DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion

Very nice and clear picture!

Looks like we can expect the jug with the outfit for the best possible performance :thumbup:

Test flights on P-47B shows us, that for climb - yes, 13+ blades better, for speed - no.

I'm thinking, why P-47 has so many types of props.

I'm thinking, why P-47 has so many types of props.

Better technology.

The P-47 was probably one of the most revised allied aircraft. I think first combat ready aircraft was the P-47C, then the P-47C-5, P-47D, D-5, D-10.... so on and so on... all the way to the P-47D-40... and then the P-47M, and P-47N.

There were many variations of engines and props as well. As better technology was developed, the P-47 was changed on the assembly line.

Here’s a decent little page about some of the variants:

http://www.368thfightergroup.com/P-47-2.html

Better technology.

 

The P-47 was probably one of the most revised allied aircraft. I think first combat ready aircraft was the P-47C, then the P-47C-5, P-47D, D-5, D-10.... so on and so on... all the way to the P-47D-40... and then the P-47M, and P-47N.

 

There were many variations of engines and props as well. As better technology was developed, the P-47 was changed on the assembly line.

My conclusion is, that p-47 just simply sucked :P so they had to improve it every time something new was available. Those 2000hp versions werent too good it all.

My conclusion is, that p-47 just simply sucked :P so they had to improve it every time something new was available. Those 2000hp versions werent too good it all.

S!

My conclusion is, that p-47 just simply sucked :P so they had to improve it every time something new was available. Those 2000hp versions werent too good it all.

The P-47 was a high altitude air superiority fighter. That’s why it out performs all the other aircraft at higher altitudes. Once air superiority was achieved they changed to a fighter bomber role. This change put them at lower altitudes that required the paddle prop.

Saying the P-47 sucks because it was updated throughout its life and it’s different roles would be like saying the F-15C must have sucked for them to put conformal fuel tanks and a back seater to make it an F-15E.

The P-47 was a high altitude air superiority fighter. That’s why it out performs all the other aircraft at higher altitudes. Once air superiority was achieved they changed to a fighter bomber role. This change put them at lower altitudes that required the paddle prop.

Speed was scarified for better TO performance, and climb at any altitudes.

Ya I suspect a few will try the 47 and then rage quit when they have horrible k/d ratio and go back to spit or mustang. The jug is a mans beast and takes allot to understand and master it. Very much looking forward to the challenge.

I think most people who want this plane want it because its a fun unique aircraft to fly. Most people should know its not going to be good at low altitude.

Then again people complained that the FW190A8 was to slow and could not fight when it was released. LOL

I just hope its not a paper plane that falls apart once it goes 1mph faster then its max speed like the other modules. Why would you rate a planes max speed 1mph slower then the point at which it disintegrates?

Why would you rate a planes max speed 1mph slower then the point at which it disintegrates?

Mystery. Just imagine that your plane has faulty speed indicator, with error being about 10mph at high speeds. So you will fall a part before you hit red line on speed gauge.

Theres no mystery, it simply isn't done. Especially the Thunderbolt of all aircraft shouldn't suffer from this issue. If DCS is supposed to be the most realistic thing out there with a great FM, Engine model etc etc etc why make justifications for aircraft disintegrating based on a magic number? Its the structural equivalent of engines that explode based on timers. The fact they don't do that in DCS is IMO one of the better features compared to its competitors.

From my understanding there is already some implementation of fatigue/structural damage in for the current aircraft but hopefully this will improve with the new DM as well.

At least fot p-51 i could not find any tests where IAS speed limit was exceeded.

Yes for good reason. Limit Loads exist for a reason, but there is also a reason that Limit load =/= Ultimate load.

You arent supposed to run the engine at Full WEP for more than the rated time either, and you probably wouldn't do it unless your life depended on it, but if its a new engine in good condition you might get away with it. At least once, maybe if you do it alot, or someone else did it with your airplane and didnt tell you it might not work so well.... That and the fact that engineering is basically educated guesswork using data gathered by means of sophisticated trial and error requires a certain fudge factor be involved.

Yes for good reason. Limit Loads exist for a reason, but there is also a reason that Limit load =/= Ultimate load.

 

You arent supposed to run the engine at Full WEP for more than the rated time either, and you probably wouldn't do it unless your life depended on it, but if its a new engine in good condition you might get away with it. At least once, maybe if you do it alot, or someone else did it with your airplane and didnt tell you it might not work so well.... That and the fact that engineering is basically educated guesswork using data gathered by means of sophisticated trial and error requires a certain fudge factor be involved.

But Ultimate load is just a wild guess, it could be as well that airplane will fall apart just slight above this limit, But we know that British version of p-51, often had higher limits then US equivalent. But top speed, was the same 505 mph, it must mean something.

Really not sure by what you mean that Ultimate load is a guess? Its usually 1.5x LL.

Yes the Brit Mustangs ran higher MP settings, which proves my point that the engine won't blow up when a magic number is exceeded. It quite possibly came at the expense of MTBF though.

Also the P-51H you were talking about earlier came about via cooperation with the British during which it was concluded that the Fudge factor NA used was a bit conservative compared to British aircraft, thus the aircraft could be made lighter.

Once again it really depends what the limit is that causes the dive speed to be restricted to 505mph. This report suggests that 505 is a structural limit but that things start to get funky as far as compressibility/controllability at that point anyway.

Hard to know exactly what that means unless you find out how the 505 limit exactly was calculated, but if its the nominal limit then usually there is some reserve. So like I said going beyond that theres a significant danger of starting to run into some issues, be it loss of control or structural failure. Which comes first depends on a number of things. I'm sure Yo-Yo knows more, maybe ask him.

Edit: link http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51d-dive-27-feb-45.pdf

If you brought P-51H i think it had same speed limit. 505mph

I've read this raport, As you can see during this extremes tests, pilots did not exceed 486 mph indicated in those tests.So they kept quite a distant from red line here.

In those tests pilots reported that above 0.8 Mach things starts to go bad in p-51 and max safety mach was established at 0.75, for me it looks a lot less safety margin then 1.5x

For example 67" was very close to dangerous levels, something like 70" would instantly damage the engine.

Yes, my point exactly. They discovered that they could weaken the structure (by removing material => weight saving) and still fulfill the structural design requirements.

German Luftwaffe markings for the P-47

While doing some background reading on the P-47, I came across numerous photographs and images of P-47s with Luftwaffe markings.

Also:

There are LW markings for the P-51 and RAF markings for the Anton and Dora by some talented folk. It's cool that they were adopted by ED and made official too (e.g. so we can use them on the MP servers).

Anyway, it would be really great if we could have the upcoming P-47 added to the ThirdReich/Germany coalitions and have some German markings for it too! :)

I know one P-47 which was forced to emergency land at Axis airfield, Pilot was coming back home, and he noticed that there is a couple of planes on enemy airfield, so he dived and start strafing ground targets. After couple passes he wen too low and strike prop of the ground. I just imagine how happy Germans were, when he landed on their airfield after unloading quite a lot of 50cal ammo.

While doing some background reading on the P-47, I came across numerous photographs and images of P-47s with Luftwaffe markings.

 

[ATTACH]236239[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]236242[/ATTACH]

Also:

 

[ATTACH]236238[/ATTACH][ATTACH]236244[/ATTACH][ATTACH]236240[/ATTACH][ATTACH]236241[/ATTACH][ATTACH]236246[/ATTACH]

There are LW markings for the P-51 and RAF markings for the Anton and Dora by some talented folk. It's cool that they were adopted by ED and made official too (e.g. so we can use them on the MP servers).

 

Anyway, it would be really great if we could have the upcoming P-47 added to the ThirdReich/Germany coalitions and have some German markings for it too! :)

Germany used a number of allied captured vehicals during the war, including P-47s, Mustangs, Spitfires, B17s and a few others, as for tanks and ground vehicals, KV series were used, t-34s, a few half tracks, churchil and matilda tanks iirc.

as for load testing im sure there is likely a forumla that can be used after static load testing is done, seeing as the pressure at a given altitude can be recorded they could likely apply such a formula to figure out pressure exerted per surface area at a height and then compare to the static tests to failure.

that being said im no aviation engineer and only hold a ppl and looked at how aircraft are built.

A smidge off topic, in so much as only scuffs the surface of investigation you guys are following,

I (in anticipation of the impending release if the p47 into DCS) just completed a 1/32 scale 47D model.

What struck me was its size and bulk. It dwarfs a spitfire IX and modern Harrier II of same scale.

Remarkable.

Put the P-47 model next to a Hellcat of the same scale.

These were supposedly the two 'safest' fighters of WWII, in terms of losses vs combat hours.

But as far as I know, no one ever voluntarily landed a Thunderbolt on a carrier, much less did so routinely. (one P-47 group took off from carriers during the Saipan invasion though)

cheers

horseback

Just for the record, here, that photo showing Mustangs with Luftwaffe markings is NOT a ww2 picture. The Germans did not use P-51's. That picture was taken in 1948 during the making of the film, "Fighter Squadron,". It starred Edmond O'Brian and Robert Stack and is a favorite of mine. They used P-51's as "M-E's" as they referred to them in the film. I personally, see no purpose in DCS having Allied airplanes painted in German markings.

"While doing some background reading on the P-47, I came across numerous photographs and images of P-47s with Luftwaffe markings."

I don't know why this comes as a surprise. I have plenty of photos of German and Japanese airplanes in Allied markings, too. All countries captured and evaluated the enemies equipment. It was common, when doing so, to paint their own marking on the machines.

Just for the record, here, that photo showing Mustangs with Luftwaffe markings is NOT a ww2 picture. The Germans did not use P-51's. That picture was taken in 1948 during the making of the film, "Fighter Squadron,". It starred Edmond O'Brian and Robert Stack and is a favorite of mine. They used P-51's as "M-E's" as they referred to them in the film. I personally, see no purpose in DCS having Allied airplanes painted in German markings.

Probably right for this picture. But Luftwaffe did use P51.

There was an evaluation squadron where all captured plane were repaired and tested. Don't remember which one, but a great german aces used to go to the airfield where those plane were placed and often fly them to understand what they can and can't do.