DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion - Page 220 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2020, 10:13 AM   #2191
grafspee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,104
Default

I would like to see N or M version in DCS
__________________
grafspee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2020, 12:59 PM   #2192
Gahab141+
Posting Rights Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No.119_Bruv (VK-B) View Post
Do you fly with VR?


Nope
Gahab141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 01:19 AM   #2193
Snapage
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legion View Post
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.
Snapage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 07:05 AM   #2194
grafspee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapage View Post
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.
__________________

Last edited by grafspee; 02-04-2020 at 08:38 AM.
grafspee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 11:39 AM   #2195
Legion
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grafspee View Post
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.
Legion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 12:15 PM   #2196
grafspee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legion View Post
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
__________________

Last edited by grafspee; 02-04-2020 at 03:42 PM.
grafspee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 04:07 PM   #2197
Legion
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grafspee View Post
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.
Legion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 05:05 PM   #2198
grafspee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legion View Post
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
__________________

Last edited by grafspee; 02-04-2020 at 05:18 PM.
grafspee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 05:24 PM   #2199
Legion
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grafspee View Post
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.
Legion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 05:17 AM   #2200
Snapage
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 231
Default

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.
Snapage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
p-47, ww2

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.