Voyager

I swear that "squee" was a very sound. :) Seriously, I'm very looking forward to this once production is able to get rolling again. Been playing around in the P-47 and I swear, Kartveli loved his switches. I feel like I need six hands in that plane at times...

Ah, thank you. That was what I was missing. It was in the saved games directory directly under {user} rather than the one in documents. Unfortunately, carrying many years of documents and saved games does lead to a rather complex network of saved files..

I would not expect that for this version. This version appears to be the one rated for 130 octane fuel, and those were only rated for up to 64" at 2700rpm. While there were a couple of pilots who ran them at 70", as there were a lot of reasons that I've heard it never was standardized on the D models. Additional risk of detonation, and heat load were the main ones. And the only pilot I'm aware of who did that also had to modify the turbo installion as well. Updating everything to 64" was, as I understand it, just a matter of fueling up with 130+ octane, changing the boost limiter and convincing the AF brass that it worked and wouldn't had planes losing engines left and right. Basically free power, if you don't count the paperwork bonanaza. 70"+ was more risky and more involved.

So it looks like the engine boosts to 64" of MP now, though the WI pat of the system is not yet modeled. As I understand it, late model planes would automatically engage WI when the boost went past a certain point. What I'd seen previously was, when you pushed past around 52", the boost would crash, and you'd have to pull back to around the 52" area. So, the power is there, but the assorted management is not, yet.

Very very cool. I checked the model in game, and it appears that the inter-cooler indicator cable is running to the lower box, unlike the the photo you've posted, so fixing it will involve changing the mesh too, to reroute that line. Unfortunately, I'm having some issues finding my screenshots folder, so can't, (yet) post a photo of it.

Hmmm... So C:\Users\Voyager\Documents\SavedGames just has folders for Bleed and Flotilla When I did try to map the control is was greyed out, but it did list "Sys Rq" (Print Screen) as the button for it. Could it be locked out somehow?

That does seem to be to fast. However, we'll want to nail some things down. While the WI component does not seem to be implemented yet, from looking at the gauges, it does appear that you are getting the full 64" at 2700 RPM, so you should be getting the equivalent of full War Emergency power, even with the WI system not modeled.* What was your take-off weight? Looking at the IOM on the three planes from WWIIAircraft performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/comp-p47dmn.jpg), the takeoff weight is 12,731 lbs. That said, the same report lists the P-47M, with 2800hp WEP as having a 367mph (587.2) top speed at sl, so it does look like the plane's going faster than it should be at sea level. We will want to nail down aircraft loaded weight, and the presence and absence of pylons, and whether that does anything, to zero in on the exact issue. *I just noticed that it looks like your water pressure gauge is showing a reading. I haven't had a chance to get on yet, since the patch, but I'm wondering if the automatic WI parts just got implemented? The to bat-plane!

I'd love to see a razorback as well at some point. But doing one right would involve a significant amount of new 3D model work, as well as determining exactly how to handle out of spec operation. The early models had very different cockpit layouts. The spec limits become an issue because the early versions were rated for 100 octane, and the known engine limits at the time, but did not have any of the automatic engine limit era that the late models had, and, in some cases could still be run to those later limits without modification. So they need to work through the systems effects of what happens when someone take a P-47D-5, turns on the water and runs the MP up to 72"? Does the engine blow a seal? If the seals between the -21 and the -57 aren't different, is it valid for one to fail when the other holds? Do they just risk the engine going into detonation if they handle the inlet temperatures wrong? What are the right ones? Do they assume that all versions are running on 100 octane gas from the states, or do they model things based on the British 130 gas that they were using in the war? The D-30 has the simplicity that, if you over boost the engine, it dumps pressure on you so you shouldn't be able to run past 64" for any length of time, but ten razorbacks you are that much closer to the hardware, and the model needs to be that much more expansive. That said, a P-47D-5 with all of the various options and refits available would be *really cool*. You get to go from an aircraft that didn't even come with WI to something that could nearly match the D-30's performance, after the prop refit and fuel grade uprate.

Doesn't it usually end when the aircraft goes out of EA?

Given Saburo_cz's point that the indicators were moved after they moved the switches to the side wall, I suspect they were changed to prevent that confusion. But given that the indicators are done through a cable run, if we switch the indicators, we'll also need to switch which activator cables go where. It's hard to tell from the images, but it looks like the box may have holes on both sides so you can plumb it either way, depending on which aircraft you've got. This must have been a configuration control nightmare... Consistency, thy name is not t-bolt. Is it wrong that I'm thinking it would be hilarious to go find all the surviving examples and take photos of this panel just to see how many different configurations there are, and if any of them are plugged the same way at all?

The game model might actually be right. I've been looking through the manuals and I'm finding examples of it both ways. (Which makes my head hurt so much) As near as I can tell, the only distinguishing factor is which way the cables are running out of the box. The one for the oil cooler indicator always runs forward and the one for the intercooler always seems to run aft.

Even there, context is critical. Once the various devs got in the thread it turned out that all three aircraft were in significantly different configurations, with the private P-51 being the lightest, and the BoX, by far the heaviest, with the DCS version he was testing somewhere in the middle. "Same" plane, but the real differences added up to a rather substantial difference in behaviors. It's the same sort of thing you see with so many aircraft. The bare prototype flies fantastic, have world beating performance and would bring about the next revolution in aircraft! Then they load on all the combat equipment...

It will depend on what fuel and WI config the planes are at. In general for a comparable P-47 and P-51, the P-51 will be faster at low level, and the P-47 will be equivalent or somewhat faster at high level. But, we're really talking the 25-30kft+ range. Greg's Airplanes and Autos has a break down of the razorback era P-47 as compared to several contemporary aircraft here: at 22:53. The main difference is the P-51 has a cleaner air frame with lower overall drag, so it is able to go faster for its horsepower than the majority of its contemporaries. Right now, the EA P-47 does not seem to have the WI system implemented yet so we seem to be limited to around 52" of power. (At least I haven't figured out how to get it above that yet at any altitude). That along with the current fuel tank limits means we've more or less got the performance of a P-47C model, albeit with the amenities of the late D-30 model, so be aware of that going in. Addendum: as of Open Beta 2.5.6.50726, the plane is now able to make 64", however, the ADI/WI part of that is not yet implemented. The ADI itself didn't add much, if any, power to the engine: what it did was allow the engine to run at higher power settings without going into detonation.

After re-reading some of the pilot accounts, after having flown this version a few times now, I begin to suspect that the best pilots may have actually been using that instability to their advantage. In Johnson's infamous Spitfire account, he's talking about heavy use of rudder in the roll, and some really wild manuvering, which, for me at leaat, would most likely end in a departure rather than a firing solution. Yet, despite it feeling very non-linear, it also seems to have a certain, I'm not sure if predictablity is the right word? But I sort of feel like with enough time in the plane, I could use this... I do notice a lot of the big scoring P-47 aces all seem to have come out of the group that did the long run-up stint with the early 'B' and 'C' models. And there does seem to be this sharp divide between pilots who loved the plane and pilots who hated it with a burning passion. I think this is leading me to the opinion that this is not going to be a plane for more infrequent pilots just because of all the weird mannerisms. So it will be very different than the P-51, but you may hate it with a burning passion, or find yourself enjoying figuring out how to get it to do the weird things it can be capable of. Son to sum it up, if the F-14 or MiG-21 appeal to you because they are crazy require six arms to fly and always trying to depart controlled flight when you do something crazy, but can really sit up and dance once you've mastered them, this plane will probably appeal to you. Otherwise, the P-51 really is ten Cadillac of the sky. The Thunderbolt is a bit more Mad Max.

Cool, though you may want to have the rudder on the trim hat instead of the ailerons. Props require a lot of rudder trim, and you need to trim it specifically on takeoff and landings.

Hopefully they incorporate a lot of them into the official pack. One of the main advantages of the D-30/40 over the earlier versions is that they form the bulk of the post war surplus, and served in a lot of different airforces. Along with the P-51 and late war Corsair, once it's out, pretty much everyone should have at least one plane from their home airforce they can fly.

Ah thank you. Found it. Turns out its also the big red knob over your right shoulder (which explains why I hadn't seen it in any cockpit cams...)

Where are screenshots captured at? I've been trying to capture a couple of images, but I can't seem to get the screenshots to capture. Any suggestions on how to do this? Thank you Harry Voyager

Actually, it wasn't made for ground attack. It was actually built to respond to a high altitude interceptor requirement: http://joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p47_1.html The P-47 is one of two fighters that were successfully able to integrate a turbocharger system, the other being the Lockheed P-38. That turbo have it the best high altitude performance of any fighter in WWII, with the possible exception of some late war German experimental fighters using nitrous oxide to deal with the altitude problems. The P-51 was a designer's concept of the ideal general purpose fighter, that was aimed at incorporating all of the lessons learned during the first half of the war. The P-47 is a much earlier design developed out of a much older plane line as is a much more complicated beast because of it. But it was also a very flexible aircraft that was able to perform in many roles outside of its original interceptor specification. But it's fundamentally an older design and carries a lot of the weird quirks of something that really is a culmination of the original 1930's SEV-3 concept.

(Also, turn off the turbo) Been seeing a lot of people having issue switch the plane being super unstable in flight. I have not found it in the ED manual yet, but several of the period manuals state that acrobatics are prohibited with more than 15 gallons of fuel in the Auxiliary tank. As of the EA there is also a psuedo-bug where the main tank acts like it only holds 200 gallons of fuel, so if you fill it with more that 66% full/1200lbs then it fills the auxiliary tank. This basically moves the center of gravity further aft than is really great and makes the plane extra fishy at low speeds. Also, the turbo currently has a lot of lag, which tends to lead to power surging when throttling up, and the resulting torque wobble. For takeoff in particular, unless you need more than 45" for a heavily loaded plane you can take off entirely without the turbo boost at all. For a clean aircraft you should not need more than 42". (Note I haven't tested if it can do the full 52" without boost. I think it could but the aircraft manuals typically had you engage water injection when you were in that regime, and I don't think that is implemented yet.) Both of these make the plane much more docile on takeoff and in the pattern. It's still a bit on the tail heavy side and does not like to be roughly handled, but does a lot less of the crazy porposing you get with a full aux tank, a light main tank and the engine surging on every orbit. Thank you, Harry Voyager

I may be missing in the control maps and clickable cockpit but is there a single button toggle for the water injection, and does anyone know of how to get the canopy close mechanism to close all the way without holding the switch down for the whole cycle? Thank you, Harry Voyager

Should be about 72%. In the bubble tops, the main tank holds 270 gallons or 1620lbs of fuel and the aux tank holds 100 gallons or 600lbs of fuel, so that is 72% in the later models. The razorbacks had a 200 gallon main tank and a 100 gallon aux tank so 66% is the ratio there. The core thing is going to be to check the fuel tank gauge on the plane and see off the Aux tank is empty or not. There seems to be a bug where, when the plane gets fill, the front tank only gets partly filled, and the aux tank is fully filled.

So that's the next question: do we know whether any of the surviving planes exhibit this behavior? The report does note it, but also notes that it just took some minor pilot inputs to correct. I'll have to go dig through my manuals later, but I also seem to recall something about an "flaps equalizer bar" that the pilot could check, but may be mis-remembering it. I'm wondering if that would have been related to this. The report does not describe the cause of the effect on that plane, merely that it happened and was correctable.

And if the front tank is underloaded, the rear tank is full, and people are draining from the main tank, that's just going to make everything worse isn't it? I can't seem to find it in the D-30 manuals, but I did notice in the 01-65BC-1 manual (January 1943) in the Pilot's Operating Instructions that there is an explicit prohibition on carrying fuel in the rear tank during Instrument Flights, Practice Landings, acrobatics, practice combat maneuvers, or high speed dives. Once the fuel loads are forward biased rather than rear biased should we expect to see less of this when running at lower fuel loads?

41" MP at 2550 RPM, oil and cowl flaps full open and trim to 150mph IAS. Adjust throttle and boost to match. Also, drain the aux tank down to 15 gallons first or you're in for a bad time. Should be able to climb at 1.5-2kfpm