Jump to content

Zunzun

Members
  • Posts

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zunzun

  • Birthday 01/28/1973

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    Dcs, Il2, MSFS 2020
  • Location
    UK
  1. Same here with the MT version and VR. 2D worked fine. Tried repair and clean to no avail. Crashed report also sent via game menu.
  2. I think that part of the problem with roll rates is that there is scant sources. The most quoted test is the NACA one with roll rates measure at some specific force (50 or 60lbs?) and, as far as I remember, being steady roll (maximum or peak roll for the plane). Most anecdotal evidence (memories from pilots) and at least in one test they praised the responsivines of the ailerons. Like this one http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-tactical-trials.html Also, there is a test done in the 80s that, among many other parameters, tested roll rates between different warbirds (thunderbolt, mustang, hellcat and corsair). It is obviously a test to take with a pinch of salt at best as the plane conditions weren´t the same as the war era types. But there some information that I consider could be useful to for this discussion. They compared roll rates as time to roll 180º and 360º. Even if the final times weren´t the same as the ww2 types, at least there is a comparable difference in the time rolling (same planes in two different conditions). Rolling 360º, the p-47D is behind the other three types. But when they measure the time to 180º: You can see that the Thunderbolt then got ahead (it completed the 180º roll quicker than ther rest). I interpret it like the p-47 can achieve its maximum rate of roll quicker than the other types despite the other have a bigger maximum rate of roll. This, is in line with the test report above and also with some pilot memories like Robert Johnson´s one. Could be that the p-47 was crispier into rolling and able to change direction quicker although for a sustained roll it was just average. I know this is not compelling evidence but, at least in my opinion, has consistency and could explain the contradictory information in the matter.
  3. Just came across those stories. They are utterly brilliant. Thank you very much and keep them coming.
  4. I think that the next planes should extend the current planeset. An scenario like the current I-16 (with no contemporary adversary) is undesirable. So 109g6/14, typhoon-tempest, spitfire XIV... would be the logical step. Obviously, I wouldn´t mind if they decide to develop something like a Bob scenario with a pack of planes launched in a close time frame from each other.
  5. And without contradicting my previous opinion, I think this is a very good point.
  6. My experience is similar to this. Leaving it on make it last longer but is the intermittent use that triggers it to stop working.
  7. Yes, I knew about the boost regulator and its behaviour in the climb. But I was referring to sea level so that behaviour in the climb shouldn't apply. Should it? It's that the regulator doesn't limit the engine to 64" and the coupling of the mechanical supercharger and the turbocharger overboost it beyond the plackard limit? If that was correct then the effect should be present up to 7000ft (the limit of the mechanical supercharger).
  8. First of all, thank you for taking the time to do the test. One thing I noticed is you didn´t use standar atmosphere condition. Although your pressure is right, the temp should be 15º (I have not calculate any desviation may have happened though). Also,P-47D speed seems too much at sea level (615kph). At 72 inches, the P-47M in the test report I have seen did 365-368mph (around 585-595kph). Also, does anyone know why at sea level the boost goes to 71"? The engine was rated for 64". This happened also in Il2 (higher boost at sea level). Is it right or a bug? If right, what is the explanation?.
  9. Of course, I just expressed my opinion as another point of view in the matter.
  10. I am an original backer and, as far as I am concerned, I rather have the mosquito or any other prop before the 262. Absolutely historical plane that deserves its place. But, in my opinion, a poor choice for a limited planeset.
  11. That is a warbird being flown at conservative settings. Not even near the strain and performance asked for in our DCS iteration battles. Obviously, is an early access plane and subjected to bugs and errors. But could you be more specific about what part of the flight model is wrong?
  12. I normally do more or less the same too. In my case after flaring and holding it just above the ground and do not pull until I notice she wants to sink (subtle visual cues outside. In reality you feel it sinking with your pants) and then start pulling gradually. Obviously, you need to get the "feeling" of how to much you need to pull. That also will depend on your speed (so the more consistent you are the better). Pulling too soon-too fast and you can lift. Pulling too late or too slowly and you will hit the ground and bounce.
  13. Again, I do not agree wich your reasoning neither I think we are going to get anything usefull for the rest by answering again. Let´s agree to disagree.
  14. More efficient than part of those 300hp that you loose? Would like to see figures. In any case, mine it was only a technical response to your assertion of "no real benefit". From a practical point of view (what I do too) I think you are quite right. From a purely technical one, I still think you are not.
×
×
  • Create New...