What's wrong with the Jug, wy so little interest ?

[_Spad_]

On 2/7/2021 at 8:25 AM, Snapage said:

Having to sit on the ground for 10 minutes warming up the engine every flight makes it frustrating. To much time on the ground doing nothing but waiting.

Try closing your oil cooler.

[Nealius]

On 2/7/2021 at 6:25 AM, Snapage said:

Having to sit on the ground for 10 minutes warming up the engine every flight makes it frustrating. To much time on the ground doing nothing but waiting.

 

I don't recall ever having to wait longer than 5 minutes. Most of the time she's warmed up by the time I finish taxiing. 

[Weegie]

I have the module but was a bit MEH!! towards it. IMHO  it's not a beautiful aircraft, in fact bit of a "big girl" if you get my meaning.

 

We all have our biases towards aircraft and history, so that (unkowningly) is part of it, I'm a Brit.

 

That out the way though I'm going through "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" videos on the Thunderbolt on YouTube and now getting an idea of just how good this aircraft actually was and the part it played in the war. Add into that the technical complexity and sheer brilliance of the ariframe and engine design and its making me want to fly it a lot more

 

As others said it doesn't have that one particular WOW factor that other aircraft have, but can do almost everything and doesn't do anything at all badly and nearly everything very well indeed. It's also amazingly tough and provided great pilot protection, it reminds me of the B-17 in that respect, kept flying when it had no right too.

 

Really starting to appreciate what a brilliant aircraft this was, but again as others pointed it, it's an acquired taste and takes time to appreciate

[Glow]

8 guns, this is WOW imo. Unfortunately we have no access to settings how all those guns are aimed. If im not mistaken, all 8 shoot in same horizontal plane. If we could adjust this to make all those guns shoot in different vertical plane, to cover a bigger space in the air. That's would be much a bigger WOW factor and advantage when aiming.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Glow

[303_Kermit]

On 2/7/2021 at 8:09 PM, grafspee said:

"Excellent control in dive easy dive recover." Compressibility flaps were installed with no reason. Dives was main pain in P-47, thirst it was though that it is as bad as in P-38 but wasn't so bad after some testing was done.

Still plane could not recover easy from dive.

P-47 wasn't excellent diver. 

For example P-51 has higher dive limits then P-47

P-47 25k ft to 30k ft has limit 300 IAS

P-51 25k ft to 30k ft has limit 350 IAS

P-47 wasn't insane fast, this plane  was entering compressibility at lower mach simple as that, and plane in this state was becoming nose heavy and loost of elevator control  was present as well. So P-47 had to dive in to lower altitude where mach number dropped then pilot was able to pull this bird from dive.

manual states that pull opportunity was showing between 15k and 18k ft. 

 

 

Limits ...  

Well..

-About air compressibility all true. 

 

-About P-38 and P47. It's true that both planes suffer from buffeting and since the phenomena was unknown those times engineers thought that their having flatter. Wrong explanation of problem, and lack of correct solution.

-I won't deny P51 Acceleration in dive, but the point is, that the structure of P47 could easily sustain exceeded dive speed. Up to moment when pilot lost control over elevator. But P47 stays all the time in one piece. You can't say that about P51, don't you? 

 

-P47 is very rigid. Though buffeting it stays in one piece - you couldn't say that about P38 (unfortunately) The dive limits were for P47 from obvious reasons - buffeting. But they could be exceeded without much consequences. And one more thing... P47 is huge, and slick like a 3-door wardrobe... with a mirror, it causes huge wave drag (I hope it's called so in English) , but that's why while being in dive without control you could slow down just by throttling down. Also impossible for P51

 

I'd kill to have it all in P47 in DCS

 

With my best regards

303_Kermit

Edited February 9, 2021 by 303_Kermit

[Rick50]

Some warbirds are just overlooked because they don't appeal as much to the eye.  It's true. I myself am biased in favor of the bent-wing Corsair, yet the Grumman Hellcat was the real star of the show for the Navy... but one looks unique and ready for a fight, the other looks mundane and passive even if it really wasn't. Same thing for the Hurricane, which was more stable for new fighter recruits to actually get hits on enemies, was cheaper and faster to repair, and very much helped win the Battle of Britain (not saying it's actually better than a Spit, just saying it has it's own shining moments)... but it just looked ugly when beside the redicoulously glamorous Spitfire, possibly the most beautiful aeroplane in all history. Unfair? Of course it's unfair. But there's NO doubt that the Hurricane is overlooked because of it's looks.  So the paintings, museum displays, movies all feature the Spitfire, while the Hurricane sits in the corner, noticed only by those who truly know the history.  So for some, it's the same with the P-47, myself included, and I only started to appreciate the Jug when I started flying it in sims 20 years ago, before that I barely even knew of it's existence. The simulation exposure taught me of it's strengths and weaknesses, and it's history, because it wasn't love at first sight! 

 

 

[grafspee]

On 2/9/2021 at 5:39 PM, 303_Kermit said:

 

 

 

it causes huge wave drag (I hope it's called so in English) , but that's why while being in dive without control you could slow down just by throttling down. Also impossible for P51

 

I'd kill to have it all in P47 in DCS

 

With my best regards

303_Kermit

 

Wrong, in dives in P-47 reducing throttle will induce even more nose heavy tendency, so slowing down in dives by reducing throttle is no option while plane is experiencing compressibility.

Slowing down in normal dive by throttle reduction is still not an option for P-47, you need to watch to not kill your master bearings, at high rpm and low MP well know feature of all radial engines.

P-51 wins as well in that regard.

Second what's the point of diving in to uncontrolable state? So enemy can pull up early and wait till you will be pulling out your plane from very dangerous situation.

Thanks we have diving flaps in P-47 so we are able to pull out from this nasty dive early.

Another thing is trimming system which is extremely sensitive at high speeds, so pilots are reminded almost at every page of manual to trim before dive.

I know that P-38 liked to fall apart in dives, but i don't know anything about P-47 or P-51, but even high speed dive testes which were done on P-51 never exceeded 505IAS limit.

Hard to judged which one would fall apart first , those are extremes of flight envelope which were hardly tested ever.

Edited February 15, 2021 by grafspee

[Glide]

Lots of interest in skins: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?PAGEN_1=2&set_filter=Y&arrFilter_pf[filetype]=&arrFilter_pf[gameversion]=&arrFilter_pf[filelang]=&arrFilter_pf[aircraft]=564&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&CREATED_BY=&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC&set_filter=Filter

[303_Kermit]

On 2/15/2021 at 10:24 PM, grafspee said:

Wrong, in dives in P-47 reducing throttle will induce even more nose heavy tendency, so slowing down in dives by reducing throttle is no option while plane is experiencing compressibility.

 

 

"Experiencing Compressibility"  LOL. You're funny. 
It's "Wave Drag". And nose heavy tendency comes from building on a upper wing surface a local phenomena called "parpendicular shockwave". It has nothing to do with propeller RPM.
Stop spamming please.

[grafspee]

5 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

"Experiencing Compressibility"  LOL. You're funny. 
It's "Wave Drag". And nose heavy tendency comes from building on a upper wing surface a local phenomena called "parpendicular shockwave". It has nothing to do with propeller RPM.
Stop spamming please.

My question is where did i say anything about prop RPM?? I was talking about throttle.

Nose heavy tendency in compressibility range comes from reduced vertical stab down force and lost of elevator pitchl(actually elevator can be deflected, In P-47 dive tests they measured elevator angle deflection, based on elevator deflection calculated pull out G was something about 20G but plane wasnt reacted to this.) as far as i know.

Not only wings but at control surfaces as well.

Again you are wrong, reducing throttle to 0 in P-47 nose become even more heavy.

This is exactly opposite what you stated.

You said that P-51 cant throttle back in dive but case is exactly opposite.

P-51 dive recovery includes advice to throttle back, and in P47 it is not allowed, you actually need to push throttle up if nose starts going deeper.

Overal Late P-51s were far superior in high speed dives, and early version retrofitted with metal covered elevators and changed horizontal stab angle of incidence improved high mach dives.

You can recover at every altitude in P-51 and it stays quite stable up to 0.8 mach 0.75 is max dive speed.

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by grafspee

[303_Kermit]

I see you spend a lot of time reading some plane monography. The things you wrote aren't totally wrong. But you need a little bit more knowledge about fluid mechanics to understand, how all the phenomena you mentioned are connected with themselves, and what is caused by what. You won't find correct answer by reading books with coloured pictures. Answers you may find in Roscam, Torenbeek, and if you posses a Russian language I strongly recommend Арзаников и Мальцев "Аэродинамика".

 

Else you'll never understand things you're talking about

 

In almost every sentence you wrote, there's something missing or ill interpreted. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by 303_Kermit

[grafspee]

2 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

I see you spend a lot of time reading some plane monography. The things you wrote aren't totally wrong. But you need a little bit more knowledge about fluid mechanics to understand, how all the phenomena you mentioned are connected with themselves, and what is caused by what. You won't find correct answer by reading books with coloured pictures. Answers you may find in Roscam, Torenbeek, and if you posses a Russian language I strongly recommend Арзаников и Мальцев "Аэродинамика".

 

Else you'll never understand things you're talking about

 

In almost every sentence you wrote, there's something missing or ill interpreted. 

 

What you just wrote has no sense, i am virtual pilot, so i read pilot's manuals and plane's manuals to learn how plane behave, what to do or what not to do with it.

Do i understand fluid mechanics or not absolutely does not matter, all physics rules still apply.

And humble request pls stop posting about my person, that i am spamming, that i am funny, or anything like that this is not topic about me.

So are you implying that after i read those books mentioned above i will be able to what exactly, agree with you? Because most of thing you said above can be squashed after couple of pages of p-51 and p-47 manual. So you are calming that manual is just not true ? yes it is true that in 1940 not much was known about high mach flight, so most of the conclusions went from live tests. And live testes dont lie.

Edited February 27, 2021 by grafspee

[Steel Jaw]

On 2/5/2021 at 8:40 AM, Lurker said:

but there is another sim out there (whose name we will not mention) that does it better, that feels more complete and more end-user friendly in almost every way imaginable. From performance, to gameplay, single player, multiplayer etc. y. 

 

Il2?

[felixx75]

On 2/5/2021 at 2:40 PM, Lurker said:

but there is another sim out there (whose name we will not mention) that does it better, that feels more complete and more end-user friendly in almost every way imaginable. From performance, to gameplay, single player, multiplayer etc. 

IL2 is the better "Game", but DCS is the better "Simulator"

[Sydy]

On 1/16/2021 at 2:23 PM, Sydy said:

I did my share:

- 2 Campaigns released;

- 1 Kneeboard checklist covering all models;

- 1 Template for MFD Cougars;

- 33 Skins.

 

Well, that’s so far.

 

 

At least I can say "I made P-47 Skins before it was cool!"

 

LOL

[Glow]

Currently in User files library there are more P-47D liveries (189), than for Spitfire (179) or 13 years old, free Su-25T (182). 

[303_Kermit]

On 2/27/2021 at 8:02 PM, grafspee said:

What you just wrote has no sense, i am virtual pilot, so i read pilot's manuals and plane's manuals to learn how plane behave, what to do or what not to do with it.

Do i understand fluid mechanics or not absolutely does not matter, all physics rules still apply.

And humble request pls stop posting about my person, that i am spamming, that i am funny, or anything like that this is not topic about me.

So are you implying that after i read those books mentioned above i will be able to what exactly, agree with you? Because most of thing you said above can be squashed after couple of pages of p-51 and p-47 manual. So you are calming that manual is just not true ? yes it is true that in 1940 not much was known about high mach flight, so most of the conclusions went from live tests. And live testes dont lie.

 

Unfortunately not everything you red in Manual must be "holly truth". If plane has something badly modelled - it's also possible that there's wrong explanation about it. Not everyone must be an aircraft engineer, but it would be nice if the one who makes flight-model is one. I am and I have pretty good knowledge about it. Unfortunately i can code only in Fortran and it's pure for math calculations. 
 

What I mean... You wrote somwhere: "Nose heavy tendency in compressibility range comes from reduced vertical stab down force and lost of elevator pitchl" arguing that the "parpendicular shockwave " is not the reason. If you search a little bit more you may find that these two phenomena are strongly connected, and one is a reason for other. It's all very interesting, but I'm not a school teacher.

I'm sending my best regards. I'm sorry if I offended you.
303_Kermit

[grafspee]

6 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

 

What I mean... You wrote somwhere: "Nose heavy tendency in compressibility range comes from reduced vertical stab down force and lost of elevator pitchl" arguing that the "parpendicular shockwave " is not the reason.

You still cant understand difference, what i said wasn't anything close to argue.

If you drop a single phrase "perpendicular shockwave" this explains very little, not every plane suffered from this, other are designed to perform well at that speeds(you dont need to search a  lot, P-51D,Spitfire those fly perfectly fine at speeds where P-47 is in deep trouble).

I said only what is happening to the plane(p-47) in that situation, If i would want to fix that plane i would dive deeper in this phenomena.

So when p-47 exceed certain speed down force required to keep plane level is fading away additional to this elevator efficiency is drooping to 0 so pilot can not keep level flight with stick inputs. What is the reason why this happening is completely different topic. This is why i did not argue with you about it.

But definitely this is tail section problem. In case of P-38 in flight at 35k ft if pilot enter dive something like 10 -15 degree with power on within 1000f P-38 in compressibility w/o any control.

Second, I wonder what is that though logic by saying that entering the uncontrolable dive is better then controlable dive, how so i don't know. P-51 is capable of higher mach number no doubt about that.

Another thing, who think rpm when read throttle?

You said that P-47 can slow down with throttle being reduced, wrong. Question is from where are you taking this information, i am super curious about that.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by grafspee

[thrustvector]

ok, on topic  why take the jug if you could take the mustang?

[Sajarov]

ok, on topic  why take the jug if you could take the mustang?

Better punch, better damage resistance and the big radial engine with 2000 bhp is marvellous.

It is harder to fly ( more fun) than the P-51( boooring!)

Don't forget the cool factor too.

P.s. of course this statemeny only represent my opinion and only my opinion.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using Tapatalk

[thrustvector]

haha yea, see i think the stang is better, seems to have a much better pull out power and  nicer flight characteristics, maybe easier as you say dunno.

not sure of why i feel the jug is the underdog, it just sort of feels that way in flight to me, i pulls up fine in a dive, but does not seem to have the power or soul, sure when i look down its doing the same speed and has climbed the same alt but cant put a finger on it, shame as i really wanted it, but atm no my fav warbird to fly

[Nealius]

On 3/7/2021 at 6:02 PM, thrustvector said:

ok, on topic  why take the jug if you could take the mustang?

 

Different roles. The Mustang is great for A2A, but can only carry two heavy bombs or HVARs, and HVARs were never used in the European theater, which leaves my only A2G choice as two heavy bombs. The Jug, on the other hand, gets its choice of various bombs, plus the "bazooka" rockets, and can even carry a combo load of bombs and rockets and a fuel tank at the same time, something the Mustang cannot do. 

 

Not to mention a single bullet to the Mustang's engine and your screwed. The Jug can take more hits and bring you home.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Nealius

[felixx75]

On 3/7/2021 at 10:02 AM, thrustvector said:

ok, on topic  why take the jug if you could take the mustang?

Quite simply, I like them much better