PL_Harpoon

I think I understand what you mean. Correct me if I'm wrong: You're moving the throttle forward first and if the engine doesn't reach desired MP you increase the boost until it does. If the throttle and boost are interconnected: The carb receives more air that is also hotter (from the active turbo) and then throttles it to maintain 52" of MP. If the above is true using both methods you get the same amount of power (provided MP = power), just one method is more efficient that the other. Also at some altitude you will reach a point where in order to get max available power you will need full throttle and full boost. In this case there shouldn't be any difference between using both methods.

I don't want to add to the confusion but... First of all, Greg's source here is the manual for P-47N (https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-r/republic/item/5090-aaf-51-127-4-pilot-training-manual-for-the-p-47n-thunderbolt p.25). In fact, the P-47 Training manual states that you have to disconnect the turbo at start and at high altitudes to prevent the turbo from overspeeding (https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-r/republic/item/5091-aaf-51-127-3-pilot-training-manual-for-the-p-47-thunderbolt p.13). Also, there is no mention of it in the P-47D-25 to -35 manual (https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-r/republic/item/5089-an-01-65bc-1a-pilots-flight-operating-instructions-for-p-47d-25-26-27-28-30-and-35-airplanes). But I think this is a minor issue. The big problem is, I don't really get how advancing the throttle forward and then following it by the boost lever should give you 300 more Hp. As I understand from the P-47N manual, the R-2800 has a supercharger impeller, directly connected to the engine that costs the engine 300 Hp. That means it is used all the time, whether you use the turbo or not. So, if the supercharger is constantly drawing power from the engine, how adding more air later (as opposed to sooner with throttle and boost interconnected) could result in more power? My understanding of this rule from the manual is this: You're loosing the 300 Hp to the supercharger anyway, so use it to it's full potential before adding more strain to the engine by adding air from the turbo. It's purpose is to extend the lifetime of an engine, not give you more power.

The gunsight position is fine. Your virtual seating position is not. You can adjust your camera position with RCTL + RSHIFT + NUMKEYS. Or, if I messed up the combination, just go to settings and look for "move camera". Cheers.

Don't worry. SharpeXB suffers from a severe case of FlightSim OCD. As far as I know the cure is yet to be discovered.

In what way is it not flying like a P-47?

I'd like to add one clarification. Just because your prop lever is set to 2550 doesn't mean your actual RPM is going to be 2550. That's why at low speed you can easily idle the engine - there's not enough wind to windmill the prop so the RPM will naturally drop. I do pretty much all my landings (finals) with throttle at idle. On the other hand you can have your prop lever fully backwards and still have high RPM if you're fast enough. In this case you cannot reduce MP without risking damaging the engine.

There's a bug with the fuel gauge on the P-47 currently.

I also have a TH Warthog and my setup is: left throttle - turbo right throttle - throttle slider - rpm So far, I haven't felt the need to move throttle and RPM at the same time. Especially on landing. You're supposed to set it to 2550 when around 150 mph and just leave it there.

It's the actual prop rpm that counts, not prop lever position. At low speeds you can have your prop lever fully forward and still have low prop rpm. On the flip side, if you're very fast (for ex. when diving). You can have the prop lever fully aft and high prop rpm.

Well, I've heard people referring to DCS 109 as a UFO...

That's my current experience with the Jug. In fact IMHO engine handling in the Jug can be summed up by these rules (at least they work for me): NEVER exceed MP limits (52 without water, 64 with water) NEVER dive with full RPM (1550 works best) NEVER dive with less than 30 InHg of MP NEVER leave turbo in front of the throttle Avoid high RPM/low throttle and low RPM/high throttle settings Keep the throttle and turbo interconnected at all times below 25k ft (for simplicity's sake) Follow those rules and you should have no problems operating the engine.

Throttle and boost No point in setting rpm to 2550 and then interconnecting it with the throttle.

I'm not sure about this. When you're flying reasonably slow (ca. 150 mph) pulling the throttle to idle with RPM level at max (or better, at the specified 2550 rpm) shouldn't be an issue - the prop RPM will drop anyway. Every manual tells you to set RPM to 2550 prior to landing (usually upon entering the landing pattern) along with all other landing checks. I've been following this instruction on every landing and never had any issue (unless the engine was already damaged)

+1 F10 map without markers is ok-ish, but the ability to move the map on kneeboard would be great. Especially since warbirds need to be flown hands-on all the time.

No. Unfortunately I don't really know how to properly set up mods in DCS.

Keep in mind that engine damage in DCS is randomized to a degree (probably to simulate flying aircraft with different mileage).

TBH, giving the rear seat a dash and a set of controls and adding multi crew would make a TF-51 a perfect solution for those who want to learn with an instructor.

I'm not so sure about it. I've no idea how the Tiger Moth handles (except for what I've read) but I'm sure it's nothing like a modern aerobatics plane (i.e. like an RC aircraft). On the other hand In my opinion the TF-51 is a great trainer for a WW2 fighter. First of all, it's free so you don't have to risk anything if you want to try it out. Also it's relatively easy to fly properly. In my opinion it's not about the aircraft your flying but how your flying it. You can just as easily learn to fly warbirds with a 109 if instead of combat you start with learning coordinated flight, then landing patterns, stalls, flying near engine limitations and so on.

Mine too. I love the Spitfire for its looks and maneuverability but after several MP missions in the Jug in which I returned home with a damaged engine and more bullet holes than a shooting range target and still managed a safe belly-landing I'm beginning to appreciate what a great airplane it is. Not to mention its decent (and straightforward) armament.

If I were to guess, I'd say you forgot to select the main fuel tank.

I'm certain it won't. The other guy is a navigator, you can operate the aircraft just fine without him.

Like I said, it all depends on the aircraft. Radial engines work slightly different than water-cooled ones. Also each specific engine has different limitations. The best way is to look up the specific aircraft manual and check its operating limits. For example in P-47 you can kill the engine by overboosting it, even if all temps are ok. You can give us an example (a track file would be best but even a video or just a description could work) and we may be able to help you.

Two things. 1. It depends on a specific airplane. 2. There are no hard limits and it's all very dynamic. There's also no such thing like a cooldown timer or anything of that sort. Generally you have to watch all your temp gauges but this does not guarantee you're 100% safe from engine damage. The safest practice would be to not use WEP at all after exceeding max WEP time, don't exceed max temp on any of the gauges and keep the engine within the limits specified in the manuals.

I'm not trying to be contrarian but I'm sure ED would be willing to listen to you if you had any data to back up your statements.

It definitely has. I've done it a couple of times. Also, all the original manuals I've seen (including the "N 01-65BC-1A Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for P-47D-25,-26,-27,-28 -30 and -35 airplanes" which is the most relevant for us) tell you to set the RPM to 2550 for landing, so using lower RPM settings cannot be mandatory unless you already have a damaged engine. If you have a damaged engine the safest approach is to perform a power-off landing anyway (my opinion).