grafspee

I am much more amazed that he managed to climb to 30k at low blower speed.

Corsair is just different story. It is navy fighter designed for hard and difficult landings on carrier deck. It is totally possible that DCS P-47 landing struts are modeled too weak, but there is probably no way to proof that. So it is only up to ED if they conclude that model is right we will have to land P-47 very gentle.

It is like in RL, there are non encounter reports with 109K4 and all of them are encounters with G series most common 109 version or other. And those had less power then K-4 and high alt performance was noticeably lower too. So P-51 can out turn / out run 109 G due to 1700hp engine and much better high alt performance but can not out turn K-4 which has same power and high alt performance at about the same level. Worth mentioning is that P-51B/C with V-1650-3 which was significant faster then P-51D at certain altitudes, if pilot knew P-51B/C well could blow any 109 out of his tail with out breaking a sweat. PPL completely ignore fact that every plane during ww2 went significant changes upgrades etc. It is like telling that K-4 should not have constant speed prop because 109s from BoB haven't one so this is unlike RL. Another factor is number of planes production K-4 and D-9 numbers are like droplet in ocean, compare to G series of 109 or A series of 190. Maybe some day we will get G-6 or G-2 with derated power to 1.2ATA and also we will get P-51B/C or P-51A and then we will be able to out turn and our run G-2 in every scenario till then with K-4 it is not an option. Same case with ppl hearing that P-51 is great alt fighter, so they buy DCS P-51 climb it to 30k ft and pull stick all the way and they complain that this is not like IRL, P-51 is great alt fighter so it can not stall in tight turn.

It is obvious that this small ww2 team struggle to maintain ww2 fleet up to date.

Question is, does this cockpit sound slider when moved to 0 mutes everything or just internal engine sound ? If it mutes all sounds this won't fix that issue. But for sure i will experiment with those sliders.

So dynamic rage should be applied to in cockpit sound at the same level as outside sound, so when you close cannopy loudness get lowered by noticeable margin.

I have mixed feeling about new sounds. Frist the loudness level, cockpit vs outside, in cockpit engine sound is noticeably louder. You can perform easy test, run up engine to 1500rpm listen cockpit sounds and listen from outside. Second i don't like cockpit sound as a whole, especially at 3000rpm it literally sounds like forage harvester.

This issue always got me feeling that it is something very wrong in modeling, i had no proof for this. But when i flew in clouds even if i stayed very gentle artificial horizon could not provide me enough stability to go through cloud layer. Fact that this issue is decade old is jut straight forward outrages. And i put all my money that ED team knew this.

Indeed it would.

I can only imagine how bad it is.

I have no problem to land spitfire perfectly both ways 3 point or 2 point landing.

Spitfire has 2 speed supercharger this mean that it has 2 peaks in performance, first and second are low and high gear full throttle height, this is alt at which you will notice boost drop while having throttle wide open at this alts spitfire performs the best. Avoid flying in the middle of this 2 peaks performance gap best is to stay at full throttle alt or slight below.

@Nealius It is outrageous to have so errorus manuals. This is why i stopped reading them. It is obvious that person who creates them has no knowledge about stuff he or she is working on. And now you had very good explenation how this thing works by couple ppl from this topic so there is no need for further arguments about it.

Apparently it is, request for this feature is at least couple years old.

Compromise should be done that way that plane should spawn with proper diluted oil depending on OAT or previously pre warmed by crew. Probably both ways up to mission designer to choose. And this should be end of story.

Nomenclature may originate from early planes which were equipped with pitch lever and name stick to this since then. Similar situation could be with throttle, in early planes pilot controlled throttle valve directly later throttle valve is controlled by automatic boost regulator.

@Nealius This is from Mosquito manual Spitfire manual Even in British manuals it is always rpm control levers or speed control levers not pitch control. This is from DCS mosquito manual I don't know from where did you get this, because i can't find it neither in DCS or war time manuals. In every single manual it is depicted very clearly that P stands for propeller, every time it refers to speed control or propeller control or rpm not a single time i could find that manual states that moving this lever forward it increase pitch. Only in this mosquito it refers to pitch that it governs pitch from 3000 to 1800 rpm. I can only find only one in DCS spitfire during start tu procedure player is instructed to move pitch lever all the way forward, but still does not saying that increase pitch, only move pitch lever all the way forward. And spitfire pilot's notes are saying that this is propeller control. Till now i found only one spot where name changed, in any other instances lever is named properly. Hundreds instances where speed control / propeller control is used and single one case where someone made mistake and name lever in wrong way. And on top of that DCS manuals are not free from wrong data. Ofc someone can say set pitch for take off, climb , cruise but by no means this does not mean that moving this lever forward increases pitch actually it is quite opposite.

It is called propeller rpm control. By moving it forward or backward you only set target rpm for governor, so when you are on the ground and you are idling engine at 1200rpm, moving this rpm do absolutely nothing, propeller pitch does not change. I don't think so that any war time US manual will call it pitch lever. In order to increase rpm governor will decrease pitch, lower pitch means lower AoA of the prop blades and this mean lower drag and this mean that prop can spin faster with same amount of power. Americans and British call it differently but way that it works is the same. You move this lever forward you get lower/fine pitch if anything else is constant.

By Increasing pitch you reduce rpm. There is no prop pitch lever in p51. There is only rpm control lever if you move it full forward governor will lower pitch to maintain 3000. If rpm drops below 3000 while this level is full on this mean that prop pitch is at low pitch stop. Prop pitch in p51 is in the governor hands, pilot can not set pitch directly. You can move rpm lever full back and prop pitch will remain in full fine pitch stop, you can set rpm at max and prop pitch can be very close to coarse pitch stop. You are saying one thing and doing opposite. I would not start this conversation if you discribe it right.

Then we are playing 2 different games. In my version of dcs if i want to slow down faster i cut throttled and if this not enought increase rpm to max. And if i want to glide as far as possible when my engine gives up i reduce rpm to minimum. @kablamoman showed you video which explains this topic.

Maybe during high alt high speed dives, but for level flight can't be, going supersonic instantly kills thrust generated by this part of the blade and if prop reduction gear got small adjustment top speed would increase significantly.

I doubt that tip of the prop exceeds speed of sound ever. Tip velocity may go close to speed of sound. P-51 manual also states that in case of prop governor failure pilot can operate engine up to 3250rpm even at those rpm tip isn't supersonic.

Do you really think that reducing rpm increase drag so plane slows down faster? It maybe shock you but going high pitch or feather position (which is the highest pitch you can set) reduce drag and make that plane can glide much further. Going in to low pitch (rpm lever full forward) prop generates the highest drag possible thus slowing plane down much faster. Higher windmill rpm = higher power required = higher kinetic energy drain simple as that.

Engine RPM affects peak working pressure and how long it act on piston. Fuel has effective octane rating this is why WW2 fuel are rated 100/130 or 100/145 first number is effective octane rating for lean mixture and second is for rich mixture. Higher peak pressure combine with longer piston action (in terms of time = Lower RPM ) results that engine makes more out of air-fuel mixture charge. Higher RPM = more cycles per time = more power / Higher RPM lowers peak working pressure so engine can be operated safely at higher manifold pressure Lower RPM = higher working pressure and expansion time = higher efficiency / Lower RPM increase working pressure so engine can not be operated safely at high manifold pressure / High MP at low rpm will result in working pressure exceeding effective octane rating parameters of the fuel resulting in detonations and quick engine death. RPM is only related to engine, optimal Prop RPM is set by engine to prop reduction gear, if engine could operate at 5000 rpm prop rpm would be the same because optimal prop rpm depends on prop diameter.

@Gunfreak This is why i countless times bring this issue on this forum since i joined it. I just can't imagine situation when after let say 15 minute of intense combat pilot had to drop power leave battle and his friends. Famous WEP issue in DCS P-51 starting since i joined here with hard coded script which kills engine once you use WEP, i remember ppl were recording this famous loud bang after they landed and shut off engine. I don't know if this issue is fixed or not but DCS successfully discouraged me from ever breaking WEP wire in P-51, i just don't do that so i don't get irritated by engine seizing I can bring another over sensitivity The famous P-47's main engine bearing, which in first introduction was insane sensitive. Till now it isn't fixed completely because engine gives up way before 3060rpm red line which according to manuals this 3060 rpm red line is cleared for up to 30s. In DCS you pass 2850 or so and engine is toasted. In arcade games those hard limits are introduced to prevent players from firewalling engines because in gaming you don't care if your engine will last 400 hours, 1 to 2 hours is the max and every time you take fresh plane, ofc there are players who are trying to go back to base refuel and take off again as many times as they can but this arcadish modeling prevent them from succeeding in this endeavor. I'm not sure if those engines in DCS can survive 10 hours of life time. In hardcore simulator like DCS i won't accept those arcade engine limiters.