DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion

I dont think a P-47M is necessary, but it should would be nice to get a P-47D-30 with 150 grade fuel belching out 65-70inces of boost.....

k 14 would be nice but i think they were rockin' the mk 8 reflector. I could be wrong though.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to publish the chapter here, but in his book "Thunderbolt!", Robert Johnson talks about dogfighting his p-47 with a spit mark V (I think). He also was able to fly one himself and check it out for comparison. TLDR:

Spit was great dog fighter but couldn't roll fast and couldn't zoom climb or dive quickly. In their "dogfight" he was able to negate the spit from out turning him by rolling inside his turns. He also mentioned that after they got the paddle blade props he was never out climbed again.

This from one of the leading American aces of ww2.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to publish the chapter here, but in his book "Thunderbolt!", Robert Johnson talks about dogfighting his p-47 with a spit mark V (I think). He also was able to fly one himself and check it out for comparison. TLDR:

 

Spit was great dog fighter but couldn't roll fast and couldn't zoom climb or dive quickly. In their "dogfight" he was able to negate the spit from out turning him by rolling inside his turns. He also mentioned that after they got the paddle blade props he was never out climbed again.

 

This from one of the leading American aces of ww2.

Was actually a Spit IX. And the Spit was a great zoom climber, Johnson said that until they got the paddle bladed props the Spit soared away from him in all climbs.

Flare

Any word on when the P-47 (of ANY type) will be available, or even in beta form?

Any word on when the P-47 (of ANY type) will be available, or even in beta form?

IIRC it was scheduled for March 2015. I'm sure that's subject to change.

Was actually a Spit IX. And the Spit was a great zoom climber, Johnson said that until they got the paddle bladed props the Spit soared away from him in all climbs.

 

Flare

Who was it who said fighter pilots usually make lousy test pilots?

Who was it who said fighter pilots usually make lousy test pilots?

A bomber pilot. :pilotfly:

Who was it who said fighter pilots usually make lousy test pilots?

Not Eric Brown anyway.

Not Eric Brown anyway.

For some reason I think it might have actually been Brown when he was explaining how he was an exception. I watched a documentary about him a couple months ago and that is probably where I heard it.:thumbup:

heh I could be wrong.

It would make sense anyway for allot of reasons. Fighter pilot anecdotes are notorious for being inaccurate. Stress of combat, misleading instrumentation, only experienced on a few types etc.

The P-47D-30

Ya, who could trust someone like chuck Yeager! Or Alan Sheppard, or 90% of all test pilots?

I want bomber pilots to test out how well a fighter dogfights!

(BTW, Robert Johnson was originally trained as a bomber pilot)

heh I could be wrong.

 

It would make sense anyway for allot of reasons. Fighter pilot anecdotes are notorious for being inaccurate. Stress of combat, misleading instrumentation, only experienced on a few types etc.

There's nothing wrong with using anecdotes of how a combat aircraft performs in the hands of someone who may well be stressed, whose instruments might not be 100% accurate and who might be highly experienced, or have very limited experience at flying that aircraft in combat.

After all,combat is what the fighter was designed for in the first place; the fighter pilot is the end consumer and is the only person who has a handle on how a fighter (or bomber or reconnaissance aircraft) performs under the stress of wartime and combat conditions.

Combat may well turn up problems that are not obvious during test flights; eg: did NAA know that the .50 cals of the B/C series would fail during combat before the aircraft entered service? The fabric covered ailerons of the early Spitfires weren't redesigned to have metal skins until anecdotes from fighter pilots showed how useless the fabric covering was during high speed combat. How many 190 test pilots realised that under the stress of combat at low altitude the pilot may well forget to retrim the tailplane while pulling out of a dive?

Sure, the combat pilot won't have the cool analytical approach that seems to be required on internet forums, but combat is surely the ultimate test of a combat aircraft? Roll on the anecdotes, as well as the test reports - they both have a place in assessing aircraft.

There's nothing wrong with using anecdotes of how a combat aircraft performs in the hands of someone who may well be stressed, whose instruments might not be 100% accurate and who might be highly experienced, or have very limited experience at flying that aircraft in combat.

 

 

 

After all,combat is what the fighter was designed for in the first place; the fighter pilot is the end consumer and is the only person who has a handle on how a fighter (or bomber or reconnaissance aircraft) performs under the stress of wartime and combat conditions.

 

 

 

Combat may well turn up problems that are not obvious during test flights; eg: did NAA know that the .50 cals of the B/C series would fail during combat before the aircraft entered service? The fabric covered ailerons of the early Spitfires weren't redesigned to have metal skins until anecdotes from fighter pilots showed how useless the fabric covering was during high speed combat. How many 190 test pilots realised that under the stress of combat at low altitude the pilot may well forget to retrim the tailplane while pulling out of a dive?

 

 

 

Sure, the combat pilot won't have the cool analytical approach that seems to be required on internet forums, but combat is surely the ultimate test of a combat aircraft? Roll on the anecdotes, as well as the test reports - they both have a place in assessing aircraft.

+1

The overall composite picture from these sources is the best we will ever get. Alone they do not represent the complete story. Of course the after action reports tend to be inaccurate at times, (I'm still am amazed by how many wartime Mustang pilots speak of hitting dive speeds of over 550mph) but their testimonies are invaluable to a sim pilot trying to reproduce those intense encounters. The test pilots never pushed their aircraft to those extremes (aside from Bob Hoover and a few select others) but their detailed volumes of information are equally useful.

(I'm still am amazed by how many wartime Mustang pilots speak of hitting dive speeds of over 550mph

Great example of the pitfalls of using pilot anecdotes.

Everyone of those pilots recorded exactly what they saw. Analog gauges have inherent error and static port placement was not in the correct position to even remotely measure accurate transonic flight speeds.

There is no doubt everyone of the pilots was telling the truth about what they saw on the gauge. Just as there equally not doubt they not going even close to that velocity.

That is why the NACA adopted a flying qualities standard. It aligns the engineer and the pilot removing all non-quantifiable or definable parameters.

That is why the NACA adopted a flying qualities standard. It aligns the engineer and the pilot removing all non-quantifiable or definable parameters.

Flying qualities were codified by NACA in 1943 and Military procurement based on NACA's work followed in 1945.

A bit late for WW2 operational a/c.

Great example of the pitfalls of using pilot anecdotes.

 

Everyone of those pilots recorded exactly what they saw. Analog gauges have inherent error and static port placement was not in the correct position to even remotely measure accurate transonic flight speeds...

 

That is why the NACA adopted a flying qualities standard.

It aligns the engineer and the pilot removing all non-quantifiable or definable parameters.

Did NACA actually ever test properly instrumented aircraft under combat conditions over Europe or the Pacific? I don't seem to recall NACA compiling a test report on this Grumman TBM to establish the quantifiable flight parameters of losing 1/3rd of the wing...

Did NACA ever fly battle-damaged aircraft, like this P-47 or P-51, to test their flight parameters? If they did, it would great to see the reports.

All the testing in the world wouldn't necessarily show how aircraft would behave after receiving serious combat damage with a (probably) badly scared pilot having to fly it across several hundred miles of Pacific Ocean or hostile Europe. More often than not, the pilot had to learn a whole new set of flight parameters, all without NACA's help. More often than not, the pilot's anecdotes, inaccurate analogue instrument readings, intangibles and all, would have been highly valuable to others experiencing similar damage.

Of course, there will always be great value in flying properly instrumented test aircraft under carefully monitored conditions in the hands of experienced test pilots, because that establishes how well, or badly the aircraft flies normally.

There's nothing wrong with using anecdotes of how a combat aircraft performs in the hands of someone who may well be stressed, whose instruments might not be 100% accurate and who might be highly experienced, or have very limited experience at flying that aircraft in combat.

 

After all,combat is what the fighter was designed for in the first place; the fighter pilot is the end consumer and is the only person who has a handle on how a fighter (or bomber or reconnaissance aircraft) performs under the stress of wartime and combat conditions.

 

Combat may well turn up problems that are not obvious during test flights; eg: did NAA know that the .50 cals of the B/C series would fail during combat before the aircraft entered service? The fabric covered ailerons of the early Spitfires weren't redesigned to have metal skins until anecdotes from fighter pilots showed how useless the fabric covering was during high speed combat. How many 190 test pilots realised that under the stress of combat at low altitude the pilot may well forget to retrim the tailplane while pulling out of a dive?

 

Sure, the combat pilot won't have the cool analytical approach that seems to be required on internet forums, but combat is surely the ultimate test of a combat aircraft? Roll on the anecdotes, as well as the test reports - they both have a place in assessing aircraft.

Excellent point. Aviation enthusiasts spend alot of time debating turn performance and roll rates etc. Anecdotal evidence wont tell you the finer details of two aircrafts performance, but when both sides think their ship is the best, its safe to assume that within the literally infinite conditions fighter combat began and ended, most aircraft probably fell into the "good enough" category with regards to knife-fighting characteristics in particular.

Big 18 cylinder Radial engine,Large,roomy cockpit,and 8 .50 cals.What's not to like??:thumbup:

That bird sure looks sexy, can't wait.

Flying qualities were codified by NACA in 1943 and Military procurement based on NACA's work followed in 1945.

 

A bit late for WW2 operational a/c.

True but not quite correct.

The Navy and USAAF both followed suit with the NACA in 1943 with their own versions of the NACA requirements.

In April of 1945 they agreed upon a Joint Requirement for both services.

None of that has anything to do with the fact the NACA statues carry the weight of regulatory law and in keeping with its mandate to direct and supervise scientific study of the problems of flight....

The manufacturers had to comply with the NACA requirements. That is why you see the flurry of flying qualities reports.

The testing is to classify, identify, and develop engineering solutions to resolve flying qualities issues in current designs.

Attached is the Pilot's Instruction Manual for the P-47D-25 though -35, dated 25 January 1945:

Attached is the Pilot's Instruction Manual for the P-47D-25 though -35, dated 25 January 1945:

Thanks

I dont think a P-47M is necessary, but it should would be nice to get a P-47D-30 with 150 grade fuel belching out 65-70inces of boost.....

The M was made in small numbers and as far as I know they were only used in Europe, many of which went V-1 hunting.

"The P-47M was a more conservative attempt to come up with a higher-performance ("Sprint") version of the Thunderbolt, designed to chase V-1 flying bombs, done, in part, by reducing armament from eight .50-caliber Colt-Browning M2 machine guns to six.[17] In September 1944, four P-47D-27-RE airframes (s/n 42-27385 / 42-27388) were modified into prototype YP-47Ms by fitting the R-2800-57© engine and the GE CH-5 turbo-supercharger, a combination which could produce 2,800 hp (2,089 kW) at 32,500 ft (9,900 m) when using Wartime Emergency Power (water injection). Air brakes were added to the wing's lower surfaces to allow braking after a dive onto its prey. The YP-47M had a top speed of 473 mph (410 kn, 761 km/h) and it was put into limited production with 130 (sufficient for one group) built. However, the type suffered serious teething problems in the field due to the highly tuned engine. Engines were unable to reach operating temperatures and power settings and frequently failed in early flights from a variety of causes: ignition harnesses cracked at high altitudes, severing electrical connections between the magneto and distributor, and carburetor valve diaphragms also failed. Persistent oil tank ruptures in replacement engines were found to be the result of inadequate protection against salt water corrosion during transshipment. In the end, it was simply errors made by the R-2800-57© model engine's manufacturers which led to these issues with the P-47M. By the time the bugs were worked out, the war in Europe was nearly over. However, P-47Ms still destroyed 15 enemy aircraft in aerial combat, normal results for any fighter type in March–May 1945 when aerial encounters with the Luftwaffe were rare. The entire production total of 130 P-47Ms were delivered to the 56th Fighter Group, and were responsible for all seven of that group's jet shoot-downs. Twelve were lost in operational crashes with the 56th Group resulting in 11 deaths, two after VE Day, and two (44-21134 on 13 April 1945 and 44-21230 on 16 April 1945) were shot down in combat, both by ground fire.

The second YP-47M (of the batch of four converted P-47Ds) was later fitted with new wings and served as the prototype for the P-47N."

Since many seem to talk about the PTO for DCS then the P-47N would be my pick for late model 47.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html

A new wing was designed with two 50 U.S. gal (190 l) fuel tanks. The second YP-47N with this wing flew in September 1944. The redesign proved successful in extending range to about 2,000 mi (3,200 km), and the squared-off wingtips improved the roll rate. The P-47N entered mass production with the uprated R-2800-77© engine, with a total of 1,816 built.

Thanks

No problem; the main thing I had to do was scale the file down from 92 MB; it was originally downloaded from Avialogs.

The M was made in small numbers and as far as I know they were only used in Europe, many of which went V-1 hunting.

 

Since many seem to talk about the PTO for DCS then the P-47N would be my pick for late model 47.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html

 

A new wing was designed with two 50 U.S. gal (190 l) fuel tanks. The second YP-47N with this wing flew in September 1944. The redesign proved successful in extending range to about 2,000 mi (3,200 km), and the squared-off wingtips improved the roll rate. The P-47N entered mass production with the uprated R-2800-77© engine, with a total of 1,816 built.

Gotta agree, the P-47M was only made in small numbers, so its probably a little too specialised to portray in DCS. A couple of other things to note:

1) The drop tank/bomb pylons weren't initially fitted and, once fitted in the field, they were sometimes taken off

2)The fin fillet was also fitted in the feild; eg: HV-J "Lorene" of Lt Russell S Kyler, 61st FS:

without wing pylons but with fin fillet:

with pylons and drop tanks, but without fin fillet:

Still, the M did have some interesting colour schemes:

All images from 8th Air Force Fighter Groups "Little Friends" website.

More importantly, attached is a NACA report on the P-47D-30.