XD Yah I was a little disappointed by its straight and level top speed, which was about 300ish mph for how I had it configured. Expected it to be way higher at least. Its only advantage over other planes; speed, only happens in dives. Which I find irritating. Accurate. But irritating. This is a ground pounder and bomber interceptor. I wouldn't want 109s anywhere near me in this. But its so nice to fly.
"The P-47 is WT is exaggerated? The P-47 in IL-2 is worse!? XD" - No it's not, The P-47 in WT can dive out to max speed while maintaining near perfect stability for precision shooting. The IL-2 one can not. The P-47 in WT can maneuver like a fighter half it's size, the IL-2 version can not. The P-47 in WT can maintain energy while maneuvering with limited loss, the IL-2 version can not. The WT P-47 FM is based on numbers that Gaijin has refused to share with the public, the IL-2 FM is based on real world performance information that is both displayed on the forums available to everyone and is sourced with those sources being listed so anyone can double check the FM data themselves. And in spite of all of this the P-47 in WT gets to play with aircraft significantly less powerful than it, The IL-2 version does not. . . "Which I find irritating. Accurate. But irritating." - Yes, and that's how it should be. Arcade games can play funny buggers with history and aircraft performance all they want but a sim should be accurate no matter how many people may not like it.
@@MagzGTV BnZ just isn't my thing. And there are too many factors in real life that you just can't replicate in games. Fear of losing your life probably being the biggest. And most of the time, turn and burn, fast accelerating planes tend to just be the best and the easiest to play in these kinds of games. Simply put, for most people, the P-47 sucks. Spitfires and planes like it dominate. Because its point and click. Flying planes like the P-47 require some actual effort to play. And why bother with that if you can just point and click? Turn and burn? Snipe with cannons? Not issues in single player games, where the situations can be more historical and realistic. Which usually isn't fair. I hate the P-47 in Warthunder. Your good for maybe one kill before you either get caught in some turning situation, or you spend the rest of the match (and that's another thing, match times. Not even an issue in Il-2) trying to climb back to a reasonable hight to make ONE good attack... or you can just load up a Spitfire or a Yak and turn and burn all day with anything you can grab, or farm ground targets and get points and have a remote chance of defending yourself. Because at the end of the day in WT, that's the whole point. Unlocking the next plane. There are easier planes to fly, more profitable things to do than helping your "team", and just better games to play in general. I'm not saying the P-47 In Il-2 isn't accurate. Its probably the most accurate model of a P-47 in any game. And I like that. BUT... and it's a HUGE but... you can actually use it properly in IL-2, in the right situations, and not against trollish human players that yolo you for points because their grinding and don't care just like you. Planes like the Firebrand, probably the worst plane in WT, would be just fine in a game like Il-2, because you could use it in realistic situations, against bots programmed to behave like real pilots (affected by gee forces, afraid for their lives, and have their views restricted by armor etc) and could just enjoy flying the plane in general. So don't get me wrong. I just hate Warthunder. I hate everything about it. And I'm glad we're seeing more interesting planes in Il-2.
@@m0ther_bra1ned12 **"BnZ just isn't my thing"** - And that's fine, Everything you put after that is just your personal experience as someone who doesn't like BnZ and is not a reflection of actual performance of the aircraft both by itself or within the community in which it is played or of the players that choose to fly it for which BnZ is their thing. For example **"Your good for maybe one kill before you either get caught in some turning situation, or you spend the rest of the match (and that's another thing, match times. Not even an issue in Il-2) trying to climb back to a reasonable hight"** - if this statement was true for everyone the P-47 in WT would not be one of the most complained about aircraft in the game and would not be the aircraft with the single highest KDR across the community and yet it is both of these things. BnZ not being your thing just means you perform poorly in it which is fine. Others however do not which is also why the premium P-47's are the most owned premium aircraft in the game next to the D-13 (another BnZ aircraft) by Gaijins own admission. Also I am not sure where you are going with the rest of this, I mean **"I'm not saying the P-47 In Il-2 isn't accurate. Its probably the most accurate model of a P-47 in any game."** directly contradicts your opening comment of **"The P-47 is WT is exaggerated? The P-47 in IL-2 is worse!? XD"** So I guess you actually agree with what I am saying, in which case I'll leave it there.
@@MagzGTV I think he means worse performing rather than a "worse"/less realistic FM. Just a thought as il-2 is obviously much more of sim than WT. Or he could just be stupid but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt
27 seconds for a 360 would be Russian data: It's nonsense... In reality it reversed a 109G in 3-4 360s on the deck, and matched it with two 1000 pound bombs... Osprey, "P-47 Thunderbolt units of the 12th Air Force"p.32: That afternoon, the 87th FS took off (16 aircrafts) with 32 X 1000 lbs bombs underwing to add to the destruction in Acquapedente. Target: Acquapedente bridges. "A flight of 15 Me-109s and 5 FW-190s was encountered. One section kept the fighters occupied while the remainder attacked the bridges. Three enemy fighters were destroyed for one of ours damaged. A gratifying result of this engagement was that a P-47, not considered a low-altitude aircraft, can maneuver advantageously with Me-109s almost on the deck, even though under the handicap of being on a bomb run." (2 X 1000 lbs of bombs underwing) See my videos as to the theory why.
I kicked IL2 in to touch after BoS. What's the state of online play these days, chaps? Much in the way of server population, or is it as dead as CLOD? I miss the Hyperlobby days :(
Mags, the aircraft speed shouldn't change at all with fuel. The acceleration should get worse, stall would get worse, but not max speed. Are you sure you didn't do something wrong? You're flying with the cowl flaps open in this video which is verboten for example.
Increased weight typically does decrease top speed as well. The effect isn't as notable as it is on climb rate and turn rate, but the simple fact that you need more lift for a heavier aircraft means you're also producing more lift-induced drag, which slows you down.
What @@HerraTohtori said. More weight requires a higher AoA to produce the same lift at a given speed which is where you get more induced drag. More weight = Lower top speed and lower acceleration for any given aircraft.
"Are you sure you didn't do something wrong? You're flying with the cowl flaps open in this video which is verboten for example." - I've been doing nothing but flying the jug for the last two days (part of the reason there was no video yesterday) in order to test the aircraft and compare against the listed performance. The background video here is just one MP battle that I happened to record for the express purpose of being background footage, yes I am sure and yes you can jump into the aircraft and test this for yourself if you wish at any time.
@@MagzGTV I haven't really tested top speeds, but I did take her for a high speed dive (530 mph IAS) and when the cowling flaps were closed manually, there was no shaking, the aircraft was smooth as butter, no buffeting or vibrations, and quite controllable as well. Opening the cowling flaps would cause significant shaking, even at much lower speeds. So it looks like 777 have actually modeled the high speed turbulence from open cowling flaps affecting the aircraft's tail control surfaces.
I hate how bad they Nerf the 50's in these games specially war thunder. no ww2 put more lead down range per sec then the p47. 35 to 40 lbs. of lead a sec. when those 8 ma deuces are singing
If those sea level max speed values are correct, then the P-47 is grossly underperforming. Combat power, clean airframe, with full fuel should be around 540kph, and War Emergency Power should be around 580kph. Being barely capable of reaching 500kph is far too low
@@Surpriseify I forgot that the P-47 in IL2 is only 65"HG WEP. I don't know why flight sim developers insist on gimping US planes. In reality, the P-47D flew most of its service life at 65"HG dry WEP (or military power), and 70"HG wet WEP. With gimped settings, it seems accurate, although I didn't realize how much of a tub the P-47 was at military power. www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html
The Jug is here! I'll be taking a look at the 109 K4 in the next few days as well, want a little more time with her.
If it was shaking in high speed dive you prob had cowling or intercooler intake open. It don't shake when your cowls and doors are set right. Normal.
You deserve to earn money of this really good video
She protec, she attac, but most importantly she no razorbac
Toby Wood that’d be cool if the razorback was a modification that could be unlocked, kinda like how it was a field kit
@@brendanzio Razorback was neat, but it limited visibility... no bueno in the unfriendly skies. =)
The Razorback is now available tho :D
I once worked in the airshow circuit and happened to meet some really interesting old pilots, one of which was a "Jug" head. One of the things he told me is that improper fuel usage can severely impact the performance of the aircraft. Supposedly, you were to take off on the main fuel tank, then immediately switch to the aux tank (located between the pilot and the engine) until it was drained. If you did not do this, the CG of the aircraft would be too far forward and speed and turning performance would be significantly diminished.
Another thing was the concept of WEP: the R2800 uses an air-water type radiator intercooler, so maximum power was restricted to 5 minutes to keep the intercooler from overheating. When you backed off the power, it gives the intercooler a chance to cool down, so you can go back up to WEP after a minute or two of cooling off time. The problem was, there was no indicator for this temperature so you had to feel how the motor was operating and know when it was safe to go on or off WEP. He said that he could hear and feel if the engine was starting to ping and lead to detonation, so he would power back as soon as the ping started.
With the P-47, P-51, and exceedingly more so with the 262 coming out to play in Bodenplatte, I would be very surprised if:
1 - AI bomber formations at ~10,000m+ doesn’t become a part of IL-2’s meta.
2 - Bodenplatte’s map isn’t big enough to facilitate that sort of gameplay.
This would be a big switch from the way 777 has been going thus far though, especially with their tank integration forcing attention lower rather than higher. But things could get a little wacky without an incentive to get the planes up to those high altitudes.
Bodenplatte is closely tied with the Battle of the Bulge; in fact without the poor weather conditions they would’ve directly coincided (which would’ve been insane to watch from a soldier’s perspective, might I add!) The simple fact is that if there are historical objectives for planes in this campaign, they are either:
Scout for friendly troop positions in the forests so C-47s can drop supplies, and escort them doing so,
Attack the retreating German army or the advancing US army,
Protect your forward operating airfields from the Bodenplatte counterattack,
OR escort the aforementioned bomber formations as they pass over the Bodenplatte play area on their way to western German targets like Frankfurt or Stuttgart.
I’m very interested to see what they do with the rest of Bodenplatte’s development, and will happily watch your content on it. Great to see your continued coverage!
A P47 squad with a bomb loadout + some fighter escort, will destroy enemy ground targets like no tomorow.
The P-47 is second only to the Mosquito as the most versatile aircraft in WW2.
I had the pleasure of meeting a WW2 Vet who flew P-47's in Italy.
He flew P-51's as well but liked the Jug more.
He always knew he would make it back to base.
The Jug is my favorite fighter of WW2.
crazy to think it weight as much as a friggin He 111
They should add the 4 engine bombers. They used to have them in their older games. People could make very interesting scenarios with them and create those high altitude fights.
Original American afaik they're making an AI only B25, will probably make it player flyable like they did with the ju52
@@-ruttley3457 B25 is not a four engine bomber
@@MacKaris Only after a few drinks 😆
As always, great review, Magz. I appreciate your commentary and straightforward review of aircraft. Looking forward to your K4 review! Cheers!
Best Informative Narration of any other Video on this P-47d
Magz! Scrublord! you DONT gain ammo for the remaining guns when you remove the others. This is not the P-40. only way to increase ammoload is to use the extra ammo upgrade. :P
P.S. close your cowl, do you not see the sign in the cockpit stating it is never to be opened at 225+ mph
I'm pretty sure he means rounds per gun. If the total ammo load stays the same but the gun count drops by half, the remaining guns have double the ammo per gun available
@@MikeGoesBoom he says "the guns are removed, but the ammo for them isn't" that is only true for the P-40, on the P-47 the ammo does get removed. ammo load does NOT stay the same
@@Asgar1205 ah I see, Nvm then o7
I honestly wouldn’t be too surprised if they patch it later to make the ammo work like the P-40, unless there’s some important historical reason why that wouldn’t have been possible on the real P-47. Removing solely for weight seems like something nobody would actually choose to do unless you’re dead set on climbing to 10,000m right away. Until a “protect the B-17 formation” sort of strategic air war tactic is integrated, there’s not a huge incentive to climb up into the P-47’s sweet spot anyway.
Ryan Fleckenstein nope they won’t change it, cause the current behaviour is intended and correct.
A comprehensive and superb review, Magz. Thank you very much.
Thank you for the fuel info; it will help. I had already started to reduce my fuel load a bit to get better performance out of the ol' gal. I still need to watch the last of the P-47 training videos I downloaded from the Internet Archives.
The model looks absolutely gorgeous, and in a brief test flight it handled beautifully. It looks like the normal maximum manifold pressure is set up at 52 inches of mercury (or thereabouts), and boosted mode makes the full 64 inches of mercury available. This corresponds with historical figures quite nicely.
I would like to point out, though, that neither of these should be connected to running the turbine at overspeed RPM. It's true that there was an option to run the turbine at overspeed for 15 minutes. However this was not actually done (nor was it required) to run the engine at WEP mode. The P-47D-28 might still have a 15 minute continuous limit for the WEP mode (64 inches of mercury), but it should have no relation to the turbine overspeed time limit at all.
The way the turbine worked was to supply the engine with air pressurized to sea level conditions (1 atm pressure). In order to regulate turbine speed, a valve was used to either direct exhaust gases to the turbine (increasing its RPM and thus the compression level), or allow exhaust gas to exit the system before entering the ducting that would lead it to the turbine. At sea level, almost all exhaust was directed away from the turbine, and the whole system only spun enough to allow neutral airflow through the compressor. As altitude increased and ambient air pressure dropped, more exhaust gases would be directed to the turbine to offset the difference, and keep providing the engine with 1 atm pressurized air. So when the aircraft climbed higher and higher, the turbine RPM was increased until it reached its normal operating limit.
This defined the critical altitude for the P-47, and it was usually somewhere around 6-8 km depending on the exact engine model and configuration. I believe the later P-47M and N-models had slightly lower critical altitude, but more overall power.
The turbine overspeed mode was available to the pilot, but it was only ever useful for forcing the aircraft to maintain maximum power at altitudes higher than the normal critical altitude. By allowing the turbine to run at overspeed, it was possible to increase the pressurization provided by the turbine - hence delivering 1 atm air supply to the engine at altitudes higher than the normal rated critical altitude. This could be used to outclimb or outspeed the enemy aircraft at really high altitudes - but that's about it.
Running the turbine at overspeed at or below critical altitude would have accomplished nothing. It wouldn't increase the manifold pressure over what the aircraft was set up to use - the automatic boost pressure regulators would kick in and limit it to either 52 inHg or 64 inHg, depending on engine mode. You would just be spinning the turbine at overspeed for no gain at all.
By the way - the Bf 109 K-4 is a *beast*, especially with the DB 605DC engine mod. At full throttle, it's like being strapped onto a rocket - the climbing ability feels quite extreme.
DC engine AFAIK was only available march 1945. The equivalent P-47 at this time would be a P-47M. Also, the devs did not model 150 octane fuel - which was used - meaning the performance is worse than it could be.
@@kailae3269 Not sure what to make of your comment. The P-47D-28 here certainly seems to be using high octane fuel because it's running 64 inches of manifold pressure (the requirement for this power setting was high octane fuel). You couldn't use more than 52 inches of manifold pressure without using high octane fuel, so certainly that's modeled in this simulator. The P-47M/N used an engine that was set up for even higher manifold pressure (72 inches of mercury, if I recall right), and they too required high octane fuel.
As for the Bf 109K: The DB 605DB and DC engines were literally the same powerplant, the only difference being a few turns of a screwdriver to adjust the fuel configuration settings. The 605DB was configured to run at 1.8ata manifold pressure with either C3 grade fuel alone, or B4 fuel with MW-50 anti-detonant injection fluid. The 605DC was the same engine configured to run at 1.98ata with C3 fuel and MW-50. With that in mind, the K-4 and G-10 used both DB 605DB and 605DC engines, simply depending on fuel availability.
However, this is only the technical availability. In practice, there may well have been things like RLM not authorizing the use of DB 605D engines with the higher manifold pressure settings (with C3 + MW-50 fuel combination). I don't know if there's a particular date limit on when this option was authorized, but even after that, the atrocious supply situation would have limited the available options. In practice, the few Luftwaffe units that were still flying in March 1945 would have used whatever fuel was available, and if MW-50 was available that was just sheer luxury.
@@HerraTohtori The difference is that the devs only modeled 130 octane, and not 150. 150 was common by 1945.
@@kailae3269 Certainly, but to me it seems like the P-47D-28 here is already using 64 inches of manifold pressure, which to my best knowledge was the highest manifold pressure ratings that were commonly used during WW2 in Europe, at least in operative use. If 130 octane fuel was already sufficient for that, and they never really used higher manifold pressures for this particular aircraft, what difference does it make?
Using 150 octane fuel at 64 inches would make about the same amount of power as using 130 octane fuel at 64 inches manifold pressure. There's no significant difference in energy content, just compression tolerance. High octane fuel is not some kind of magic juice that makes your engine produce more power. That only happens if the engine is set up to take advantage of the higher octane rating - by increasing the manifold pressure. If the engine ratings don't change, then 130 octane fuel makes practically the same power as 150 octane fuel.
Logistically, it may have made a lot of sense for all aircraft to use 150 octane fuel, though. After all, they used other aircraft which did require 150/100 octane fuel to run at their highest power settings - P-51D for example. If you only have to ship one type of fuel for your aircraft, it makes things much simpler. Secondly, just using one type of fuel reduces the risk of aircraft being fueled with incorrect fuel and suffering detonations in-flight, possibly wrecking the engine and losing the aircraft. The Allies didn't exactly have shortages of fuel, so they could probably afford this at the late stage of the war. Finally, running at 150 octane fuel instead of 130 octane gives a bit more comfortable "buffer" between safe engine operating at maximum power, and suffering a detonation if you happen to run into abnormally warm air for example.
@@HerraTohtori 150 octane is 70" of manifold. See here: www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
Thanks for a great video Magz. Keen for your 109 K4 video, and incredibly excited for the Dora and P38 to be released!!!
I am very happy to see the jug in IL2, sure its not this absolute beast people seem to think it is but man she is beautiful and just such a joy to fly. I think its my overall favorite prop aircraft ever made and when those K4's shoot me down, atleast I'll look pretty while im helpless.
Beautiful plane, excellent video!
Can't wait for the Tempest - the British "big guy".
28 liters per minute. 0.o
Its like driving a chevy blazer
@@Benjamin-tr4jr Or a Chrysler Newport
That's eco cruise in a C172...PER HOUR
As someone who loves the Fw-190 and Bf-109's I have to say that the Spitfire Mk.IXe and the P-47D have to be my favorite additions to this game, I can't wait for the Mustang, Tempest Mk.V and the 190 D-9.
An actual period-current top line American plane in IL-2 Great Battles. Thought I would never live to see the day.
In game it says about 4.5 gallons/min at combat settings, thats 17 liters. 15min combatpower consumes about 260 liters. Where did you pull that 28 liters at cruise?
Informative as always; cheers.
Hey Magz, what is the crosshair sight that sticks up to the left of the main gyro gunsight? Is that some sort of lead indicator, or is it just Incase your main gunsight goes out? I’ve always wondered this.
Backup Ironsight, A lot of WW2 aircraft had them just encase the Gyro failed or was somehow damaged.
Now only if I could go all in and just get late war API ammo.
Or or a P-47M. That would also be cool.
Also HVARs so I can uh be extra with using 127mm Rockets against everything
Great video. Very informative. Thanks
I just love how this game will become the new Janes WWII Fighters. I hope they include a Battle of the Bulge Campaign as well.
Ah, Jane's WW2 fighters...now that takes me back...The hangar, the music, the soothing voice explaining the planes to me.
Operation Bodenplatte was during the Battle of the Bulge, was it not?
shes a big beautiful bird. Really cant wait to take her up for myself
Magz Ill ask you, after watching a decent amount of 47 gameplay, and one thing alot of people were noting is how "fragile" the plane is. Granted 30mms and 20mms will destroy a plane regardless, but how do you feel on this issue?
I feel the opposite, As I said I got a good working over by a 109's 20's on my first flight and the Jug just kept jugging.
At the moment there are a great number of 30mm armed Germans in the sky and I think the misconception about the Jugs durability is coming from people that have somehow come to believe that the Jug could take belts of 30mm and survive. A single 30mm Minengeschoß shell will blow a hole the size of basketball in the wing of any aircraft regardless of what it is, It's a near fatal blow every time.
I find the durability to be as expected.
AN/M2 for aircraft use had a weight about 28kgs, not 50kgs.
Sexy aircraft...
Hi great to see the Jug in Il-2 !
As I was absent for a few months on this sim: hows the status of Il-2 battle of bodenplattle ? Is the bop map and the jug already available in early access ? I have the initial Il-2 BOS (steam version ) and am very interested in bodenplatte .. when can I play bop ? Cheers
The p47D in War Thunder you say? Reminds me of a story...
I did not like war thunder and it's ridiculousness. But I had a friend who LOVED it and begged me to play it one more time promising I'd have a great experience. I finally relented and logged in to humor my friend. We took up on the ally side. I used the best I had available which I think was something like the F4F (I think, it's been a while). My friend used something similar. We queued, match found, took off and went hunting. The GERMAN team came into view at super high altitude, and I'm being completely serious here, the entire GERMAN team was flying p47Ds. The axis were flying later model american planes vs early war ally planes. I'm sure you can guess how the match went. Needless to say, I uninstalled WT after this and haven't looked at it since.
im kinda torn on the jug atm. i feel like for the reasons you mentioned its not worth it to use as a fighter over the lighter and more fuel efficient p51 and the other british planes. and in the ground attack role i would much rather pick the a20 as it can carry a larger payload. but for what its worth the jug isnt that bad
American engineering at its finest. =D
Cant wait to see the 'stang in the game though. That old gal has got to be my favorite all time aircraft, second ONLY to the C-47.
Yep, american ingeneering at it's finest. With a big ugly fat yogurt cup... That's exactly it : american engineering...
@@jowenjv4463 Well that big fat ugly yogurt cup can also dive at over 500 mp/h, and carry enough ordnance to level a city block and make the A-20 green with envy, and STILL be able to go toe to toe with some of Germany's finest aircraft of the time.
So yeah.
'Murica!
A friend of mine flew Mustangs, they were still using them in the Korean war though mostly as ground support.
His last plane was a twin engine Cessna. Really nice, smooth and powerful,(but no rocket mounts). He decided to quit flying one day when he was landing at his little grass strip by the lake ...and forgot to put the gear down. Kind of an "Oh Shit" moment when you expect to feel the wheels touch and they aren't there. He did an excellent belly landing, walked away and sold what was left.
What's the default commands to link the supercharger and prop pitch to the throttle? I'm one button short but don't see how the functions are described in the settings.
I'm considering getting into IL-2, and I have a joystick (logitech 3d pro), but do I need track IR and rudder pedals to be competitive? Or can I have a good control setup without spending a ton of money? Magz or someone else with IL-2 experience, please let me know what you think.
Awesome video by the way Magz! Love your channel.
That 3d pro and a bit of practice using the mouse to look around while flying is all you need. Track IR and pedals are nice and I do sand by them but they are not required at all.
@@MagzGTV thanks!
To be COMPETITIVE, i.e. to go against other players I think you need something more than just that logitech 3d pro, mate. I have that exact setup, and I have no business going onto multiplayer servers, I get shot down in a matter of seconds. I'm not sure how they do it, all I know is that everyone there seems capable of seeing me from miles away and hitting me from 500 meters no problem. I can't do any of that, and I've been playing these more realistic sims with an affordable joystick and no tracking devices since SWOTL back in the early 90's.
Hi magz I'm a bit confused do you have to get the prop pitch to the throttle control.
My favorite plane of all time, if it took them this long to addd because they were making sure they got it right, that is fine by me.
Does reducing the number of 50 cals to 6 or 4 affect the speed an/or handling?
Another game that gives us the P-47 bubble top. What do these developers have against the Razorback? When the Jug was being used as an Escort Fighter by the 8th AF they were Razorbacks. The Mustangs (P-51B/C & D) had arrived and P-47s had been relegated to ground attack roles with the 9th AF by the time there were enough bubble canopies to make a difference.
Someday I’ll get my favorite Jug in a game. I hope. ;-)
Same here I don't care if it has to be the P-47B/C just give me a razorback.
*"What do these developers have against the Razorback?"* - Nothing, Operation Bodenplatte (the operation this expansion is based on) Started on 1 January 1945, By this time all razorback P-47's were out of service. IL-2 explanations are all set around a particular battle or operation and the aircraft within them are all aircraft that were in service in that location at that time.
If you want a razorback you'll need to be hoping for a 1942 based expansion based around a battle or operation involving the 56th Fighter Group out of England.
@@MagzGTV I'm sure there were many older Razorback Thunderbolts still in service by the end of WW2, both in Europe and elsewhere. The first bubble top Thunderbolt was the D-25, which started its combat service in May 1944. War in Europe ended in May 1945. Considering the sheer amount of Razorback Thunderbolts in service, it's almost inconceivable to imagine that all of them would have been phased out and replaced with bubble top Thunderbolts - especially as the R-2800 engines could usually be field upgraded to practically identical specification as the later models had.
@@HerraTohtori "I'm sure there were many older Razorback Thunderbolts still in service by the end of WW2" - Sure, But none in direct front line service which is from where the aircraft for the IL-2 expansions are picked (Pretty sure all front line squadrons operating the Jug had transitioned to the D model by late 43 early 44). There were 41 model IL-2's still operating in 45 during the push on Berlin but if you did a Russian based battle of Berlin expansion you wouldn't pick a 41 model as one of the five aircraft for Russia, you would pick the newest model available at the time and you would pick the 41 model for a 41 based expansion as we see already.
I am sure if an early war expansion is done based around a battle that had B-C model jugs in operation they will be added, I was more pointing out that there is nothing against them it's just not the operation for them this time.
@MagzTV I wasn’t specifically questioning the inclusion of the D-28 in this module, just wondering why neither this game nor War Thunder have included any model of the Razorback Thunderbolt. War Thunder particularly seems to have skipped a historically significant variant while including large numbers of bizarre prototypes and the ridiculous captured aircraft.
In VR this bird is freaking HUGE!
Hey Magz do you know if the SU35, or any new aircraft are coming soon to DCS
Great video...explains a lot. Thank you
I take it she's a boom and zoom fighter?
yes, very much so.
Hey can you tell me more about this game what's this about uses and how much do you think it cost in American dollars
This morning, I have been watching videos on comparisons between the D 28 and the K 4. So, when you stated the D 28 is over rated or exaggerated in WT, is very true. The K4 in IL2 walks all over the D 28. Now, for off topic: Two years ago you unpackaged the Thrustmaster T - 160000M FCS joystick and throttle in a video. No where have I found any You Tube video where any You Tuber has ever done a follow up video of the Thrustmaster T -160000 M. Could you do a follow up video please. Did you keep it or return it. Did you like or hate it. Two years later, I just ordered the T 16000M, as the Logitech 3D Pro I have been using for the past 5 years has finally developed issues and it was more prudent in my mind to just order a new Joystick. It would be nice to know how you, You Tubers found the T 16000M after using it. My T 16000M will be here in a week. The reviews I have been reading on Amazon is that it is far more sensitive and far more suited for Combat Flight Simulators than the 3D Pro. What is your opinion.
Two years later I still use it, I have another joystick now as my main. The VKB sim Gladiator II but I use the T.16000m in left hand config as both my thruster control left hand stick for duel stick space combat and for operation of the radar systems in aircraft such as Viggen.
Still like it, Still consider it to be a fantastic stick overall, I just moved up a tier of Joystick and I will probably be moving up another tier from the Gladiator II at some point next year.
First of all - thank you very much for your speedy response. I must admit, one of the big selling point on the T - 16000M is the fact I can use it left handed. My biggest issue with flying simulator was me being left handed and forced to use a right hand stick. For that part of it at least, I am excited about the T 16000M. Personally, I believe it will help my flight performance immensely with now, being able to use the correct hand to maneuver a plane. Knowing me, I will probably being flying the K4 far more than the D 28. I always drift towards the 109s in IL2. :) Thanks again for your quick response to my inquiry.
@@dr.michaelr.foreman2170 I have a T.16000m since 5 years, and I bought the TWCS throttle alone 2 years ago. Good products for acceptable price. I can recommend it. But I'll like to share with you some drawbacks of the T.16000m :
- not many USABLE buttons. I do DCS, Il-2 and BMS. Trust me, in some situations the lack of well placed buttons are pain in the ass (specially in BMS which is far more demanding than DCS in many situations).
- Stick is often drifting on the board, maybe you would do a system to prevent this little disagrement.
- And I finish with by far the WORST feature of this joystick : this fucking base green/orange light. Fuck it ! In night missions in BMS i just can't see my screen because of this fucking green light reflecting on it ! That's the biggest drawback for me ! I put some shaterton scotch on it but still, you wont have to do this on a 50 buck product.
Anyway, cheers.
Yes. Many have complained about the annoying light. However, it appears the manufacturers have no intention of removing it despite all the complaints. Here is the selling point for me which out weighs any other issue: I play WT and IL2 and my current joystick for 5 years has been a Logitech 3D Pro. First of all, it is right handed, and only right handed - I am left handed. This means I do not have the control and dexterity with this or any other right handed joy stick. Thus, the fact the Thrustmaster can be switched into a left handed stick, means I will no longer be flying handicapped. I will be flying with my correct hand and have more control over the stick. To me, and any other lefty, that is the biggest selling point that Logitech and every other manufacturer left off the table. For me then: I will take that damn annoying as hell light, as a trade off for being a better pilot and kicking more ass in the sky. Seems like a great trade off to me.
@@dr.michaelr.foreman2170 I think you put waaay too much importance into the fact that you're left handed.
For exemple, F-16 flight controls are a joystick on the right side panel. So it can be manipulated only by the right hand. I bet there are plenty of left handed F-16 pilots. It's not a problem.
In real life, I work on Mirage 2000, and I can tell you that it's joystick is only made for right hand. It's very uncomfortable to use it with the left hand even for some short manipulation.
Pretty much all combat aircraft have the same design : flight control on the right hand, and throttle on the left hand. So it's basically not a problem.
I have no trackir, my right hand is on the joystick, and I have my mouse into my left hand. I controll the camera and i click on the cockpit buttons in DCS and BMS. I learned to use it with the left hand. And trust me : you need way more dexterity for tiping datas into the F-16's DED than for using you stick in a dogfight. I suggest you to not put aside a really good joystick like a warthog just because you're left handed, adapt yourself. Anyway, that's just my opinion, cheers.
And now we wait for the Mustang
That was very informative. Might go buy the girl
ASo... shiny! soo beautiful!
the p47 in the aerospace museum near my house has that livery.is it special?
It seems to have a sound issue when you look over your shoulder; even with the canopy closed the air stream sounds like you have it open.
This is from using the audio from the recording file(in game recording), and not from direct gameplay
OLD OUTRO YES!
still kinda sad big birds like the Lancaster, B-17 or even something like the Mosquito aren't in this :(
Just think how much ammo you'll be able to carry if you take out all the guns!
What boost is it running at in IL2?
Can you post a tutorial on keybindings, turbo mixture, rpm, boost?
Yesss more il2
I definitely think i would drop 2 of the guns but mabie not 4. pare that with some good ground attack capabilities and I can fly multi role missions with lots of up time which is what i like. Long missions whit lots of engagements.
What is going on with the artificial horizon at 8:00?
by Prop Pitch do you mean RPM or Prop Pitch
They should give this plane its historical 70”Hg, not the 64”Hg it’s limited to in IL-2. (The D-28 in War Thunder has 70”Hg, which is partly why it has worse performance than in WT).
Me 262. So looking forward to Bodenplatte so i can fly the 262 i wonder if it will have the throttle issues that early jets had of needing to be very gentle on the accel/deccel to make sure you didnt destroy the engines. Not to mention ya know been a 262 against props and not a 262 against sabres and migs... looking at you WAR THUNDER.
@Space Cowboy Well if they modeled the drive line issues of the P-39 it would be criminal not to model the finicky engines of the 262.
Eh, the russians already have to be good at evading boom n zoom. The 262 will most likely not have a great turn radius, and low fuel load. I feel like all you have to do is evade until they break off and head to the airfield. That is thr moment when the 262 will be at thr most vulnerable.
So, workhorse not thoroughbred. Cool :)
The worst plane you can meet when flying an Japanese Fighter in IL2 1946 (+ SAS mega mods)
Well unless you a sitting in an J5M5 Raiden "Jack" fighter (Godly Interceptor)
They made an P-47 version for catching V-1 flying bombs, its fast very fast.
amazing how the control surfaces dont move
The P-47 is WT is exaggerated? The P-47 in IL-2 is worse!? XD
Yah I was a little disappointed by its straight and level top speed, which was about 300ish mph for how I had it configured.
Expected it to be way higher at least. Its only advantage over other planes; speed, only happens in dives. Which I find irritating. Accurate. But irritating.
This is a ground pounder and bomber interceptor. I wouldn't want 109s anywhere near me in this. But its so nice to fly.
"The P-47 is WT is exaggerated? The P-47 in IL-2 is worse!? XD" - No it's not,
The P-47 in WT can dive out to max speed while maintaining near perfect stability for precision shooting. The IL-2 one can not.
The P-47 in WT can maneuver like a fighter half it's size, the IL-2 version can not.
The P-47 in WT can maintain energy while maneuvering with limited loss, the IL-2 version can not.
The WT P-47 FM is based on numbers that Gaijin has refused to share with the public, the IL-2 FM is based on real world performance information that is both displayed on the forums available to everyone and is sourced with those sources being listed so anyone can double check the FM data themselves.
And in spite of all of this the P-47 in WT gets to play with aircraft significantly less powerful than it, The IL-2 version does not. . .
"Which I find irritating. Accurate. But irritating." - Yes, and that's how it should be. Arcade games can play funny buggers with history and aircraft performance all they want but a sim should be accurate no matter how many people may not like it.
MagzTV preach brother!!!
@@MagzGTV BnZ just isn't my thing. And there are too many factors in real life that you just can't replicate in games. Fear of losing your life probably being the biggest. And most of the time, turn and burn, fast accelerating planes tend to just be the best and the easiest to play in these kinds of games. Simply put, for most people, the P-47 sucks. Spitfires and planes like it dominate. Because its point and click. Flying planes like the P-47 require some actual effort to play. And why bother with that if you can just point and click? Turn and burn? Snipe with cannons? Not issues in single player games, where the situations can be more historical and realistic. Which usually isn't fair. I hate the P-47 in Warthunder. Your good for maybe one kill before you either get caught in some turning situation, or you spend the rest of the match (and that's another thing, match times. Not even an issue in Il-2) trying to climb back to a reasonable hight to make ONE good attack... or you can just load up a Spitfire or a Yak and turn and burn all day with anything you can grab, or farm ground targets and get points and have a remote chance of defending yourself. Because at the end of the day in WT, that's the whole point. Unlocking the next plane. There are easier planes to fly, more profitable things to do than helping your "team", and just better games to play in general. I'm not saying the P-47 In Il-2 isn't accurate. Its probably the most accurate model of a P-47 in any game. And I like that. BUT... and it's a HUGE but... you can actually use it properly in IL-2, in the right situations, and not against trollish human players that yolo you for points because their grinding and don't care just like you. Planes like the Firebrand, probably the worst plane in WT, would be just fine in a game like Il-2, because you could use it in realistic situations, against bots programmed to behave like real pilots (affected by gee forces, afraid for their lives, and have their views restricted by armor etc) and could just enjoy flying the plane in general. So don't get me wrong. I just hate Warthunder. I hate everything about it. And I'm glad we're seeing more interesting planes in Il-2.
@@m0ther_bra1ned12 **"BnZ just isn't my thing"** - And that's fine, Everything you put after that is just your personal experience as someone who doesn't like BnZ and is not a reflection of actual performance of the aircraft both by itself or within the community in which it is played or of the players that choose to fly it for which BnZ is their thing.
For example
**"Your good for maybe one kill before you either get caught in some turning situation, or you spend the rest of the match (and that's another thing, match times. Not even an issue in Il-2) trying to climb back to a reasonable hight"** - if this statement was true for everyone the P-47 in WT would not be one of the most complained about aircraft in the game and would not be the aircraft with the single highest KDR across the community and yet it is both of these things. BnZ not being your thing just means you perform poorly in it which is fine. Others however do not which is also why the premium P-47's are the most owned premium aircraft in the game next to the D-13 (another BnZ aircraft) by Gaijins own admission.
Also I am not sure where you are going with the rest of this, I mean **"I'm not saying the P-47 In Il-2 isn't accurate. Its probably the most accurate model of a P-47 in any game."** directly contradicts your opening comment of **"The P-47 is WT is exaggerated? The P-47 in IL-2 is worse!? XD"** So I guess you actually agree with what I am saying, in which case I'll leave it there.
@@MagzGTV I think he means worse performing rather than a "worse"/less realistic FM. Just a thought as il-2 is obviously much more of sim than WT. Or he could just be stupid but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt
GABRYSZEWSKI TO BYŁ GOŚĆ
gratulacje nikt oprócz polaków cię nie zrozumie
@@hemoglobiniarz2905 DLA CHCĄCEGO NIEMA NIC TRUDNEGO
27 seconds for a 360 would be Russian data: It's nonsense... In reality it reversed a 109G in 3-4 360s on the deck, and matched it with two 1000 pound bombs... Osprey, "P-47 Thunderbolt units of the 12th Air Force"p.32: That afternoon, the 87th FS took off (16 aircrafts) with 32 X 1000 lbs bombs underwing to add to the destruction in Acquapedente. Target: Acquapedente bridges.
"A flight of 15 Me-109s and 5 FW-190s was encountered. One section kept the fighters occupied while the remainder attacked the bridges. Three enemy fighters were destroyed for one of ours damaged.
A gratifying result of this engagement was that a P-47, not considered a low-altitude aircraft, can maneuver advantageously with Me-109s almost on the deck, even though under the handicap of being on a bomb run." (2 X 1000 lbs of bombs underwing) See my videos as to the theory why.
Anyone know why some ww2 planes have 2 types of gunsights. Tried googling it and couldn't find an answer.
Do you mean the reflector sight and the one out of metal?
@@haubentaucher8382 yep those
@@TheLastOldOne Typically, iron sights were provided as a back-up in case the reflector sight malfunctioned or was disabled during a mission.
@@HerraTohtori I see thanks.
I managed to shoot down an aircraft with the iron sight in a head on while my plane was swiss cheesed many many moon ago. It's fun to use
Can i play on vr?
What map is this
Kuban
I kicked IL2 in to touch after BoS. What's the state of online play these days, chaps? Much in the way of server population, or is it as dead as CLOD? I miss the Hyperlobby days :(
Theyre generally pretty populated
Cheers, I'll get up to speed with where the game is up to.
Valisk a warning though, servers are mostly all in Europe so it can take a little bit of time to join them if youre in america or asia
Thanks for the heads up mate.
Mags, the aircraft speed shouldn't change at all with fuel. The acceleration should get worse, stall would get worse, but not max speed. Are you sure you didn't do something wrong? You're flying with the cowl flaps open in this video which is verboten for example.
Increased weight typically does decrease top speed as well. The effect isn't as notable as it is on climb rate and turn rate, but the simple fact that you need more lift for a heavier aircraft means you're also producing more lift-induced drag, which slows you down.
What @@HerraTohtori said. More weight requires a higher AoA to produce the same lift at a given speed which is where you get more induced drag. More weight = Lower top speed and lower acceleration for any given aircraft.
"Are you sure you didn't do something wrong? You're flying with the cowl flaps open in this video which is verboten for example." - I've been doing nothing but flying the jug for the last two days (part of the reason there was no video yesterday) in order to test the aircraft and compare against the listed performance. The background video here is just one MP battle that I happened to record for the express purpose of being background footage, yes I am sure and yes you can jump into the aircraft and test this for yourself if you wish at any time.
@@MagzGTV I haven't really tested top speeds, but I did take her for a high speed dive (530 mph IAS) and when the cowling flaps were closed manually, there was no shaking, the aircraft was smooth as butter, no buffeting or vibrations, and quite controllable as well. Opening the cowling flaps would cause significant shaking, even at much lower speeds. So it looks like 777 have actually modeled the high speed turbulence from open cowling flaps affecting the aircraft's tail control surfaces.
The P-47 was just too heavy so it won´t behave as well as in other "arcady" games like WT
no shit
I hate how bad they Nerf the 50's in these games specially war thunder. no ww2 put more lead down range per sec then the p47. 35 to 40 lbs. of lead a sec. when those 8 ma deuces are singing
407MPH where is the rest of the jugs speed? it is the P47D-28 after all.
If those sea level max speed values are correct, then the P-47 is grossly underperforming. Combat power, clean airframe, with full fuel should be around 540kph, and War Emergency Power should be around 580kph. Being barely capable of reaching 500kph is far too low
Broman what, no its not??? Where are you pulling this data from?
@@Surpriseify
I forgot that the P-47 in IL2 is only 65"HG WEP. I don't know why flight sim developers insist on gimping US planes. In reality, the P-47D flew most of its service life at 65"HG dry WEP (or military power), and 70"HG wet WEP. With gimped settings, it seems accurate, although I didn't realize how much of a tub the P-47 was at military power.
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html
@@Surpriseify his channel ia full of WT videos, where do you think he gets those numbers LOL
@@scallie6462 WEll gotta admit i didnt bother checking his channel. But that does explain his ignorance i suppose.
Fallling Brick :D