Zunzun

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.

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.

Just came across those stories. They are utterly brilliant. Thank you very much and keep them coming.

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.

And without contradicting my previous opinion, I think this is a very good point.

My experience is similar to this. Leaving it on make it last longer but is the intermittent use that triggers it to stop working.

That makes sense. Thanks :thumbup:

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).

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?.

Of course, I just expressed my opinion as another point of view in the matter.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I think the reasoning about this was different. The key is that, as far as I understood, those 300hp are being used in spinning the mechanical supercharger whether you use it or not. If you link Throttle and Turbo, unless you are at full power then you are not using full throttle so part of your 300hp of the supercharger are wasted. If you do not link, then you have full throttle (so all your 300hp are in use) and then graduate the rest with the Turbocharger. The argument about the weight of the Turbo is, in my opinion, irrelevant. You cannot make any use of the weight (doesn´t matter whether you spin the turbo or not regarding the weight and its effect on the plane), while you can make an use of the 300hp. Apples and oranges comparison. Having said all of this, I think the wasting is not that important. In typical combat patrol situation you have your throttle (when linked) quite advanced if you are in high cruise. The theorical loss of hp is not that great and linking is easier and more agile regarding power response.

That is true. But take into account that the engine´s mechanical supercharger use about 300hp of it. I read that by linking it and depending on your settings you waste part of them. So seems to be a real benefit in managing the turbocharger independently.

I do some similar but in my case, for the p-47 I use the right throttle for the turbo and the left for the throttle. The reason is that while below critical altitude you can link both together (I use the warthog physical link), above this altitude you should unlink them and start retarding the turbo to avoid overspeeding. By having the turbo on the right side I can still use all the buttons of the throttle for other functions (like mixture, zoom etc....).

Thanks a lot. This is not just a guide, it is an small gem.

There are mentions of using the K-14 in AAR in P-47D. Like in this one: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/78-myers-7oct44.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJyzIH0Qq9iNdiv62uvRvzQ This guy is making replicas. He is still in the developing and testing phase but, apparently quite advanced. They look gorgeous but I do not have any idea about the real quality experience as they haven´t been released yet (and AFAIK there is no date yet).

Beautiful guide! As I love the plane, I think I can fully appreciate the effort and care you put on writing it. Thank you very much indeed! :thumbup:

Thank you for the link. Yor are not the only Penny. :clap:

Marvellous piece of living history! Thanks a lot.

I thought the same but after having another discussion on another forum about the same topic this chart came along (p-47 using 150oct fuel) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47D_42-26167_Power.jpg In the graph in this test, the 65inch power is given with and without WI. There is 200hp difference according to the power curve. Around 2450hp without WI and 2650hp with WI (there is different performance in the speed graph too). Why there is this difference in output? No idea. As you, I always thought that the WI only prevented detonation at higher settings (thus allowing that higher MP). Maybe there are other factors that make the engine developing a bigger output but, in any case, it seems that the WI is helping giving more HP at the same MP (at least in this test and with this fuel).