Caldera

H60, When this happened to me it was that I had my landing gear selected to be up, I use a controller switch, when on the ground.

Hey all, I have trouble getting a trigger to work. Do parachutes count as airplanes? Thanks in advance, Caldera

I have attached a short track. The response to hard left or right rudder input is how I described above. I tried to attain level flight each time before the maneuver. Yes, I get the "left turning, roll tendencies and I suppose the few other effects" at least a from theory, not from practice. To me this is different. But it only seems to me that a hard and sudden yaw movement should produce some noticeable precession. To my inexperience, I can not notice any because the effect seems almost the same to left or to the right. Gyroscopic precession makes possible some impossible seeming aerobatic maneuvers. Which aircraft would you usually fly in DCS? Caldera 001 P-47D 01.trk

Hey All, Let me first say that I am not a pilot, nor have any measurable experience in piloting a propeller driven aircraft. But in my learning to fly the P-47 there was a few topics that I strove to understand. Once such topic was gyroscopic precession and its effect on aerobatic maneuvers. One of my many searches lead me to this video, which is excellent in explaining the effect. Also the speaker is a well accomplished aerobatic pilot with many instructional videos. (check out his other links because they are awesome) From my understanding a clockwise rotating propeller should produce precession in the following ways: Down elevator --> nose left Up elevator --> nose right Left rudder --> nose up Right rudder --> nose down If this is not correct, please correct me. However, the DCS P-47 does not seem to behave this way. By mashing the rudder hard right produces nose down and nose right. By mashing the rudder hard left produces nose down and nose left. Where in reality ... I realize that the P-47's purpose is not aerobatics, but shouldn't a full aft stick in combination with hard left rudder produce an accelerated stall, a right hand rotation snap roll and departure from flight almost instantly? I have watched a few interviews (YouTube) by WW2 aces who said that they performed that very same maneuver to escape being shot down and one who claimed that he shot down a ME-262 by a lucky shot during one such maneuver. Anyone care to straighten me out here? Caldera

Thanks Rozo! Caldera

Hey all, Quick question... How do I talk to the AI ATC in Normandy? The radio menus are not greyed out, but he just ignores me and the P-47 only has 4 radio channels. Caldera

I think a climb to altitude time would settle this for sure. However, a level flight speed test at low altitude might be easier to perform. Both tests using unlimited fuel and performed at the same RPM. Just keep in mind that the pilot does not see the total boost pressure only the MP indicated on the cockpit dash. Caldera

Bozon, I believe that is a primary point of discussion. It would use more fuel to achieve less Hp vice as you say the making the same amount of Hp (under certain conditions). I have to remind myself that MP does not equal Hp. On the other hand I agree with you fully as I have locked the boost and throttle myself many times. But... I guess learning to do it perfectly so that I am fully aware when I do it sloppy is my goal. With a 109 on my six I have little problems with any of it. I have not tested any of this by conducting my own speed or climb tests and I am simply going off of regurgitated information. However take for example, if you do the training mission for take off, the boost and throttle are locked by default. The D model, from my understanding, had a regulator (of some sort) on the waste gate control. I can be certain (from the simulation) that it does not manage boost pressure very well as I have to constantly adjust the boost lever vice moving the lever to a pressure setting and then having the regulator do all the work. Possibly done that way intentionally to be able to achieve maximum performance. The N (M) model had a more advanced regulator and supposedly removed allot more burden on the pilot to micro manage boost. I have no clue how it worked. That all seems simple enough today by current standards and with all that it turns out to be the fastest allied fighter of WW2. Caldera

YES! I have been struggling with this for quite a few updates. It completely baffles me how an IR guided weapon (AGM-65D) will not first lock on to a hot and moving vehicle that is a big IR blob vice a fence post that is at or near ambient air temperature that visually is so small that it can not even be seen. In fact, strangely prefers to lock on to the fence post time and time again. This is like a sidewinder that locks onto a wingtip vice hot jet exhaust. Unless the target is in the open, the best way to get lock is by slaving the weapon to the TGP that is perfectly sighted on the target. Even then, it can pop off and lock onto a fence post. This is even more baffling. Oddly, the AGM-65H kind of sort of behaves in the same way. Light poles anyone? I am going with this is some kind of a glitch. Unfortunately, pretty much ignored in recent updates. Caldera

I have no clue, but the above has to be a very top secret light absorbing coating... Caldera

Yep! Basically RPM x Displacement, it is allot of air flow. Thanks for the pictures! Caldera

Very true. I am mildly curious and it would be fun to be able to quantify the actual pressures and temperatures. Like knowing the actual pressure and temperature values at the compressor(s) outlet vice just the MP (effected by engine RPM and throttle plate position) as well as the intercooler inlet and outlet temperatures. One could calculate allot from between those lines. But in reality, no importance to flying the P-47... Caldera

Hey All, I have read all of the above. Great discussion! I was myself wondering why my MP was so low at lower altitudes, but I seemed to remember information saying not to use the turbo boost until >12k feet. My comments: 40mmHg of boost in reality is not allot on an MP absolute pressure gauge. 30mmHg is about sea level pressure and about 15 psia or 0 psi. So 40mmHg MP is about 20 psia or 5 psi. And 60mmHg would be only about 30 psia, 15 psi or roughly two atmospheres. In effect, two atmospheres essentially doubles the displacement of the engine. As an example, my turbo diesel was able to run at 70-80 psi boost (with two in series turbos). That is about 95 psia. A diesel engine does not have a throttle plate. The carburetor throttle plate acts as a restriction on an automobile gas engine. I do not know how it works exactly on the R-2800, but to maintain mixture control I assume that it has one. So anytime the throttle plate is less than full open you would be making boost for less effect on engine performance. Basically making boost for the cost of adding HP load (supercharger) on the engine. The supercharger uses allot of HP. With the throttle plate wide open, then all of the HP used to power the supercharger is converted to engine power more efficiently. Saying all that, the supercharger gearing is probably set up with this and a given engine RPM in mind to work the best. From what I can gather the turbo (supercharger) on the P-47 was huge. First off, with allot of rotating mass it would not spool instantly. This "turbo lag" is what I see when I close the waste gate and direct engine exhaust gas to the turbo vice dumping it to atmosphere. Second off, for efficiency, the turbine casing for the turbo would be large. The reason is that a more restricted turbine casing would provide faster spool up, but also create more back pressure on the engine. Any back pressure on an engine reduces efficiency. And the sizing of the turbine itself must match the HP load of the compressor needed to supply the desired boost. The turbo compressor uses allot of HP. Using a turbo, in general, is like running an engine in a pressurized box. Where the atmospheric pressure in the box is set equal to the back pressure on the engine. So for an example, say the engine back pressure was 20 psia the engine would be less efficient than if it were running at sea level or about 15 psia. The turbine causing back pressure on the engine does this very thing. The net effect is positive HP gain, due to the positive effect of intake pressure increased by boost. This effect can be significant. As an example, my turbo diesel could produce 70-80 psi of boost, but with 80-90 psi of back pressure. Running a supercharger and a turbo supercharger (P-47) in series has its advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage is if the throttle plate is not wide open. This acts as a restriction for the entire system. The supercharger boost is restricted by the throttle plate. The turbo boost is restricted by the supercharger. Total boost increasing as the sum of the two. There could be situations of making allot of boost that couldn't be used. The supercharger consuming HP powered directly by the engine and the turbo by its increased effect of back pressure on the engine. Essentially wasting much of the HP needed to created that boost. Making allot of boost requires allot of HP. As an example, for my turbo diesel (I once calculated) that to produce ~600 HP the turbo itself was using ~300 HP or about 50%. For jet engines with higher compression ratios this number can be higher or about 65%. HP is not produced for free, fuel must be burned. Check your gas gauge... YMMV I suppose more information than anyone really wanted. If you did read I hoped you did enjoy, and be sure to give feed back. Caldera

Aeria, Are you sure M282 is a HEAT warhead? Absolutely not... My best guess is that it has an armor piercing tip to the warhead. If you look at the M151 and the M282 (in DCS), from what I can tell they look the same. I just noticed that the characteristics between the M151 and the M282 had changed. In the past the M282 was the go to weapon with significantly larger blast radius. All that being said, I need to do some more testing as recent missions have indicated that the M282 can indeed kill a BTR-80 with one missile, when at the time of my testing this was not the case. Caldera

Thanks Guys! When I get a chance I will look into doing this. Caldera

Thanks Rudel, How do I create a snapview for the first time? Will it wack my Snapview.lua file so that the other aircraft views that I have made will be gone? Caldera

Anyone still play the Harrier?

Hey All, I notice that in the SnapViews.lua file there is no section for the AV-8B. I typically set up a couple of views so that I can see the MFD's better where the MFD is huge on my computer screen. For example this is the F-16C: How do I do this in the AV-8B? Thanks in advance, Caldera

Hey All, I know this thread is a bit old, but I got to doing some testing. This is a continuation in testing related to a post that I made yesterday. I posted in A-10C, but it got bumped to Weapon Bugs. So I tested some more today. Specifically the APKWS M-151 and the M-282. From memory, M-282 vs T-55 took 5 rockets to destroy the tank and the M-151 would not even put a scratch in it. Now again from memory, the real M-282 has an armor piecing or HEAT warhead (Is that correct?). As Lecuvier, and a few others, describes the M-282 was the go to rocket. It was able to just about a guarantee a one shot kill vs most light armor. The ZSU-57-2 was a notable exception, I assumed that was because I believe it has a tank hull. So my testing today was weird. I was firing from the tanks 6 o'clock and aiming for the engine vents. I fired 5 M-282's at a T-55 and did not damage it a bit. So I fired the remaining 37 M-282's (in ripple) at the tank. And, did not even damage it. Huh... So then I proceeded to ripple fire 42 M-151's at the same tank. And it blow up! Now I am scratching my head. In further testing I determined that it takes about 15 M-151's to take out a T-55. There is now doubt that the M-282 has been nerfed vs infantry and the M-151 got better. I have convinced myself that Armor Piercing or HEAT rounds really may not be modeled, at least at this time. This begs the question in my mind, if armor is really even modeled or is each unit simply given a certain amount of health. If I watch weapon strikes in very slow motion I can see concentric rings forming after detonation. I am guessing this is for graphical purposes (which looks allot like shock waves), but also may directly effect damage. As each ring would produce different damage values to a target depending on which ring the target was in. With the inner rings producing more damage and the outer rings producing less. On the other hand, perhaps armor may play a part with the blast ring value having to be greater than then the armor value in order to penetrate and then be able to actually do damage. Does anyone know for sure? Caldera

Hey All, So I got to noticing some different weapon characteristics since the last time that I tested them. In specific, that the APKWS MPP-282L's were no longer a guaranteed a one shot kill on the ZSU-23-4 and the BTR-80. Often I am firing two at the BTR and three at the ZSU to ensure a kill. This is pretty cool IMO. I also managed to frag my own backside with a ripple of MK-82 AIR's, which I had thought to be almost impossible. These charts show the distance from the center point of impact, to a vehicle or solder, where a maximum hit or kill event occurred. (INF = infantry) Previous Testing: Current Testing: I only tested the rows that are highlighted in yellow. And, I really only tested each weapon for one run, except the AGM-65D. Things changed allot! The only really weird thing, and really weird thing is the AGM-65D. I tested this weapon a few times, but it was fairly consistent in it's results. I would have expected the AGM-65D and the AGM-65H to be very much the same. As are the AGM-65G, the AGM-65k and the AGM-65L. This just has to be a glitch, because it is pretty far out there concerning splash damage vs infantry. It is truly hard for me to distinguish what has changed, the weapon or the armor of the various units. So YMMW... A side note, from my testing, the safe frag damage radius to an A-10 vs GBU-12 is about 300 feet. In this test the plane was stationary and about the best I can do for testing. Caldera

Raptor, Got it thanks! Caldera

Thanks Raptor! I now have a much better picture now. This statement adds another question by me: If the pilot is using PNVS as his NVS sensor, the CPG must use TADS as his NVS sensor. If the pilot is using TADS as his NVS sensor, the CPG must use the PNVS as his NVS sensor. It seems that the PNVS is selected as NVS by default by the pilot using the NVS switch. How does the pilot select the TADS as NVS? Likewise, It seems that the TADS is selected as NVS by default by the CPG using the NVS switch. How does the CPG select the PNVS as NVS? How does the other person know what they have available to use if one NVS is already in use, other than using the intercom? (I hope that makes sense...) Caldera

So this pretty much happened in a SP mission where I was switching between seats, with George as the pilot while I was CPG. But it was the aftermath of a MP mission with a live pilot where I began to wonder why I could not select the TADS as the sight and GHS as the Acq Source. It was my first night mission in the Apache so there were a few other eye openers for me that evening. If the live pilot (MP) is using the NVS (the manual calls it the PNVS), then I should not be able to use it at the same time as the CPG? Is that correct? The Manual does a poor job of describing that the CPG can use it and under what conditions. But makes sense in the event that the pilot can no longer fly. Source is the ED AH-64D manual. Sorry to be a bonehead, Caldera

Thanks all! I have no idea how I can get so messed up at times. I would have thought that I did try turning the NVS off. But, I guess probably not. And I would guess that you can't have two sights active at once... Caldera