Wizard_03
-
Posts
1773 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Wizard_03
-
It only makes sense, with that much boost, and the inclusion of water injection with 47C they need to protect the engine from detonation especially during combat. Bug report
-
see thread and attached images Currently the P-47 is far more susceptible to overboost and can overboost above 64" under a wide set of conditions because the aircraft is modeled without a manifold pressure regulator. Images attached in the above thread show the available and part numbers of the missing regulator and its installation on the aircraft and instructions for installation on aircraft as early as the P47C in contrast to the version modeled in DCS erroneously without one. The regulator should keep manifold pressure at or below maximum (64" wet) for most or all of the flight envelope with the throttle full open 100 percent.
-
Thank you so much, so according to this parts catalog as far back as the P47C they were equipped with manifold pressure regulators. Now the question is why does the DCS Version not have one, as earlier versions could and did use manifold Pressure regulators to control boost. Can't really get more conclusive then that, literally written in black and white. I will submit a bug report.
-
We need to find out if the real one did, because I see having to manage the throttle to stay below max allowed manifold pressure and or opening up intercoolers and oil flaps in the middle of a dogfight as a huge disadvantage. And nowhere in pilot testimony or the manuals suggest it had that limitation. Other sims dont model it that way and there's no information in the DCS manual about it at all. If it is true then they need to place that in bold all over the operations section. Because it's a big deal and It means you have to be much more careful in the P47 with managing power then you probably think, certainly much more careful then all the other aircraft in DCS. In the P40 in the other sim, its annoying but your not really going up super high and certainly not fighting up high so its not a huge deal because you don't in fact over boost that much since as you get higher your engine runs out of breath anyways just need to watch out when diving quickly, not having a regulator in an aircraft designed expressly for high altitude fighting seems like a really big oversight. Especially since the pilot absolutely needs one to breath out of in any case, but they evidently forgot to put one on the engine? I don't buy it.
-
Both, a regulator can map for both water injection on and off. The first part is referring to the P47N loosing it's boost lever which is not what we are talking about. The second part is also Hardly conclusive, you can still overboost in both the spit and the mustang too and they have regulators as well. That quip in the manual is referring to the take off stop which is not modeled in DCS. You also have full military power all the way up to 33k in DCS so that manual is at odds with what we have in the sim anyways. Unless it's referencing military power and not WEP which is what matters for this discussion.
-
Paying attention to the engine is not the issue. What happens when you push the throttle forward is. The burden of proof is on them, because even their own manual makes no mention of this phenomenon. Anyone can simply pull power to "fly with in the limits" in game that's not the issue, the issue is their model of the R2800 I shouldn't be required to use 95 percent throttle for max safe power. That's not listed in their manual or pilot manuals of the period. Short of a providing a blue print of the motor and giving a lecture on forced induction applications. I'm not sure what you want from me. I simply asked a question that no one has yet given me an answer too.
-
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.
