DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion

The main difference between D-25 and D-30 were dive flaps.

D-30 were produced with increased WEP from 2300 to 2535HP, D-25 needed retrofited with kit for it, it was with 100/130 fuel.

 

Minor were different propeller, but it could change during service, flor in cockpit, some changes inside cockpit.

Both models left factory without dorsal fin, both were retrofited with it.

I'm wondering if we will be able to "nerf" the D-30 to make it perform like the D-25 when it is released (like we can with the german aircraft, by restricting the MW50). Then I can more happily include it in June 1944 multiplayer missions. . . .

I'm wondering if we will be able to "nerf" the D-30 to make it perform like the D-25 when it is released (like we can with the german aircraft, by restricting the MW50). Then I can more happily include it in June 1944 multiplayer missions. . . .

I haven't encounter any MP server with mw50 restricted. You probably could do it because p-47 uses "mw50" too. So whne you strip airfields form this liquid p-47 will be able to boost to 52" which gives about 2000hp i think

I'm wondering if we will be able to "nerf" the D-30 to make it perform like the D-25 when it is released (like we can with the german aircraft, by restricting the MW50). Then I can more happily include it in June 1944 multiplayer missions. . . .

Actually modification which brought increased power was not applied (retrofitted) on 8th AF P-47s, they already had increased power due to use 100/150 fuel.

So, you can take it as a plane with better fuel :).

p.s. modification for increased power were introduced during D-28 production, all D-30 had it

I haven't encounter any MP server with mw50 restricted. You probably could do it because p-47 uses "mw50" too. So whne you strip airfields form this liquid p-47 will be able to boost to 52" which gives about 2000hp i think

Storm of War server. MW50 is restricted for all missions before mid-July 1944, because the FW-190D9 and the BF109K have no place in the Normandy Campaign, certainly before August 1944. However, due to DCS’s financial model, I don’t want to completely exclude players who might only have bought those 1 or 2 modules. So I’ve kept the air-frames in the server, but removed the MW50 performance.

Who cares ? We will get New map soon, additional for this we have plenty planes already not fitting in to normandy map.

D-30 was announced like 20 years ago so you woke up just in time to complain about it.

I care, I’ve put in a lot of hours work towards building a server that tries to provide a historically based multiplayer environment. I’ve restricted MW50 on the German side, for historical reasons. I should do the same with the allied aircraft if they also do not belong in the historical mix. Getting feedback here is about getting a feel for whether or not the player base sees the P47 D-30 as an acceptable air-frame to include or not.

Simply adding the P47 to the server is probably going to take 10 or more hours of work as it is. I want to make the best decision from the outset, so I don’t have to go back and edit them again later on

Actually modification which brought increased power was not applied (retrofitted) on 8th AF P-47s, they already had increased power due to use 100/150 fuel.

So, you can take it as a plane with better fuel :).

 

p.s. modification for increased power were introduced during D-28 production, all D-30 had it

Increased power kits were developed for previous blocks as well so with proper kit D-25, D-22, etc could achieve the higher power ratings as well.

Unless that's what you were already saying?

Also, at the same power setting the D-25 was faster than the D-30.

D-22, D-25, D-27 were the fastest P-47D blocks and when running similar power they had an advantage over the other blocks like the D-23,D-28, D30.

Main advantage of the D-30 was dive recovery flaps, other than that it's performance was very slightly worse than a few previous P-47D blocks.

Can't wait to fly this thing, it's gonna be so fun.

I'm curious to know if they are gonna "simplify" the dive mechanics to where the P-47 loses parts at a certain dive speed?

Also can't wait to see the new DM effects and what the P-47s gonna be like DM wise.

EDIT: Reading comprehension isn't my strong suit lol. Yes 8th AAF P-47s were already running high power settings by the Normandy invasion and they even got more power additions late June/July 44.

Hi poeple who know about the P47.

Can someone point me to a compairson of the D-25 versus the D-30?

 

I've been told that the D-30 wasn't operational until "late" 1944.

It seems that the D-25 was operational by May 1944.

 

Does the D-30 represent a significant jump in performance over the D-25 (i.e. does the D-30 suit a Normandy scenario)?

Main advantage of the D-30 over the D-25 is the dive recovery flaps and that's it (I think it also had more water but not 100% sure)

As far as power goes there is no difference in power available as both were running high power setting in the 8th AAF of 64 and later were able to get 70" when it was released in June/July 44.

Speed wise at the same power the D-25 is actually faster than the D-30 by about 9-10 mph.

I have a big report of all the D blocks and their differences in performance and configuration. Not sure if I'm allowed to post any of it here though.

I'm wondering if we will be able to "nerf" the D-30 to make it perform like the D-25 when it is released (like we can with the german aircraft, by restricting the MW50). Then I can more happily include it in June 1944 multiplayer missions. . . .

As said above there would be no need to limit the D-30, only advantage it has is dive flaps, all 8AAF P-47s were running high power kits/fuels by the Normandy invasion.

EDIT: Sorry for back to back post, not sure how to merge them.

As said above there would be no need to limit the D-30, only advantage it has is dive flaps, all 8AAF P-47s were running high power kits/fuels by the Normandy invasion.

Thanks Legion!

Very helpful.

That makes life a lot easier from a mission-building perspective

Thanks Legion!

Very helpful.

 

That makes life a lot easier from a mission-building perspective

You can kick/ban players who used diving flaps.

Thanks Bozon . . somewhat frustrating news for me unfortunately. It's going to be hard to justify including the DCS P47 in multiplayer scenarios that focus on the normandy campaign it seems.

What a shame . . . building anything other than a furball/ free for all seems all-but-impossible with the DCS plane/ maps and assets set.

Yeah, but man I think that we can deal with it. Of course you are the one to decide but us players can get over it. Also, I assume that most of us that are interested in warbirds will get the Channel map so you can fit the P47 there.

Yeah, but man I think that we can deal with it. Of course you are the one to decide but us players can get over it. Also, I assume that most of us that are interested in warbirds will get the Channel map so you can fit the P47 there.

For example the most occupied ww2 MP server uses Caucasian map which was place of air battles in 1943 and no one complain about it.

couple of moths back or ahead don't make any difference.

I think 100% accurate servers are occupied by AI planes only :P

The performance differences between D25 and D30 were small enough that you can ignore them and substitute one for the other. Dive recovery flaps were not a big deal, especially at low altitudes.

I would like to see N or M version in DCS :)

Can't wait to fly this thing, it's gonna be so fun.

I'm curious to know if they are gonna "simplify" the dive mechanics to where the P-47 loses parts at a certain dive speed?

Also can't wait to see the new DM effects and what the P-47s gonna be like DM wise.

 

EDIT: Reading comprehension isn't my strong suit lol. Yes 8th AAF P-47s were already running high power settings by the Normandy invasion and they even got more power additions late June/July 44.

Yeah, that's what I want to know to:

Will the P47D lose its control surfaces at high speed?

What will be the point in having dive flaps if you can't get to the speeds that they were designed for? Like 548+ mph where the plane would experience aileron reversal and loss of control.

Yeah, that's what I want to know to:

 

Will the P47D lose its control surfaces at high speed?

 

What will be the point in having dive flaps if you can't get to the speeds that they were designed for? Like 548+ mph where the plane would experience aileron reversal and loss of control.

548 Indicated or true .

Aileron reversal can occur at 200 mph indicated if you high enough.

I read raport about Max Mach number tests of p-51 they were reaching speeds up to Mach.85 but never ever exceed 486 mph calibrated IAS.

Diving flaps are used to not hit critical mach number in dive from high alt and you don't need high indicated speed for this.

Exceeding 505 mph limit for longer time will result structural fail. Same as in high mach number dives, vibratory movement will damage planes internal parts.

548 Indicated or true .

Aileron reversal can occur at 200 mph indicated if you high enough.

I read raport about Max Mach number tests of p-51 they were reaching speeds up to Mach.85 but never ever exceed 486 mph calibrated IAS.

Diving flaps are used to not hit critical mach number in dive from high alt and you don't need high indicated speed for this.

Exceeding 505 mph limit for longer time will result structural fail. Same as in high mach number dives, vibratory movement will damage planes internal parts.

P-47s limiting factor was due to compressibility not structural failure.

It's highest mach figure was around mach 0.83.

As the war went on they changed the limiting IAS a bit and kept lowering it to have a higher margin of safety for the pilot, in order to prevent him entering compressibility and mitigating it's effects. The british settled on 520mph as a limiting figure, the Americans felt it wasn't safe enough so they settled on 500mph IAS. (I'm aware that limiting IAS changes with altitude but these are the maximum figures)

A report on the P-47 dive performance that the controls get heavier and heavier as speed increases and over 600 TAS it's nearly impossible to control the elevators apart from using the trim.

Aileron reversals really isn't an issue as long as you don't try to roll and it never really occurred at speeds lower than 540 mph. We really shouldn't see any structural failure for the P-47 in a dive unless there's an over G or previous damage to the airframe. Parts don't just start falling off just because you go over the redline, so if we see this in the P-47 like we do in the P-51 there is something seriously wrong.

P-47s limiting factor was due to compressibility not structural failure.

It's highest mach figure was around mach 0.83.

 

As the war went on they changed the limiting IAS a bit and kept lowering it to have a higher margin of safety for the pilot, in order to prevent him entering compressibility and mitigating it's effects. The british settled on 520mph as a limiting figure, the Americans felt it wasn't safe enough so they settled on 500mph IAS. (I'm aware that limiting IAS changes with altitude but these are the maximum figures)

 

A report on the P-47 dive performance that the controls get heavier and heavier as speed increases and over 600 TAS it's nearly impossible to control the elevators apart from using the trim.

 

Aileron reversals really isn't an issue as long as you don't try to roll and it never really occurred at speeds lower than 540 mph. We really shouldn't see any structural failure for the P-47 in a dive unless there's an over G or previous damage to the airframe. Parts don't just start falling off just because you go over the redline, so if we see this in the P-47 like we do in the P-51 there is something seriously wrong.

At high alt limit was compressibility but at alt below 10k even flying above 500mph do not exceed mach limit.

There is something like flutter which will destroy everything no matter how strong it is.

I have British manual for p-47-d30 and limitation is stated as 500 mph up to 10k ft. up to 5k ft 520mph for N version and 564mph at SL

Why do you think those limitations were created ? Mainly because in over speed dives air frame is loaded with abnormal loads which will lead to ware or fail. Dive recovery for p-47 is to keep the power on and pull the stick back according to manual. Do not use elevator trim !!

In case P-51 drop power and pull stick back gentle use trim with small increments if require .

Need for trim use in not due to stick stiffenes but due to its trimmed range, p-47 should not start dive with trim nose down

There is something like flutter which will destroy everything no matter how strong it is.

I have British manual for p-47-d30 and limitation is stated as 500 mph up to 10k ft. up to 5k ft 520mph for N version and 564mph at SL

Why do you think those limitations were created ? Mainly because in over speed dives air frame is loaded with abnormal loads which will lead to ware or fail. Dive recovery for p-47 is to keep the power on and pull the stick back according to manual. Do not use elevator trim !!

In case P-51 drop power and pull stick back gentle use trim with small increments if require .

Need for trim use in not due to stick stiffenes but due to its trimmed range, p-47 should not start dive with trim nose down

Except flutter doesn't occur in every airframe similarly, it's also not always an issue. In all reports I've seen flutter is never listed as an issue in dives, only stiff controls above certain speeds. Early P-47 manuals listed the limits as 520mph up to 10,000ft. Herb Fisher is a good pilot to look up in regards to P-47 dive performance, he did over 100 high speed dives in the P-47 and never had a single structural failure.

All I'm saying is that parts don't just start to fall off just because you hit the redline or go over it. Limits were not always set due to structural concerns. In the case of the P-47 it was set to controll in high speed dives. (compressability).

The P-47 didn't lose parts due to speed alone, it simply couldn't go fast enough.

Except flutter doesn't occur in every airframe similarly, it's also not always an issue. In all reports I've seen flutter is never listed as an issue in dives, only stiff controls above certain speeds. Early P-47 manuals listed the limits as 520mph up to 10,000ft. Herb Fisher is a good pilot to look up in regards to P-47 dive performance, he did over 100 high speed dives in the P-47 and never had a single structural failure.

 

All I'm saying is that parts don't just start to fall off just because you hit the redline or go over it. Limits were not always set due to structural concerns. In the case of the P-47 it was set to controll in high speed dives. (compressability).

 

The P-47 didn't lose parts due to speed alone, it simply couldn't go fast enough.

Maybe pilots actually respected speed limits.

Yes it is logical that if limit is 505 plane will not blow apart at 506 let assume that 5-10% safety margin was applied. So p-51 maybe falling apart a little bit early and a little bit too fast in DCS. It is only my opinion i have no solid proof for this.

P-47 D Army Models 25 26 27 28 30 35 and British model THUNDERBOLT

P-47 Army Model N

But fun part is that in P-51 manual it is clearly said that at low alt max dive speed is limited by structural consideration only but in p-47 i haven't found anything about structure speed limit yet

P-51

Maybe pilots actually respected speed limits.

Yes it is logical that if limit is 505 plane will not blow apart at 506 let assume that 5-10% safety margin was applied. So p-51 maybe falling apart a little bit early and a little bit too fast in DCS. It is only my opinion i have no solid proof for this.

P-47 D Army Models 25 26 27 28 30 35 and British model THUNDERBOLT

P-47 Army Model N

It was a far greater safety margin than 5-10%.

Like I said, limits changed during the war, earlier manuals/reports give limiting figures of 520mph IAS from sea level up to 10,000ft and 450IAS from 10,000 - 20,000.

Your assumption that these limits were for a structural limitation is incorrect. The P-51 is not the P-47 both aircraft handle speed and structural loads differently. If the P-51 limits were set for one reason it doesn't mean the P-47 has limits set for the same exact reason.

Structurally the P-47 was sound all the way up to it's maximum mach of 0.83 with a limiting mach of around 0.74.

The only instance of a P-47 losing any type of structure in a dive for high speed reasons was when the P-47 had fabric control surfaces early in it's production. This was changed and since then the P-47 didn't have trouble with structural stability in high speed dives.

Yeah, it would be good to know if we can actually use the dive flaps for what they were for which was to recover the aircraft when you lost control in a high speed dive.

Don't need them if your plane falls apart at just 500 - 510mph. You should still have control at that speed.

Compressibility is a high alt problem at 20k ft you need much lower speed to enter it.

Idea of diver recovery looks like that,

Is to keep control of the plane, rise nose as high as it possible, then wait for plane enters dense air so drag will slow plane down and speed of sound is greater at lower alt so you mach number drops and you can pull out of the dive.

In case where plane would still be in compressibility at low alt recover would be much more problematic, like it was in case of p-38 which had mach limit around 0.65 or even lower in early models this lead to lots of fatal accidents.

and p-47 should not fall apart at 510.

In case p-51 i found that this plane had serious problems in high IAS dives especial with fabric covered elevators with those falling apart, P-51 manual mention that diving speeds at alt below 7k ft are matter of air frame strength only, in case of p-47 problem with dive is only matter of compressibility so in theory p-47 should blast easy 550 at sl even more but at this speed you will be still far from compressibility i think something above 600 would be required :)

Compressibility is a high alt problem at 20k ft you need much lower speed to enter it.

Idea of diver recovery looks like that,

Is to keep control of the plane, rise nose as high as it possible, then wait for plane enters dense air so drag will slow plane down and speed of sound is greater at lower alt so you mach number drops and you can pull out of the dive.

In case where plane would still be in compressibility at low alt recover would be much more problematic, like it was in case of p-38 which had mach limit around 0.65 or even lower in early models this lead to lots of fatal accidents.

and p-47 should not fall apart at 510.

In case p-51 i found that this plane had serious problems in high IAS dives especial with fabric covered elevators with those falling apart, P-51 manual mention that diving speeds at alt below 7k ft are matter of air frame strength only, in case of p-47 problem with dive is only matter of compressibility so in theory p-47 should blast easy 550 at sl even more but at this speed you will be still far from compressibility i think something above 600 would be required :)

I think you start to lose control at about 548mph with aileron reversal.

I think you start to lose control at about 548mph with aileron reversal.

It's "just" aileron reversal though, wouldn't cause any serious problems as long as you don't try and roll.

It's "just" aileron reversal though, wouldn't cause any serious problems as long as you don't try and roll.

It would require perfect coordinated flight like slip ball perfectly in the center :)

I think you start to lose control at about 548mph with aileron reversal.

For example P-47 N is allowed for 562 mph at SL so no compressibility effect but ailerons could be different in N version, it has different wings tho.