Wizard_03
-
Posts
1649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Wizard_03
-
All the German planes have regulators as well and every other sim I've played including the other three letter one with two P47s and they certainly have them. I can't prove a negative. Should I provide a source to show the engine has spark plugs too? ED should provide the source that shows the R2800 in 47D-30 did NOT have a manifold pressure regulator. Because I've never read or heard anything about the aircraft that even suggests it didn't, and for good reason because it makes absolutely no sense. I could maybe understand an aircraft set up for 150 octane fuel with its regulator dialed up to run 70" running lower grade fuel and you being able to go above limits but that's a very specific situation and the aircraft still has a regulator it's just tuned wrong. Not having one is so dangerous it's silly. We would have a laundry list of sources backing that up if that were the case. It would be all over the pilot manuals telling pilots be extremely careful not to overboost during BFM because the engine not protected from detonation at WEP Rather most sources suggest R2800 is actually a very tough engine and could take lots of abuse, and keep running even after sustaining battle damage.
-
I'm not at home so I can't test anything for you right now, but I assure you the DCS P47 will allow you to exceed 64" under a wide range of conditions because it's modeled without a manifold pressure regulator. Quick and dirty get above 15K arm water injection, put the prop, throttle and boost either connected or disconnected all the way forward and fly around. You'll exceed 64 very quickly and if your not checking the MP and manually retarding throttle/boost back to 64 your bearings will go within two minutes. Because of detonation Well before the engine oil, carb air or cylinder head temp overheats, well before you run out of water, ect. If the engine was equiped with a pressure regulator exceeding 64" should be very difficult or impossible under most conditions
-
The P38s is 100 percent automatic. And has both as well. P38 doesn't even a separate boost lever. It's just a throttle. It also doesn't matter what is creating the charge, the regulator is in the manifold after all the compressor(s). A supercharged engine without a manifold pressure regulator would have the same issue.
-
I can throw the throttle all the way forward in every other fighter without having to worry about it self destructing. Obviously neglect and abuse can cause you to exceed other limits. But your telling me that I can't put the throttle all the way forward without exceeding limits at a given altitude? I'm not talking about instantaneous overboost I'm talking about putting (as gently as you want) the throttle to the stop and the engine exceeding it's rated limits. That doesn't sound right at all. Imagine a race car where you can't step all the way on the gas without overboosting. Instead you can only step on it 95 percent of the way to get full rated safe power. If that were the case You'd be blowing engines left and right. Not to mention losing They absolutely had manifold pressure regulators in 1940s and they used them for the same reason the prop lever doesn't let you exceed the engines RPM limit (outside of a dive in case it needs to be said)
-
Overboost Mechanically it doesn't make sense for it not to have one. That would be pretty irresponsible for high altitude fighter with multiple forms of forced induction, Water/meth injection, and an enormous engine. You'd think adequate boost control would be important. Especially since every other contemporary fighter has one. Its a big disadvantage since you can't just firewall the throttle in DCS P47 because it will let you overboost. So in a dogfight I have to manage the fight and constantly check my MP to make sure I'm not blowing myself up it's dumb.
-
Does the real one not have one?
-
Why does the P47 in DCS not have a Manifold pressure regulator?
-
I think they just like to make laws and control absolutely everything they can get away with.
-
The irony of "protecting" information about an aircraft that is now actively being used against them in a war that they started is absolutely hilarious to me. The safety of people like the devs at ED is not a joke to me at all.
-
I wouldn't be surprised, since Lots of modern weapons made in Russia turn out to be so powerful and effective that no one, not even the Russians can buy them.
-
If they consider it secret, then it has not been made public because Russian government in this case may actually own the data. So just because you may be able to find something for it on the internet doesn't mean that the information was lawfully obtained and has the blessing of the people who own the data to be redistributed or used in any manner. Which is what matters for the safety of the devs. I wouldn't want them to risk breaking a law for the sake of game play. These legal issues are very important and have led to serious problems for both ED and other military focused games in the past.
-
A third party would have to obtain the data for the aircraft they want to do legally and prove that It comes from publicly available resources. Which was always the case. MiG-29 data is available because of the German versions. it's not a question of where the developer is, it's where the data is sourced from.
-
A better solution would be to release sniper first. As the version of the aircraft we have, 07 USAF/ANG viper uses sniper pretty much exclusively. Then go back and correct the legacy pod.
- 108 replies
-
- 18
-
-
They don't, they use the big AESA radars on F-15 and F-22s for dedicated counter air. The F-16 in USAF service is a strike fighter with a focus on SEAD.
-
So are we done with updates? Soon = 2 weeks now.
-
Why there are no plans is the question, since loads of players want it.
-
Glad to hear it's still being considered!
-
Maybe that's what happened to their plans for it. Hope not.
-
One got blown up too
-
4 january 2023 DCS 2021/2022 and Beyond Video feature Updates?
Wizard_03 replied to Dangerzone's topic in DCS 2.9
F6F looks cool! Very excited about that. -
4 january 2023 DCS 2021/2022 and Beyond Video feature Updates?
Wizard_03 replied to Dangerzone's topic in DCS 2.9
No FF MiG-29A showcase. -
BS3 is out, no mention of the MiG-29 in 2023 and beyond video.
-
For those hell bent on restricting the jet to it's historic usage by the USAF Are you also this upset raz has confirmed they are implementing Mavericks for the SE? Because that's another case of something the jet CAN do but doesn't. The point being the jet has ability to use them and if the USAF wanted it too they certainly could but operationally they don't. They don't even train for it anymore. Very similar situation to the CFTs if they wanted to remove them for whatever reason and fly the jet around like an F-15D they absolutely could. There's no limitation, it's not prohibited, in fact on the contrary the -1 even has the charts for that configuration. The USAF just doesn't because they don't want to, with the exception of that video. I understand that removing the CFTs for raz will result in an unjustifiable amount of work and won't really provide a whole lot of gameplay benefit to boot. So their decision is reasonable. But I don't really understand the individuals who want to force the product into a specific operational use. It's like saying there's a right way and wrong way to pretend. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.
-
Go ahead and actually read my post before replying. The whole thing please. Because I literally stated this is the first time I've ever seen them in that config. My previous post which you also quoted stated that I don't think raz should give us the option to take them off anyway which is the subject of this thread. Anyways That was a training mission for sure, not a test flight, not static engine run up or check flight. And I've never ever seen them take the CFTs off for training hops. Why would they do that? The video is also from 2022 so maybe things have changed. Which was the subject of my first post you quoted. They certainly wouldn't be training in a config that they aren't going to use. That would be negative training and not representative of rw scenarios. They train like they fight.
