3 versions of P47

[horseback]

Difficulties in modelling all that due to missing a crucial part of documentation or something I'd guess. Or just the amount of sheer work is too much, dunno.

ED is right that the D-40 was the first model to be delivered with zero-length 5" rocket launchers; the disconnect is that whenever a particularly useful bit of technology was developed for a specific fighter type, there is a time lag between the production aircraft getting that kit ordered and installed on the production line, sometimes months. In the meantime, aircraft already built and either in combat units or just arriving in Britain (for example) often (but not always) received retrofit kits.

 

The Army Air Force had several maintenance, repair and refitting depots near frontline units in every major theater, reassembling aircraft 'fresh off the boat' and adding the various kits that were developed after the aircraft left the assembly line and could be put on without major re-engineering. HVAR rocket launching systems would have been one of those items, once adequate supplies of the rockets were available.

 

Retrofitting aircraft coming into these depots was highly organized; most of the first P-51B/C Mustangs that arrived in England lacked the 85 gal fuselage tanks; these were shipped at the same time or shortly after the planes were shipped overseas, and installed after the aircraft arrived. Same with water injection for the R-2800s in the P-47s, or the paddle blade props; too worthwhile to wait for the production aircraft to arrive with it, and the kits for installing them could be shipped much sooner and more easily.

 

Dorsal fins for the P-47 were installed on most bubbletops Jugs via the same process, just as the dorsal fin fillets were put on early D model Mustangs (not to mention a lot of B/C models).

 

A lot of earlier 'block' aircraft were fitted with the latest and greatest innovations available, long before the 'stock' versions of the aircraft arrived with them. This didn't change their block numbers (which had more to do with tracking the contracts they were built under), but it usually improved their combat effectiveness.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[Eldur]

FFB2? Is that short for force feed back?

 

Exactly, this one:

 

 

The problem with ED modules and FFB trim is that it tries to do something right, but doesn't get there completely. Instead of making the aircraft pitch up or down when applying trim until it stops doing that, with FFB enabled in DCS and a stick that features it, the stick centering shifts when trimming, the actual deflection of the control surfaces is always tied to the stick movement and nothing else. So if I do trim, but don't touch my stick (a light barrier on the front of the grip enables the actual FFB, so it won't swing around when you don't hold it), nothing happens, but when I grab it, the force centering the stick shifts to another point off the physical center.

 

Now that's all great. The problems are that you can just shift the center by trimming to somewhere around 66-75% of the max range, the other is that the curve set to the axis won't apply to the FFB, so basically the trim range approximately gets halved on that stick with a 25 curve. And that's often not enough, especially in the Flankers which still pitch up violently with full nose heavy trim above 380 kph IAS if you don't push the thing further forward. And it's similar in the P-47 or Yak-52, where you'd have to pull back a bit even with full tail heavy trim.

 

On the top of that comes the fact that when having a curve, it's most controllable around the center and gets more and more sensitive the closer you get to full deflection, making it very twitchy there which does incude the porpoising I mentioned at low speeds. It would be of advantage if the stick curvature would be shifted with the force centering as well which isn't the case as of yet.

 

Of course it would be ideal to just have a linear axis and this eliminates some of the issues, but at a cost. The old and trusty FFB2 is low res and just has 2048 positions per axis whereas more recent sticks have 16k, 32k or possibly even more. Add to that the fact that it would need an extension to properly deflect like a real thing. I still want to have that today if noone is going to bring an affordable FFB base (I'd pay 300 for that easily) for the TMWH stick and compatibles:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=83814

Edited June 6, 2020 by Eldur

[Barrett_g]

Exactly, this one:

 

 

The problem with ED modules and FFB trim is that it tries to do something right, but doesn't get there completely. Instead of making the aircraft pitch up or down when applying trim until it stops doing that, with FFB enabled in DCS and a stick that features it, the stick centering shifts when trimming, the actual deflection of the control surfaces is always tied to the stick movement and nothing else. So if I do trim, but don't touch my stick (a light barrier on the front of the grip enables the actual FFB, so it won't swing around when you don't hold it), nothing happens, but when I grab it, the force centering the stick shifts to another point off the physical center.

 

Now that's all great. The problems are that you can just shift the center by trimming to somewhere around 66-75% of the max range, the other is that the curve set to the axis won't apply to the FFB, so basically the trim range approximately gets halved on that stick with a 25 curve. And that's often not enough, especially in the Flankers which still pitch up violently with full nose heavy trim above 380 kph IAS if you don't push the thing further forward. And it's similar in the P-47 or Yak-52, where you'd have to pull back a bit even with full tail heavy trim.

 

On the top of that comes the fact that when having a curve, it's most controllable around the center and gets more and more sensitive the closer you get to full deflection, making it very twitchy there which does incude the porpoising I mentioned at low speeds. It would be of advantage if the stick curvature would be shifted with the force centering as well which isn't the case as of yet.

 

Of course it would be ideal to just have a linear axis and this eliminates some of the issues, but at a cost. The old and trusty FFB2 is low res and just has 2048 positions per axis whereas more recent sticks have 16k, 32k or possibly even more. Add to that the fact that it would need an extension to properly deflect like a real thing. I still want to have that today if noone is going to bring an affordable FFB base (I'd pay 300 for that easily) for the TMWH stick and compatibles:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=83814

 

So for now modding the MS Sidewinder FF 2 is still the best available? I’m gonna have to start hunting for 1 (or 2!)