SmirkingGerbil

I think I am following your reasoning, that there is no relationship (direct connection) between throttle and turbo behavior. Turbo is controlled by boost lever, and regulator function. Sorry, I had to read your post a couple times, and I hope I have understood it correctly. Thanks for the illustration.

Tinkickef - you bring up great points. After the throttle plate (depending on how far opened or closed) manifold pressure will adjust accordingly. Being a "car guy" I have witnessed this for years, but it is a simple thing that is often overlooked. Thanks for the reminder. :thumbup:

randomTOTEN - sir, I owe you one! That video was awesome. Just watching the disassembly and the connection of the exhaust pressure tube into the regulator ( cleaning) made a lot of things fall in place! Of course, I forgot about the Propeller (pitch) control on the quadrant, and propeller pitch will control engine speed and thus the supercharger (engine coupled/driven impeller). So I have my answers, and some great references! Much appreciated. :thumbup:

Already some great resources here regarding how the fixed gear impeller (supercharger) is driven directly by the engine, and is also fed by the turbo-supercharger (turbocharger) just forward of the tail. No need to rehash airflow etc. However the one thing I am not clear on, is the interaction of the turbocharger and supercharger (engine coupled impeller) as controlled by the Boost lever. Or more specifically is there any interaction, or control of the engine driven impeller (supercharger) by the boost lever? Does the boost lever only control the turbocharger (turbo)? Is the throttle lever essentially the supercharger (impeller) control? I did find a couple interesting diagrams that show a schematic of the P-47 supercharger and turbo-supercharger function. Attaching for reference, but the diagram only shows the boost lever affecting the turbo-supercharger (turbo). The attachments show the complete schematic of the P-47 induction system and a hydraulic regulator detail, which is shown in the induction system schematic as controller of the waste-gates, and thus the turbo-supercharger. The diagrams are relative to the following paragraph I copied from a site describing this turbo - Fig. 17 diagram of a typical hydraulic regulator. There is a tube leading from the nozzle box to the top bellows. The bottom bellows is evacuated and serves to prevent the top bellows from acting in response to atmospheric changes in pressure. Inside the top bellows is mounted a spring, one end of which is connected to the junction between the two bellows, and the other end to the range-shifting control lever. This lever is connected by linkages to the cockpit boost control. The purpose of the spring and control-lever assembly is to allow the pilot to vary the pressure on the spring for different nozzle-box pressure, corresponding to different engine powers. This spring tension just balances the pressure in the top bellows to the point where the servo-valve ports to the servo piston are closed. As pressure changes occur in the top bellows, they act on the servo valve and shift its position, thereby opening ports which direct oil under pressure into one side of the piston. The piston then moves under the unbalanced oil pressure, and moves the waste gate with it. The servo piston continues to move the waste gate until the pressure in the nozzle box has been corrected. When corrected, the pressure in the bellows restores the servo valve to its closed-port position, and stops the piston motion. The regulating process, described above, occurs in a very short space of time, a few seconds at most. Therefore, in actual operation, as soon as the exhaust pressure starts to change, the hydraulic regulator starts to move the waste gatem a direction to counteract this change. That is, for a given setting of the cockpit boost lever, the regulator always acts to maintain a constant exhaust pressure, and the actual exhaust pressure varies from this constant value only temporarily during those few seconds required by the hydraulic regulator to move the waste gate in a direction which restores the pressure. My understanding then, would be that the Boost lever, controls the waste-gates, and the regulator in turn adjusts waste-gate operation due to changes (increasing or lowering) ambient pressure. So my logical conclusion (yikes! Correct if Wrong!) is that the throttle essentially controls the supercharger (engine coupled impeller), and the Boost lever controls the waste-gates (via regulator) which in turn affect turbo-supercharger operation (along with the regulator measuring nozzle box back pressure)? Thoughts, knowledge, corrections??

Very nice, the before and after sliders are really helpful to see the amount of work you have done.

Have a friend, an ex Delta operator, or among themselves a "pipe hitter." He told me a illustrative example once, of the difference between Delta and say a 75th Ranger SERE graduate - or any other of a number of SOF (Special Operations Forces). A General, wanting to understand the difference between Delta and Rangers asked a Ranger to knock a hole in a wall. The Ranger asked where, and how large, once the General described what he wanted, the Ranger started throwing himself at the wall, and bashing through the drywall and supports until a man-sized hole was made that one could walk through. Upon seeing a Delta operator, he showed him the work of the young Ranger, and asked if he could do the same, maybe even faster. Demonstrating to him just what a Delta operator was made of from the General's viewpoint. The Delta operator looking a bit perplexed, surveyed the area, and found himself two young Rangers, fresh, and not recently beat up from bashing holes in the walls. He directed them as to what he needed, and then watched as they proceeded to knock a hole in the wall, not far from the original demonstration in half the time. I keep thinking of this "parable" watching the back and forth here. :music_whistling:

Well said, Mission Editor, and Combined Arms alone have created hundreds of hours of play for myself. All kinds of scenarios to practice, make mistakes, blow stuff up, rinse repeat. I think ME is one of the most unsung bang for the buck parts of DCS. We are hitting a wall, the "500 page manual" is the problem. I don't even think he understands you are a content creator, and one of the folks that has put a lot of time into improving content and DCS. Until some sort of awareness or acknowledgement is reached that reading 500 pages (ish) per module, watching You Tube videos for more than a few minutes, asking questions on the forums (not demands), and practice, practice, practice is required - we have all hit a wall. I hope he can get something from DCS eventually.

How do you think I learned? Or those of us who have put in the "time" so to speak. No one was over my shoulder, ever. I have no friends who play DCS, I don't know anyone here well enough to ask them to look over my shoulder. I have literally put in more time than you list, and read the 600+ page manual for the A-10C, and now reading through the manual for the P-47. You Tube Videos are a part of the staple, I have them bookmarked and put in a folder in my browser and will revisit them. Seven hours is just the start. I guess we are at an impasse. What you want, you have made clear, but as to whether DCS will fill that void, or someone will guide you through this as a new user interaction is anyone's guess. Good luck. I hope you find what you need to enjoy DCS. Sounds like you have invested a lot of time, I hope it bears some fruit and eventually enjoyment for you. :thumbup:

Sticky for me, LeCuvier reference to Lua mod.

DCS literally has "Instant Action" and "Arcade" mode. See attachment. Also, Mission Editor coupled with "Game" Settings can create any scenario you wish without all the realism or difficulty.

As far as a "free P-51" and the "other sim", for me there is no contest. I fly the WWII warbirds in DCS for the complete immersion. As an original kickstarter for the WWII warbirds that started under another group, and ED/DCS saved: the Anton, and now the P-47 (which I waited anxiously for) after 6 years are Bar None! Superior to anything in the other sim. I played the other Sim since first titles many years ago, and continue to do so under the latest titles that releases "Battle" maps. Also purchase the premium maps, or the "premium" planes to fly them. While I enjoy them in the other title for simplicity, and run and gun - there is absolutely no comparison, or thrill, or immersive equivalent learning all the details of the P-47 and how to operate it with actual action/reactions occurring due to various settings with the throttle quadrant which is fully mapped to my TM HOTAS. Two completely different animals, own them both. Honestly I don't understand the resistance to using one game, and enjoying it for what it offers, and enjoying DCS for it is without pitching for "changes" that reduce the complexity and immersion. Which leads me to your next observation "What are you so afraid of . . . " Over the years, I have witnessed two titles specifically that started out as catering to the "realism" crowd. One of them became wildly successful. Enjoys a large global user participation, and creates some very stunning visuals. The one in particular was a armor sim, and focused on actual data from real vehicles, and released them based on those specifications. Meaning there was no real "balancing" and every nation's fans had a line they liked and used the strengths or weakness to be effective in combat. Played that game for years, especially during a hiatus with the A-10C. Then with a surge in popularity, inevitably the posts started, slow at first, but then the squeaky wheels became more and more vocal. Dominating every topic regarding "balance", "ease of use", "play-ability". At first the devs stood firm and emphatically stated things like "If you don't like the play style then learn to use it, we will not change them!" Then the "wish lists" for additions that you could turn off and on, that literally changed the shape and outline, and different reticles etc. After about two or three years of a lot of "input" by a small but vocal community, the devs did a 180, and the changes came. 1.) Endless "Balancing" or "Nerfing" of certain lines. 2.) Historical performance was "fudged" to help certain weaker vehicles. 3.) Original vehicles that had survived "Balancing" and "Nerfing" soon became noncompetitive. 4.) Then the maps made for brawl fests, and catered to premium play started. They literally lost a good chunk of players in certain regions, income became a problem, and dev projects that were of high interest by all kinds of players languished or died. They lost thousands of players by some estimates, but of course when you have globally many more than that they absorbed it, but the game emptied out of the "realism types". I uninstalled it 3 years ago, and haven't looked back. Perusing the forums now and again confirms the "old players" worst fears - pure fantasy and geared toward the new next "Premium release". DCS is unique, it stands alone as an immersive platform. I have literally seen games changed due to the never ending chorus of "make this easier", "we want this feature - even though it didn't exist!" - as always some obscure reference no matter how sketchy for some prototype was used as justification. So back to the original theme. DCS becoming easier to enter, sure. Easier to learn, sure. Adding switches or modes that allow online "Air Quake" easy mode to become a serious possibility - no. If you want that, play the other sims, there are plenty. Not saying that to be a jerk, it is what I actually do. I do Quake mode for run and gun in the other sim. I do DCS to learn every button, dial, startup sequence, menu, profile, lever, button, flap, brake, toggle, light, fusing, Height of Function nuance there is - give me more - don't change the core immersion. I found my way through DCS as it stands, many have, it didn't stand in the way. Could the introduction be better yes, but changing things to make AAR "easier" is that slippery slope scenario. Found my way through the KA-50 in 2011/2012 and DCS is much better now than then. Besides, learning the Mission Editor will open up a whole new world for using your new aircraft in ways that are just as interesting as "the other title" End of diatribe! :megalol:

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. All comes before Devastate, annihilate and liberate. Best synopsis ever. :thumbup:

Thanks for your answers, and honestly I think you are on to something with the TF-51. Put some guns on it, let new players at least experience the thrill of combat, at least from a WWII perspective, with the "free" module. I think that would go a long way towards keeping people intrigued and interested before they made the "big leap". I can relate to some of your issues. I also read the AAR post after you created this one, since it was referenced. Like others I am torn, as I wish DCS to succeed and grow, but not to sacrifice what makes DCS so unique. Maybe my fears are overblown? My experience was quite different, I actually began playing in 2011 with the Steam Version, and registered here finally in 2013. I started with the KA-50, talk about overwhelming. Of course then I wasn't using a TM Thrustmaster, just a simple joystick and a keyboard. However, I did manage to learn to fly it, and get a lot of enjoyment out of the KA-50 with that setup, and yes I had to lurk in forums to fill in the blanks. However, learning to fly the KA-50, deep diving in forum topics, digging around on the Internet and yes "Reading the Manual" are what got me to that point. I will admit, DCS is not for the faint of heart. Then I bought the A-10C, and it took two attempts about 3 years apart to get good enough to enjoy. Yes I used You Tube a lot, and of course I "Read the Manual". The A-10C is pure joy, and worth the time. I guess that is really what it comes down to, after reading your posts here and in the AAR thread, is the time commitment, and yes, it is steep. However, I guess it is what it is worth to you. To master a difficult simulation or just enjoy the aircraft without the time commitment. I don't have the answer in that regard. I have a demanding job, and I am an amateur Triathlete (racing for 20+ years), and I guess it all comes down to allocation. Triathlon, like DCS, requires enormous time, to get the most enjoyment out of it. I am not sure how DCS can keep folks hooked during that initial phase of bewilderment and sense of being overwhelmed. I only mention Triathlon, because after certain distances over the Half Iron distance, without the time and discipline involved you will probably have a really bad day. There are no "easy guides" for how to get into the sport, and without an investment in gear, training, time etc. Lots of research too, and of course, plenty of You Tube! Basically, I experienced the same sort of deep dive and time that is required from Tri, as it is in DCS in order to enjoy it to the fullest. I just stuck in there, and I am glad I did. Other than a better introduction overall, and a focus on new user "bootstrapping" I am not really sure how to ease someone into DCS.

Switch to "Arcade Mode". I am not saying DCS is easy. I read the OP's lengthy treaty on his first few times with the free aircraft in another post. I am curious since even with these he was "frustrated" since there was no familiarity with the avionics. This is DCS after all, I am curious about his initial reactions to the two free aircraft. Since he also states he has "years" of experience in other flight sims. Why was DCS such a struggle? Just curious as to how that introduction could be made better for new users. Besides, instead of asking for changes to DCS, just flip back and forth like I do. Want to jump in and fly, not worry about bindings, PFM, all the immersion that makes DCS what it is, then fly the "other" title for easy mode fly and gun. Then when you have gotten your fill of "easy mode", come back here and learn to master all the intricacies. I am still confused why folks ask for certain things to be changed in DCS (including reducing time involved), when for $40.00 you can get one module in the "other" title and fly your brains out and not be bothered with all the things that make DCS . . . well, DCS.

Jumping into the F-14 module, as your initial experience, shouldn't be the metric by how you consider making DCS more "noob" friendly. Buying several modules as you mention, is not required, as you get two free ones to start. The F-14 is arguably one of the more complex modules in the DCS stable. My questions to you (to understand why an easier path wasn't apparent), would be why didn't you try the free airplanes that come with DCS World first? From a "noob" perspective, I would like to understand your thoughts or experiences (good/negative) with the following: 1.) Did DCS make it clear that free, and simpler aircraft were available to get your feet wet? Was this information handy or no? 2.) Should DCS push the "free aircraft" as the initial first step for new users, and supplement that with better training experiences around those aircraft? 3.) Were you aware of these two free aircraft and the simpler flight model? If yes, why did you go straight to the F-14, if no, would it have mattered to you had you known? 4.) Was it that you saw the F-14, and this is what attracted you to DCS, so you took this path either knowing of the free models, or not, due to a desire to experience such an air frame?

Thanks Yo-Yo - I realize I am combining modern terminology and a pure wastegate operation Turbo from that era. Trying to visualize that physical connection or electro/mechanical operation of how the wastegates were operated and the effect on the Power Plant, along with the use of the Boost lever. I did find a couple references to a electro/mechanical interface for exhaust back pressure, but no real diagram. Also found a picture showing a braided steel cable, housing some type of tubing exiting the turbo-supercharger. I imagine this would be the pressure sensing device, and at some point a coupling whether electrical or mechanical was used to control wastegate operation at varying altitudes - along with pilot operation of the Boost lever. Appreciate your time describing what you know, very helpful. ED's modeling of this airframe is remarkable considering the complexity of the mechanical supercharger coupled with the turbocharger. Apologies for my rudimentary understanding, and poor use of terminology!

One more if I may. After researching on this, I am getting mostly modern references to "Variable Geometry Turbo's", "Variable Vane Turbo's" or closer to your usages "Variable Nozzle Turbo's". So in effect, an Aneroid device measured exhaust gas back pressure at the entrance into the exhaust turbo nozzle, and adjusted Waste Gates automatically on this reading - or more accurately, Waste Gates reacted to this measurement via some mechanical linkage? In effect, creating a primitive Variable Vane turbocharger?? Again, many thanks, I find understanding all the interactions of the P-47 and engine management fascinating!

Great link sir, thank you! :thumbup: Fortunately I grew up with Grandparents that let me disassemble their lawnmowers, and my neighbor had a nasty little 67 Camaro with a 327 Small Block that he would let me tinker on. At 13 years old, I bought a Chevy 327 block from a junk yard, built a stand for it, and tore it apart and "rebuilt" it many times over. However, when the P-47 quadrant first dropped, the first thing I did was get out my old vacuum gauges, take some readings, put them on a hand held pump and think things through. The P-47 has at least 4 things (outside of altitude) that will affect MP, and it is a real thought experiment to think through various settings and what will happen to MP. This article is a great refresher, and keeps the concepts simple before layering up with all the things that can cause a P-47 to hit 70 inches or more!

Sir, By invoking the statements of the gentlemen in the video, and reinforcing what I myself have seen personally in France, French people honor American War dead, as if they were their own, this includes various cemeteries from WWI also. I am always touched by this. His statement about Parisians was humorous within the context of his experiences, and I found amusing, as it could be applied here in the States to many places, for example Texas. I personally have never been to Paris, mostly to regions outside of Troyes, and through Belgium, Luxembourg, and areas of Northern France. My daughter has been to Paris, and loved the city! My Uncle was in the first waves onto Normandy, Utah beach. He survived that, then fought at Bastogne, wounded, and continued to fight on well into Germany proper. He always remembered the folks of France fondly. I echo your sentiment in regards to how my Uncle viewed his French counterparts.

"Don't complain about the French, they take care of our dead . . . now if you want to complain about Parisians, well that is okay, because Parisians don't even like other French, only other Parisians" Love that line, have been to those areas (thought not directly in them) and the folks in the French countryside do great honor by our local folks buried there.

Fully mapped on my Thrustmaster HOTAS now. Becoming second nature with trim, and engine management to offset for torque/power etc. Becoming second nature with no keyboard interaction to squeeze out a bit more power here and there. Cruising along, hands off at 380 knots, maybe some minor rudder input has become a relaxing scenic drive faster than my A-10C will hold. When we get our WEP function, and the Cylinder Head Temps along with some other visual things get finished . . . you can bet I will show up to test her out.

Eureka! Thank you Yo-Yo! I hadn't come across anything like this, and now I have a good reference and explanation to add to my understanding. Very much appreciated.

Could I humbly request an explanation on when the supercharger kicks into second stage and what dictates that (or a known link would work!!?). Another humble request as I also cannot find an online reference (one I can understand) on what sensors (vacuum?) is the P-47 using and from what device/location to drive the waste gates so that the turbo spools up depending on altitude and other engine parameters? I did listen to Greg's excellent tutorials but having trouble putting it all in one easy to reference place. I will also settle for links and admonishments for not searching harder! :lol::lol:

Interesting, a few things here that make me question sim conditions. First off your Horizon Indicator is still caged, even though you are in a steep climb, according to your climb indicator. So we can't really tell what angle of attack you were at from a horizon perspective. As noted, your battery is off, so you must have switched it off after Generator came online? Also, your engine temp is zero along with your oil pressure exceeding nominal values so all kinds of wonky things here. Can't see your propeller speed handle, so as noted your pitch settings could be causing this if diving, but it shows you are in a climb??? So I am going to classify this as "errata and anomalous behavior for WIP":)

Sticky so I can find this!