DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion

I think (hope) that P-47 is going to be EA without preorder, i.e. available immediately.

I hope that as well, and I hope the P-47 and Channel Map come on time as well as the new damage model. It will be very important to keep the WW2 community growing.

Yes, I know but the WW2 planes are much simpler than the modern fighters and they've had so long to get it right. It can still be released in OB without it being EA.

Yes, I know but the WW2 planes are much simpler than the modern fighters and they've had so long to get it right. It can still be released in OB without it being EA.

May be it can be, but how to separate modules available in Stable version from those available only in Open beta ? Some one will buy P-47 and will be very surprised when he wont be able to fly it.And Open Beta is pure volunteer version of DCS. EA state covers this issue imho. When more complex plane not finished 100% can remain in EA and being allowed to appear in to Stable Version, but not vice versa.

The stable planes have been tested in OB. It just seems wrong to wait for so long for the Jug and then get it in early release. What is early about the Jug?

EA really has no meaning. If it meant the plane is completely done when it comes out of EA it would be easy to understand but that's not the case.

The stable planes have been tested in OB. It just seems wrong to wait for so long for the Jug and then get it in early release. What is early about the Jug?

 

EA really has no meaning. If it meant the plane is completely done when it comes out of EA it would be easy to understand but that's not the case.

Which one? Im curious because i don't recall any.

I don't want to get too far off-topic but just to show an example that relates to this conversation.

Take notice of the updates left to do after it goes off EA at the end of 2020. So, the list for 2021.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270829

I don't want to get too far off-topic but just to show an example that relates to this conversation.

 

Take notice of the updates left to do after it goes off EA at the end of 2020. So, the list for 2021.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270829

One thing is clear, EA = you can fly it sooner then later :)

I agree. Well, maybe not with the Jug but normally.....yes.

Not even 30k, more like 25k or even less depending on what boost we get.

The 8th AAF was using 70" as standard for it's P-47s during Normandy and later. It gave it a large performance increase of around 444mph at 21,000ft.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/be9/dcs-world-p-47d-thunderbolt-dials.jpg

This Thunderbolt appears to be marked for the 130 Octane gas. Note that the red lines on the Tachometer are at the 52" and 64" position. For better or worse, the P-47's engine operating instructions are a thorough mess, and a weird mixture of interwar conservatism and late war "run it until you or the other guy blows up".

This is the best collection of freely available manuals that I could find:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/p-47-thunderbolt-manuals.5081/

AAF Manual No 50-5 has these restrictions for 91 and 100 Octane:

91 Octane: 40" 2700 rpm for 1.5m

100 Octane: 52" @ 2700 RPM for 15m

And has no mention of WI limits, despite it also covering the bubble-top version. (It just says, You won't use it in training, because you don't need such power...)

The British one (AN 01-65BC-1) mentions that you get 58" at 2700 for 5 minutes with WI.

AN 01-65BC-1A adds in 130 Octane support with the same Mil power and max continuous limits as 100 octane, but bumps up the 5m WI War Emergency power to 64" @ 2700.

Finally AAF 51-127-4 gives the limits for 150 Octane gas in a R-2800-C engine. That gives you 72" @2800 RPM for five minutes, and 15m at 54"

@2800 RPM, so you do get a little bit of additional limits at non WE.

However, none of these manuals say anything about what you're supposed to do with the other 10m of water you've got on board. Bring it home? (AN 01-65BC-1 pg. 18 b(1) "A tank of 15 U.S. gallons capacity," AN 01-65BC-1A pg 6 8. [...] "The system consists of a 30 US (25 Imperial)-gallon supply tank.[...]", AAF 51-127-4 pg 26: "When drawing 54.5" Hg, the water consumption is 1.9 gallons per minute; using 72" the consumption rises to 2.9 gallons per minute")

I can understand how the 5 minute limit initially came to be: with a 15 gallon tank, burning 2 gpm, which leaves you with only about 2 minutes of buffer room before you are over-boosting an engine with no ADI. That would be bad. However, then they doubled the tank capacity, and never seemed to revisit the limits.

Likewise, the baseline 42"@2550 RPM makes sense from an operational standpoint. Unless you are in combat, the P-47 just doesn't need more than 42" to do everything it can do. It can hit 250 mph IAS at 42"@ 2550 which is the entry speed for everything short of loops or Immelmanns, which really require about 350mph IAS to do, and you aren't getting that without much more power than 42", so you'll almost always start those from a dive.

It will be interesting to see how they resolve the various inconsistencies involved.

On a side note, are they are able to model the weird asymmetric flap deployment? (NACA TN 2899 pg 61)

Thank you,

Harry Voyager

How can you be so sure about that, no one has posted any release date yet nor release type too(pre order or not pre order).

In an interview of Nick Grey with GrimReapers he clearly said "in May" about P-47 release date.

I have faith that the Jug in all its glory will be upon us soon....:thumbup:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/be9/dcs-world-p-47d-thunderbolt-dials.jpg

 

This Thunderbolt appears to be marked for the 130 Octane gas. Note that the red lines on the Tachometer are at the 52" and 64" position. For better or worse, the P-47's engine operating instructions are a thorough mess, and a weird mixture of interwar conservatism and late war "run it until you or the other guy blows up".

 

This is the best collection of freely available manuals that I could find:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/p-47-thunderbolt-manuals.5081/

 

AAF Manual No 50-5 has these restrictions for 91 and 100 Octane:

91 Octane: 40" 2700 rpm for 1.5m

100 Octane: 52" @ 2700 RPM for 15m

And has no mention of WI limits, despite it also covering the bubble-top version. (It just says, You won't use it in training, because you don't need such power...)

 

The British one (AN 01-65BC-1) mentions that you get 58" at 2700 for 5 minutes with WI.

 

AN 01-65BC-1A adds in 130 Octane support with the same Mil power and max continuous limits as 100 octane, but bumps up the 5m WI War Emergency power to 64" @ 2700.

 

Finally AAF 51-127-4 gives the limits for 150 Octane gas in a R-2800-C engine. That gives you 72" @2800 RPM for five minutes, and 15m at 54"

@2800 RPM, so you do get a little bit of additional limits at non WE.

 

However, none of these manuals say anything about what you're supposed to do with the other 10m of water you've got on board. Bring it home? (AN 01-65BC-1 pg. 18 b(1) "A tank of 15 U.S. gallons capacity," AN 01-65BC-1A pg 6 8. [...] "The system consists of a 30 US (25 Imperial)-gallon supply tank.[...]", AAF 51-127-4 pg 26: "When drawing 54.5" Hg, the water consumption is 1.9 gallons per minute; using 72" the consumption rises to 2.9 gallons per minute")

 

I can understand how the 5 minute limit initially came to be: with a 15 gallon tank, burning 2 gpm, which leaves you with only about 2 minutes of buffer room before you are over-boosting an engine with no ADI. That would be bad. However, then they doubled the tank capacity, and never seemed to revisit the limits.

 

Likewise, the baseline 42"@2550 RPM makes sense from an operational standpoint. Unless you are in combat, the P-47 just doesn't need more than 42" to do everything it can do. It can hit 250 mph IAS at 42"@ 2550 which is the entry speed for everything short of loops or Immelmanns, which really require about 350mph IAS to do, and you aren't getting that without much more power than 42", so you'll almost always start those from a dive.

 

It will be interesting to see how they resolve the various inconsistencies involved.

 

On a side note, are they are able to model the weird asymmetric flap deployment? (NACA TN 2899 pg 61)

 

Thank you,

 

Harry Voyager

Yep, part of the confusion is that the Jugs power limits are all over the place.

By the time the D-30 rolled out 64" @ 2700 rpm was the standard for every airforce that operated the P-47 in Europe except for the 8th AAF.

The 8th AAF used 150 fuel as standard and the limits were raised to 70" at 2700 rpm for the B series engines and slightly higher for the C series (only the P-47M and N used C series engines)

With the D-30 at 64" we should be seeing around 437mph at 24,500ft, which is the critical altitude for that power setting.

Whats interesting to note is that above it's critical altitude of 24,500ft we really wouldn't see any real loss in speed since at 56" the top speed is around 435-440ft at 29,000ft (critical alt for 56"). So what we would see is the P-47 speed/performance sorta plateau above 24K until it reached 29K and then you would see a loss in speed.

We'll also need to be aware that that 437 mph is at combat weight, which kept going up as they added more and more fuel tanks, plumbing and other stuff to the plane, and it's probably higher at the weights the earlier razorbacks operated at.

As I understand it, the big difference between the M/N was less the engine, and more that they had a bigger turbo that could drive the critical altitude much higher than the ones used in the 'D' model.

He did say clearly in May, that said, when he said it, it wasn't ready, and that was with the understanding the team would work out everything they needed to by May, if something were to come up, it could drift. Not saying it will, but I want to make sure we are not carving things into stone yet. Thanks.

Can you share more info about, what state p-47 will be at release? EA or not EA, 100% completion or less then 100% ?(not absolute 100%, i know that not all thing are modeled in DCS, 100% what DCS can offer now.)

20k/22k speed limit

S!

Kind of sad if it's released as EA after all these years. I'll buy it but still......

S!

the WW2 planes are much simpler than the modern fighters

the systems being simpler to manufacture irl doesnt translate it to being easier to faithfully reproduce the behavior of in software. the more primitive an aircraft is, the more it borrows on natural systems, and on the computer, unlike the real world, nature isn't a nice, bug-free, ready-to-use resource.

you're just trading one form of complexity for another.

the systems being simpler to manufacture irl doesnt translate it to being easier to faithfully reproduce the behavior of in software. the more primitive an aircraft is, the more it borrows on natural systems, and on the computer, unlike the real world, nature isn't a nice, bug-free, ready-to-use resource.

you're just trading one form of complexity for another.

For example, what happens if you take an engine rated at 54" put a higher octane fuel in it and jimmy the turbo so that you can overspeed it to boost the engine up to >70"?

Does it

A) Explode after 5m

B) Run just fine

C) Work for a while the give out unexpectedly?

D) Require the intercooler to be run extra wide to prevent problems, but otherwise work ok?

If you answered E) Nobody knows unless it's actually been tested on a representative engine you would be correct!

If you answered F) Someone actually did it but didn't record the details of what they actually did, you would also be correct!

And if you answered G) The records are contradictory and no one's quite sure how they changed it and this is why high fidelity simulation designers are all bald, you would also be correct!

Welcome to the wonderful world of WWII aviation, where everything is long since declassified, and that doesn't always help as much as you'd think...

Could be worse though. At least they're not trying to model a B5N Kate...

the systems being simpler to manufacture irl doesnt translate it to being easier to faithfully reproduce the behavior of in software. the more primitive an aircraft is, the more it borrows on natural systems, and on the computer, unlike the real world, nature isn't a nice, bug-free, ready-to-use resource.

you're just trading one form of complexity for another.

You're saying the Jug is as complicated as the Hornet?

I'm not buying it until ED says so.

You're saying the Jug is as complicated as the Hornet?

 

I'm not buying it until ED says so.

ED siad that all wind tunel tests went gone from ww2 era, so it was extreme endeavor for them to reproduce FM of this bird.Simply major difficulty was lack of data.

ED siad that all wind tunel tests went gone from ww2 era, so it was extreme endeavor for them to reproduce FM of this bird.Simply major difficulty was lack of data.

I am pretty sure developing a modern jet fighter takes much more time and resources then a WW2 fighter.

You don't have to worry about modeling radar, RWR, TPOD, air to air refueling, programmable smart weapons, modern navigation systems, HUD, MFDs, fly by wire, remote guided weapons etc in a way that they all function realistically together whilst using in cockpit buttons and controls.

For WW2 fighters it's basically engine, radiators, gear, flaps, battery, damage model and flight model. Which all has to be done for Modern fighters as well.

I am pretty sure developing a modern jet fighter takes much more time and resources then a WW2 fighter.

 

You don't have to worry about modeling radar, RWR, TPOD, air to air refueling, programmable smart weapons, modern navigation systems, HUD, MFDs, fly by wire, remote guided weapons etc in a way that they all function realistically together whilst using in cockpit buttons and controls.

 

For WW2 fighters it's basically engine, radiators, gear, flaps, battery, damage model and flight model. Which all has to be done for Modern fighters as well.

I am not saying that modeling WW2 is harder, im saying that modeling p-47 was problematic,this is why it took so long time.

I am pretty sure developing a modern jet fighter takes much more time and resources then a WW2 fighter.

 

You don't have to worry about modeling radar, RWR, TPOD, air to air refueling, programmable smart weapons, modern navigation systems, HUD, MFDs, fly by wire, remote guided weapons etc in a way that they all function realistically together whilst using in cockpit buttons and controls.

 

For WW2 fighters it's basically engine, radiators, gear, flaps, battery, damage model and flight model. Which all has to be done for Modern fighters as well.

You forgot reciprocating masses for piston engines, fluid, thermo and hydro dynamics of multi cylinder power plants. Damage modeling that is incorporating a multiplicity of failures encompassing electrical, hydraulic and mechanical systems that are completely different from their implementation in a modern fighter.

It is like comparing apples to oranges when saying one is more difficult than the other. I am sure if someone had to design a Tesla from scratch, as compared to designing a 1969 Mustang Boss 429 from scratch, they would both be significant under takings. Difficult and time consuming each in their own way IMHO. Couple that with the time it took them to get actual drawings from the Smithsonian for the P-47 as none existed in the public domain. :smilewink:

modern navigation systems, HUD, MFDs, fly by wire, remote guided weapons etc

I'm not saying any of that is easy to model - far from it - but I'd be surprised if someone simulating those complex systems never resorted to "black box" thinking. What that means is that you're not interested in the real-world logic and/or electronics level of the box per se; instead, what you need to know exactly is its behaviour, i.e. the inputs and outputs it provides and its connections to (and dependencies on) the whole, and then work out the innards from there.

Again, not saying this is easy, because it isn't. But at least it gives you some freedom in how to implement the box, instead of trying to clone it exactly.

Anyway, I do agree that modelling a WW2 A/C is most likely easier than modelling a 4th generation fighter jet, due to the complexity of the systems the latter carries.