PL_Harpoon

Start by closing the cowl flaps. They should be fully closed at speeds above 225 MPH.

I've made the mod for the Mk VIII gunsight reticle pattern. I didn't like the "thick" lines of the vanilla ones and DCS does a poor job of simulating reflective sight intensity (it just changes the opacity). I also made the AAF pattern (the size the circle is the same as the small circle on the "ladder" pattern). To install just put the selected .tga file in the Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\P-47D-30\Cockpit\IndicationTextures folder. Just remember to backup the original file. The mod passes the integrity checks (checked on the SoW server). The first picture is the vanilla one for comparison. P-47 MkVIII Gunsight mod.zip

can you post a track file of the problem? My guess is that you have some axis assigned to the left wheelbrake.

I don't think you should use rudder for aiming anyway. For me at least it always seems to produce more problems than it solves.

So, the conclusion here is: be carefull of the throttle position at low-medium altitudes. Don't exceed MP of 55" without water injection and 64" with water injection. Also, don't run on WEP at more than 5 minutes. If you follow those rules you should be safe from detonations.

That was easier than expected to be honest: 55 without water injection. Just ran 5 tests, in all the engine held for 30 min. With water injection 64 is quite safe - at least within 5 minutes. Out of 5 tests one resulted in damage after 6 mins. In the others water ran out before anything else happened. I guess the engine limitations (5 min for WEP, 15 for MIL) are mainly to increase the lifetime of the engine.

I performed some tests to see how the engine damage is modeled. The premise was simple: start at 8000 ft, go full boost (60" MP at 8k), full RPM (2700), no water injection and see how long it takes for the engine to die. I was expecting the engine to die at somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes as this settings is somewhere between Mil (52" MP) and WEP (64" MP). Here are the results: SETTINGS TIME OF DEATH (min) radiators neutral ~9 radiators neutral ~8:40 radiators neutral ~2 radiators neutral ~2:20 radiators neutral ~1:30 radiators neutral ~26 radiators full ~14 radiators full ~4 radiators full ~6:20 radiators full ~6 First thing that surprised me was how inconsistent results are. One time I was able to fly for 26 minutes while at other times the engine died after less that 3 minutes. Those shorter times are troublesome. Also, there was no warning before the engine died. Every time the CHT was within limit (around 190), the carb air was below 50 deg, and engine oil was around 90. Another thing, setting radiators to full also didn't change anything. Or at least didn't prevent the engine from blowing up within the first 5 minutes. Lastly, the summary screen showed two types of damage (seemingly at random): "engine overheat" or "engine degraded". Am I missing something or does the engine damage model need some further tweaking? Here are track of some of the attempts. PS. Random system damage was off during most of those tests (meaning turning it off didn't improve the results). P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@2_no water.trk P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@2.20_no water.trk P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@1.30_no water.trk P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@26.40_no water.trk P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@9.trk P-47 engine test_rad-full_overheat@4_no water.trk

@grafspee Could you share any sources or some more info about the subject? This whole concept is completely new to me and I'd like to know more.

And the Spitfire is not a strictly mid-war airplane.

Just for reference, here's a video from 1943 showing the operation of the cowl flaps: Not sure which variant it is though.

Turn indicator is not gyro-driven.

Well, since the Mosquito is already on its way I'd say either a Ju-88 (as a counterpart to the Mosquito) or a Mitsubisho Zero (to fight the upcoming Corsair).

Ok, so it's not related to engine overspeed after all. I haven't found it in any manuals I've read (in fact I had no idea about such limitations until now) so I guess it's something inherent to radial engines, right? Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks for clarification.

Overall I like the new changes to engine damage model, however I think it needs some tweaking. Especially engine bearings. Currently, if you dive at full RPM you're at a very high risk of damaging engine bearings. I'm guessing it's because of overspeeding the engine and reducing the RPM to 2500 is enough to prevent this but here's why I still think it's a problem (and not accurate): First, I've searched through both the original USAAF Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions and Pilot Training Manual and found no mention of keeping the RPM below max when diving. There is one sentence in the Training Manual about reducing Manifold Pressure to keep the engine from overboosting, but in DCS the bearings get damaged regardless of MP. Surely, if the risk of damaging the engine were so great there would be at least some mention of it. Secondly, it's a common practice, when designing engines that when you know the RPM limit of your engine you give yourself some safety room when placing the limiters. It seems very unlikely that the engineers/designers would setup the max RPM at 2750 RPM if they knew it could break apart at 2800. Especially for a combat aircraft where you know things (like the RPM governor) will get damaged. And yes, during dive and recovery the RPM needle barely moves past the 2750 limit (if at all). Here are the links to the documents I mentioned (they're free if you create an account) https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-r/republic/item/5091-aaf-51-127-3-pilot-training-manual-for-the-p-47-thunderbolt 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 P-47 engine main bearing damage.trk

According to the original P-47 Pilot Training Manual you're supposed to turn on the defroster to prevent the canopy from fogging up. This would be a nice feature to have in DCS.

+1

Does anyone with this problem have a track file? I find it odd that it only occurs to some of us while for others (including myself) the trim works just fine.

I agree. There are many more warbirds I'd like to see before the 262.

Not only that. If you keep accelerating with cowl flaps open you'll eventually end up in a spin.

+1 Turning off ASW helps with tearing but it has its own set of drawbacks.

Could you elaborate on "all the proper switches"?

*bump* Can we have at least some confrmation from ED that you recognised this as a bug?

For those who argue that we should not have Spit LFIX fighting 109 K4s here are some statistics: Spitfire LFIX The production for Spits LFIX began in Feb 1943. The last order (400 units) was in July 1944. The first LFIXs entered service in March 1943. During this time a total of 3971 LFIXs were produced. Spitfire XIV The production began in Aug 1943. The first XIV were delivered in Dec 1943. There were a total of 500 units produced. BF 109 K4 The production started in Aug 1944. The first units entered service in Oct 1944. 1593 units were produced. By January 1944 1/4 of all 109s were K4s. So... 1. Mk XIVs were produced simultaneously with LFIXs. In fact, production of LFIXs continued even after the XIV were introduced and there was significantly more of them. 2. K4 was not some obscure prototype variant that rarely seen action. 3. Historically speaking, confrontations between LFIXs and K4 were much more likely that between Mk XIVs and K4s. Sources: http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/contracts.html http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/contract_Air1877.html http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/contract_981687.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin-powered_variants)#Mk_IX_(type_361) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(Griffon-powered_variants)#Mk_XIV_(type_379) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants#K-4

Actually, this topic is a great study why someone might not like this awesome plane.

There you go. First test: WEP using water injection button (no lock). As soon as I pull negative Gs the water stops flowing and doesn't start. P-47 WEP test_negative G_water inj button.trk Second test: WEP using button lock. Water injection stops for the duration of negative G but then turns on when you return to positive Gs. P-47 WEP test_normal operation_negative G_water inj lock.trk This is mostly an issue with the early P-47D-30 as it has no water injection lock. Hope this helps. Cheers.