303_Kermit

I checked - you are 100% right. The conflict I meant was in 1938-1939. Saburo Sakai flew then A5M which was inferior (according Sakai) to Soviet fighters both in speed and agility I'm not sure about climb. A6M in 1940 are absolutely possible Prepared as always you are young Padawan With my regards 303_Kermit As for Wish... A6M vs F4F - or N1K1(ew. Ki61-II) vs F4U. Any other combination makes IMHO little sense.

Hallo Sir! Thank you for response. I prepared a film to explain as clearly as I could what I meant. I also uploaded a test.mis file where bug can be observed. I stay at your disposal. A link to a film on YT where I try to explain a problem: https://youtu.be/b-hO_xmiOlE A link to a test.mis test.miz With my best regards 303_Kermit

Nope, I'm affraid I wasn't properly understand. I prepare a Track right now!

Theres a serious bug in Caucasus map. I observe these bug on Airfields: Krymsk Anapa (reversed by 180°) Maykop but there may be others If NAV wind BLOWS between 300° and 60° 1 - 4m/s active runway is 22 (on Krymsk and Maykop) lights (for night landings and bad weather landings) are set for direction 22, but.... ... ARK beascon (NDB Beacon) is set for approach on 04 .... RSBN & PRMG beacon are set for approach on 04 Can you please correct it? We're flying L39C. It's Virtual flying school with proper communication, procedures, and true - life military pilot who's acting instructor. The planes are virtual, but the basic knowledge stays the same. There are exams, lessons etc., meteorology, VFR flights, IFR flights and air traffic control. These bug is a serious problem for us, since we can't alter active runway or active beacons. Second problem is, when we're conducting basic night flights. After landing and taxiing to take off again Airstrip lights (APS) doesn't allways come on as they should. The other problem is a serious de-synchronization between first and second cockpit in L39. While emergency situations failures appear in one cockpit only, there are situations when in first cockpit engine works and in second doesn't. Plane refueled from first cockpit isn't refueled for pilot in second cockpit. That's why when you take off right after refuel, instructor in second cockpit hears engine shutting down because in his cockpit fuel is at 0 level, In the same time for pilot in front cockpit everything is fine (engine works). For instructor in second cockpit engine is shut down. It would be also nice if someone finally adds missing texture in L39 Cockpit. It's visible when you turn your head 160° to the right. There's a cable without texture. Can you please help? With my best regards 303_Kermit

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

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.

"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.

I don't complain. I just don't allow them to fly over my head. It's easy to avoid astronauts...

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

It's allways bad idea

But here stays that there's no AN/APS-13 for F-51D .... and surely not for P-51D

Hallo I found today on my PC something rather unusual. F-51D / F-51H Flight Instruction. I've found something rather interesting on page 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/110f1f_LW8XvQnHU6gBzSnZqXUr6YL_a-/view?usp=sharing

Its not the number what creates a problem, but it's the air density. With growing Ma number, you're beginning to reach so called "sound barrier". Some shapes are better suited to break, or came close to it , the others - are worse. P47 isn't actually a kind of very "slick" construction. Theoretically you can exceed sound barrier with propeller driven aircraft. That's of course when the propeller and plane are right. For example with the propeller like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan it's constructed to work with the flow (flow around the blades, not necessary around the plane) over Ma = 1. I'd like to talk about facts, not make any opinions. In the end opinions shall be irrelevant. Facts are (at least to me) important. I am pretty sure that there are somewhere some data about P47D25 ? Greater power gave surely greater speed - I'd really like to know for sure by how much mph. I heard also, that later in '44 Hub Zemke's squad become improved propeller that tuned up acceleration and climb. I'd like also to see the numbers, and / if it's implemented to DCS. I don't see a point in arguing. Opinions are irrelevant, what's relevant are facts. If you say that P-47D25 had stronger, more powerfull engine, than the data I gave are incorrect. I'll check. With my best regards 303_Kermit

I don't want to sound like a "smart ass" ... but it's known that the greater the speeds are, the bigger thrust/power needed. If we check it with example of Bf-109 F2 / F4 / K4: F2 - 1.159 B.H.P - 615 km/h (382 mph) at ???? F4 - 1.350 B.H.P - 659 km/h (410 mph) at 6,200 m (20,341 ft) K4 - 1.850 B.H.P - 710 km/h (440 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft) -from F2 to F4 there's about 200ps more and as result 40kph more, -form F4 to K4 there's 500B.H.P more but instead of expected 85kph more there's "only" 50kph more. We're reaching the limits of propeller driven aircraft. Further development of power will have bigger influence on better climb and acceleration than a higher top speed. Good example of such effect is Spitfire XIV With my best regards 303_Kermit

how much B.H.P. does exactly has "our" P47? the one in test has 2.335 B.H.P. on 15.000ft. is our more powerfull?

Thank you for posting all these interesting infos. I do believe, that applying a steering forces to flight sim is extremely difficult. As far as I find a Bf-109 K4 being (among MiG-15bis) best module in DCS, i have allways problems with these subject. It's simple true that pulling stick with 40KG force is a difficult task, and... It wasn't a mistake or design failure. It was rather precisely designed way of giving a pilot proper feedback about how high are G-Forces at given airspeed. It was a brilliant way to avoid pilot to pass out as a result of blackout (and I'm quoting here Mark Hanna whom I heard speaking and watched flying Spitfire in Goraszka in 1997 - a world famous pilot, owner of Spitfire and BF109). The forces on the stick are in Bf corelated with G-Forces. Sooo... It's not a bug it's a feature. One more thing: A forces on stick are very easily regulated by a shape of elevator. Such feature is called "Aerodynamic compensation". Simply by placing a significant part of rudder before elevator axis, one can lower a forces necessary to apply to a stick. like here: Elevator with simple aerodynamic compensation: So ... having a correlation of Stick forces and Ma number is a calculated behave, and it's not easy to construct a steering forces to work like these. There's lot of problems like flatter or buffeting that are making it complicated, or impossible. A simple example of such problems (and unfortunately an example of failure in these area) is a Supermarine Spitfire. A pilots were able to surprise themselves by applying too much G-Force. A surprise came from the fact, that steering forces on Spitfire were very low. Later Spitfire become a additional weight on the end of elevator surface to quick solve a problem, but Supermarine never managed to correlate Speed with Steering forces in a way that it would prevent pilots from applying accidentally too much G-Force. Most US - made Planes were not having these problem, because of hydraulic servo, FW190 was developed in a bit hurry - there was no time to take care of such small problems, so as "Das Bericht" describes - "Steering forces are not correlated with Ma number". With my best regards 303_Kermit

The Jug is together with Bf109 my most favourite plane. In All Sims I fly i do fly Bf- on Eastern front, and P47 on Western... It's the plane you have to love or hate. And god I love it. I do think that Hub's Zemke Wolfpack was the most dangerous fightergroup of WWII... They made Günther Rall resign of flying ... I would say strong Being a huge P47 fan I would never say that it was a turn-fighter, and I never heard such opinion form P47 veteran. Actually many of them hated the way the plane flied. The "lady Jug" was surprisingly agile (as Boleslaw "Mad Pole" Gladych described once) for a plane big like a church, true. In my opinion first P47 must fly fast like P47. It was (I'd like to say it in Jeremy Clarckson way) "THE fastest plane ...in the world" those times, unbeatable on high altitude, so: 1. first are the speeds, they shall match: so far i wouldn't say it match neither on low altitude, nor on high.... there are the data for P-47D10 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html High speed: Intercooler and oil cooler flap neutral, cowl flaps closed; flaps and gear up; 2700 R.P.M. with water injection. Altitude Ft. Manifold Pressure "Hg. Torque Brake Horsepower Turbo RPM Exhaust Back Press. "Hg. Carb. Air Temp. °C True Speed MPH 0 56 2210 7,200 36.0 32.0 333 5,000 56 2265 9,400 33.2 27.0 353 10,000 56 2315 11,600 31.4 23.0 372 15,000 56 2335 13,850 30.3 23.0 390 20,000 56 2325 16,200 30.5 26.0 406 25,000 56 2265 18,650 32.5 33.0 421 30,000 56 2225 21,400 35.7 43.0 433 31,000 56 2220 22,000 36.5 46.0 435 33,000 50.5 2020 22,000 32.0 39.0 430 35,000 45.8 1740 22,000 30.0 32.0 422 38,000 39.0 1550 22,000 25.3 23.0 404 2. Second: Acceleration in dive, excellent control in dive, easy recovery from dive, and zoom climb - easy energy recovery after dive. Unfortunately it's very difficult to put those advantages in numbers. P47 was excellent fighter when flown "energetic style". Allowing to dive down to any target, and than regain the altitude before the speed drops down. 3. Strong , rigid construction. P47 could dive with insane speeds (actually with speeds exceeding the ability to control a plane) without damaging a construction. I don't see those characteristics in current P-47. That was what I meant sir. With my best regards Kermit

Nope. Saburo Sakai tells clearly what planes were used in that conflict. There was no A6M Zeke in the air there.

Can't wait to fly it online, but I wait untill it starts remotely fly like a P47...

There's no point in gliding on an anvil . It's enough to calculate Wing Surface to Waight ratio: If you take empty P47 it's about 162kg/ m², just to compare ... for He 111 these ratio (calculated same way) is ...99kg/m², and for Bf-109 about 140kg/m² Speed, and agility of P 47 in DCS makes me wonder. I dived yesterday on P47 that was dirclty below me (Storm of War server). with 680kph IAS i dived ... leveled off behind his tail, my speed drops down... 600...580...550....510IAS. P47 was impossible to catch. The Chart below shows that P47 D10 was able to keep 535 kph TAS asuming temperature about 32°C it gives routhly calculated 480IAS... 30 kph slower than i was doing in Bf109. below is the performance chart from: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html High speed: Intercooler and oil cooler flap neutral, cowl flaps closed; flaps and gear up; 2700 R.P.M. with water injection. Altitude Ft. Manifold Pressure "Hg. Torque Brake Horsepower Turbo RPM Exhaust Back Press. "Hg. Carb. Air Temp. °C True Speed MPH 0 56 2210 7,200 36.0 32.0 333 5,000 56 2265 9,400 33.2 27.0 353 10,000 56 2315 11,600 31.4 23.0 372 15,000 56 2335 13,850 30.3 23.0 390 20,000 56 2325 16,200 30.5 26.0 406 25,000 56 2265 18,650 32.5 33.0 421 30,000 56 2225 21,400 35.7 43.0 433 31,000 56 2220 22,000 36.5 46.0 435 33,000 50.5 2020 22,000 32.0 39.0 430 35,000 45.8 1740 22,000 30.0 32.0 422 38,000 39.0 1550 22,000 25.3 23.0 404

The only problem I have with MiG-15bis is lack of real playground. I live in Europe, so It means that Korea 1952 is for me a kind of desperation. It's empty anyway so we (there's 2 of us, and others are learning) fly Blueflag Coldwar instead, but it's A2G playground mostly. Bad place for MiG 15bis between F5E, AV8B, and lot of Chaprals... We're hungry for combat, but most of the times there's no place to play. Two sewers and both mostly empty

+1

It's a perfect plane for learning purposes. And it will fly properly if ... you will fly him properly. I never use any curves - except of rudder. I admit - my pedals aren't impressive an 15% smooth is necessary. Every other curve stays default. L-39 flies perfectly. I recommend "C" variant , because it feels much lighter while aerobatic. Is very proper in most cases, except of spin - there's unsymmetrical. By good weather you can trim your aircraft so, that F-18 flying nearby will think that you have an autopilot. With my best regards 303_Kermit

thanks! we surely show ourself

If i have to bomb on MiG 15 i use Vertical dive Ju87 Stuka style I workes quite well. Start on 1800m. Aproach your target so, that he slides alongside your canopy. Turn throttle off. When target hides under the wing start to roll. Engage pull to vertical dive exactly over target. Dive shall be about 80°. Place the crisshair under or on the targer. Just before drop pull gently to place a target on the bottom of crosshair circle. If you use zoom 75% as normal drop your bombs when you start to see details of the target (if you can say that it's a Vehicle or a Canon, or a Rocket launcher). 1. Keep a ball in the middle! 2. Don't use rudder to aim the crosshair on target