Jump to content

DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion


Barrett_g

Recommended Posts

looks like it will be an average slow P47D. Would have been nice to have something that could compete with the german aircraft like 150 octane. I hope it at least has dive flaps!

 

what is this 150 octane plane ??

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just talking about it using 150 octane fuel, but I don't know if it was ever used much in the P47D.

Acording to screenshot provided by ED we will get preaty late model, with Water injection ad Diving flaps(Compresibility flaps) too.

Other nice thing is electric automatic prop.

I cant wait till announcment of this bird.

P-47D-cockpit-WIP-01.jpg


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that makes sense...

 

I mean you could probably have every "purchasable" part mailed to you in a week (Guages and such), then get blueprints for a competent machinist not too long after that... then commence...

 

Comments like this make me think that people don't quite understand the depth at which DCS models aircraft.

 

Writing programming to simulate a wire with a damage model and what stops working based on if that wire breaks takes a LOT longer than running a wire...

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that makes sense...

 

I mean you could probably have every "purchasable" part mailed to you in a week (Guages and such), then get blueprints for a competent machinist not too long after that... then commence...

 

Comments like this make me think that people don't quite understand the depth at which DCS models aircraft.

 

Writing programming to simulate a wire with a damage model and what stops working based on if that wire breaks takes a LOT longer than running a wire...

 

At least programing is cheaper and you dont have to meat exact specs.

Restoring that kind of plane is ridiculous expensivie, most of the parts arent avilable anymore, that is forcing ppl to make them by them self, and after you done bouildign tha plane,if you want it to make it air wothy makes it even more dificult and more expensive, and after all programing brings $$, restoring vintige plane takes $$ away.

Im not expert in programing,but as it is every where else, if company put 1000 work hours of its emplyes in to something,company would like to make money out of it as fast as possible,hanging this work hours in air for long time would be just waste unless company hit wall and is unable to continue work on it or there is other project with projected much higher income :)


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that makes sense...

 

I mean you could probably have every "purchasable" part mailed to you in a week (Guages and such), then get blueprints for a competent machinist not too long after that... then commence...

 

Comments like this make me think that people don't quite understand the depth at which DCS models aircraft.

 

Writing programming to simulate a wire with a damage model and what stops working based on if that wire breaks takes a LOT longer than running a wire...

 

moddeling is hard but what is terrible with DCS is the lack of information :(

A little post to tell us where they are in the work could be great.

There are no information since so long and newsletter give so few information on what is done with DCS WW2 :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how many here were donators for when the project first kicked off, guessing all who are following this thread are, as am I.

 

There are plenty of stickies where you can read about how ED and DCS stepped in, and without them assuming all the debt and project load, this bird would be in some desktop trash bin. Still remember those heady days of emailing Luthier and trying to find out what was going on. He and I actually corresponded a bit, and he was trying to be helpful for sure.

 

Just went back over my email files, and found that last update from IIlya on 3/24/2014 . . . and my first backer donation on 9/24/2013.

 

Personally very appreciative that at some point, we will get the module I (and others) funded, and that it will be brought to life to the exacting standards that ED/DCS/TFC demonstrates time and time again.

 

I can wait. Plenty of awesome modules from that initial startup, such as the P-51, Dora, and Kurfurst to keep me busy. Along with the KA-50, A-10C, and F/A-18.

Pointy end hurt! Fire burn!!
JTF-191 25th Draggins - Hawg Main. Black Shark 2, A10C, A10CII, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Mig-15, Mig-19, Mig-21, P-51, F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, FW-190 Dora, Anton, BF 109, Mossie, Normandy, Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Channel, Syria, Marianas, WWII Assets, CA. (WWII backer picked aircraft ME-262, P-47D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last 7 minutes of the podcast is a comment from Wags on the P-47 ;)

 

 

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/055-forward-air-controllers/

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

"There's nothing to be gained by second guessing yourself.

You can't remake the past, so look ahead... or risk being left behind."

 

Noli Timere Messorem

"No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always been there first, and is waiting for it."

Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't watch that for various reasons just now. Could you please give me a short summary of what he says there?

 

 

From 1:28:35 onwards, Matt has some content.

The section on the P47 is at 1:30:50

 

"and then finally on the ww2 front, a lot going on there as well. The P47 thunderbolt is up and flying internally, and moving along quite fast, and a nice target for that is going to be a new AI JU88"

 

That's the full quote from Wags on WW2 development.

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/philstylenz

Storm of War WW2 server website: https://stormofwar.net/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I thought with the latest WWII pack update maybe something on the P47 would have been nice. Its absence makes me think itll be a 2020 release.

My CAS (Close air support) JTAC Channel:  RIFLE - YouTube  

RIFLE's Discord:  https://discord.gg/cmDCrr4Z2g  

Publications

JTAC Bible (see/know chapter #5) https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

J-FIRE pocket guide (Don't do battle without it!)  BK2 (fas.org)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heyhey,

could someone quickly describe how the p-47 will differ from the p-51?

On paper they seem "similar" in that they are both relatively heavy, yet with powerful engines, sturdy airframes, armed with 6 and 8 .50cals, good high altitude performance, not super agile...

 

 

will the p-47 handle vastly different? will the engine management be fundamentally different? Any interesting avionics or other quirks that set it apart from the mustang?

 

 

I already own the mustang and the 109 and i enjoy how vastly different they operate in every aspect.

 

Will the p-47 maybe feel a little bit samey to the p-51? I'm more interested in handling, engine and avionics than in the intracacies of dogfight performance.

 

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe yes, they are way different. P-47 is heavier, but engine is way more powerful, so it'll be heavier in the controls I guess but having a good manoeuvrability for the size (still don't turn with a 109). It should have way more toughness with regard to battle damage, specially while in ground attack duty. The engine being air cooled would be tougher than P-51.

 

With regards to engine management it's somewhat similar but with a small and substantial difference, it's turbocharged, so instead of having an automated supercharger, when you run out of MP to keep engine optimal settings while climbing you start using a third lever with the turbocharger speed (and while watching turbo temps, it can blow up). So it's a thing to have in mind all of the time, turbocharger lever up when climbing to keep MP up, but then also down if you don't want to blow the engine in overboost while descending. Fine to keep an eye while cruising or just flying for pleasure, but in combat I believe it'll be challenging and I think we'll see many engines blown up from people diving carelessly.

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heyhey,

could someone quickly describe how the p-47 will differ from the p-51?

On paper they seem "similar" in that they are both relatively heavy, yet with powerful engines, sturdy airframes, armed with 6 and 8 .50cals, good high altitude performance, not super agile...

 

 

will the p-47 handle vastly different? will the engine management be fundamentally different? Any interesting avionics or other quirks that set it apart from the mustang?

 

 

I already own the mustang and the 109 and i enjoy how vastly different they operate in every aspect.

 

Will the p-47 maybe feel a little bit samey to the p-51? I'm more interested in handling, engine and avionics than in the intracacies of dogfight performance.

 

 

Thanks!

 

The 47 should feel much heavier overall, although roll should be crisper along the whole flight envelope. The P-47 also introduces a new factor in engine management: turbocharger, which can be linked with the throttle or controlled manually.

 

Also, without external tanks the 47 has a range similar to the Spitfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you guys.

 

 

when reading about it, i somehow did not realize that it being turbocharged changes engine management fundamentally. that alone could make it interesting enough for my taste (also it is just a great plane to look at of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heyhey,

could someone quickly describe how the p-47 will differ from the p-51?

On paper they seem "similar" in that they are both relatively heavy, yet with powerful engines, sturdy airframes, armed with 6 and 8 .50cals, good high altitude performance, not super agile...

 

 

will the p-47 handle vastly different? will the engine management be fundamentally different? Any interesting avionics or other quirks that set it apart from the mustang?

 

 

I already own the mustang and the 109 and i enjoy how vastly different they operate in every aspect.

 

Will the p-47 maybe feel a little bit samey to the p-51? I'm more interested in handling, engine and avionics than in the intracacies of dogfight performance.

 

 

Thanks!

no dude the jug is a whole different animal compared to the pony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heyhey,

could someone quickly describe how the p-47 will differ from the p-51?

On paper they seem "similar" in that they are both relatively heavy, yet with powerful engines, sturdy airframes, armed with 6 and 8 .50cals, good high altitude performance, not super agile...

 

 

will the p-47 handle vastly different? will the engine management be fundamentally different? Any interesting avionics or other quirks that set it apart from the mustang?

 

 

I already own the mustang and the 109 and i enjoy how vastly different they operate in every aspect.

 

Will the p-47 maybe feel a little bit samey to the p-51? I'm more interested in handling, engine and avionics than in the intracacies of dogfight performance.

 

 

Thanks!

p-47 is quite bigger then p-51.

small coreection p-51 used one of the smallest aerial engien during ww2, p-47 used one of the biggest engine.

P-47 was made as high alt fighter was equiped with turbo supercharger system so engien managment will be difrent then in p-51.

It can lift heavier payload then p-51.

P-47 i think wont be good turn fighter so boom and zoom only in fighter role.

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe yes, they are way different. P-47 is heavier, but engine is way more powerful, so it'll be heavier in the controls I guess but having a good manoeuvrability for the size (still don't turn with a 109). It should have way more toughness with regard to battle damage, specially while in ground attack duty. The engine being air cooled would be tougher than P-51.

 

With regards to engine management it's somewhat similar but with a small and substantial difference, it's turbocharged, so instead of having an automated supercharger, when you run out of MP to keep engine optimal settings while climbing you start using a third lever with the turbocharger speed (and while watching turbo temps, it can blow up). So it's a thing to have in mind all of the time, turbocharger lever up when climbing to keep MP up, but then also down if you don't want to blow the engine in overboost while descending. Fine to keep an eye while cruising or just flying for pleasure, but in combat I believe it'll be challenging and I think we'll see many engines blown up from people diving carelessly.

 

S!

if you didnt know p-47 has turbocharger and supercharger

Factor limit for turbocharger in p47 is turbo rpm gage combined with turbo light indicator. earlier models were allowed for 18000 rpm late for 21000 something like that, not exact numbers.

I know that p-47 had automatic boost regulator so you wont overboost, but you should be able to heat intake air to levels much above safe margin and this will harm engine.

So p-47 in thottle quadrant will have those

1. Throttle+ water switch

2.Turbo charger control lever

3.rpm control

4.mixture control with lean and rich run position

prepare yourself for lots of dials on your hotas

+ cowl flaps

+ inter cooler flaps

+ oil cooler flaps

all of this is manual only

Maby in late models some of this got auto option.

But still lots of engine managment :)


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that p-47 had automatic boost regulator so you wont overboost
No, that I didn't know. I wonder how that works and if there are any limits in what that can handle before going overboost. I mean, if you dive wildly from a turbocharger altitude everything should go beyond green lines, turbo rpm of course but either regular MP controlled by a throttle which would be slammed into the control panel. That boost regulator could handle that?

 

All sort of cowl flaps are of course something more to keep an eye on, but in the end those aren't that hard to control or the mess some other tittles made people believe :smilewink: . To be honest I've flown only one aircraft featuring them, and that was only one cowl flap, but still it was quite a simple management.

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...