Search the Community

I wanted to do a bit of research with regards to the Curtiss Electric prop as modelled in the DCS P-47 modules in order to ascertain what is going on with the blade angle limits, and whether or not the behavior of the automatic governing vs. manual RPM adjustment was correct as we see it in the sim. As modelled currently, the governing range of the blades in the automatic mode reach their limit at 48 degrees coarse. Yet, by going into manual mode, you can further coarsen the blades to ~88 degrees -- what would be considered feathered. But this does not make sense for a single engine installation. I suspected that maybe the devs had erroneously modelled propeller limits for a multi-engine installation of the Curtiss electric prop and set out to understand how the limit switches (analogous to mechanical high and low pitch stops in a hydraulically actuated prop) function and how they should be configured in a P-47. For this I started out referencing the P-47 series Erection and Maintenance Instructions handbook (AN 01-65BC-2) 10 August 1944, revised 15 December 1947: As you can see, the depiction of the limit switches (mounted on the aft portion of the power unit, which also contains the electric motor) specifies three limit switches: Low angle, high angle, and feather angle. It is important to understand that all Curtiss electric prop installations have these switches as the props can be fitted to many types of aircraft. Indeed, some installations would be for multi-engine aircraft (eg. the B-26), where a separate feather limit would be needed. If one were to look at the wiring diagram for the control mechanism, and also if you read the user manuals for the Curtiss electric props, you can see and read that while the manual increase RPM switch uses the same circuit as the automatic governor, the manual decrease RPM switch makes use of a separate control circuit, one that doesn't pass through the high limit switch, but instead the feather limit switch (follow the yellow line): Indeed, in the generic Curtiss prop user manuals, it mentions that pilots can manually decrease the angle all the way to feather limits (albeit, at a slower rate than using the dedicated feather control on a multi-engine installation) if they use the manual RPM decrease control. One must remember that these manuals (you can check one out here for yourself) are made to encompass general usage of Curtiss props across several types of installations, and so are a bit ambiguous in specifying whether this feature works for a single-engine installation. If this was all there was to the story, the DCS modelling is correct as is. However, we also have this description of the limit mechanism: It mentions that the switches are tripped by cam segments mounted onto the ring gear. It turns out that how those cam segments are mounted, determines when exactly the switches will be tripped. How should they be mounted in our P-47? Which Curtiss electric prop models are installed on our P-47s? Here's what the Erection and Maintenance Handbook says: As you can see, we're already getting some hints about prop pitch ranges, but seeing as how we've got specific models listed and they all seem to be variations of the C542S-A series, let's take a look at that manual: There's a ton of information in here about installation, disassembly and description of components, but we're interested specifically in those cams: Here's the diagram, parts labeled 7-11 are the cams that determine when exactly our limit switches will trip. Notice at the bottom, we've got a note about blade angles?? Hey, we may be getting pretty close here. Let's have a look: Here, I've cross referenced all the specific model numbers listed in the P-47 Erection and Maintenance handbook, and you can see that for each of them, the High and Feather limits are exactly the same -- this means that a manual decrease of RPM should result in the same blade pitch governing range as the automatic mode. But why is our high/feather limit different than what we're seeing in game? To shed some light on this, here's a technical order from June of 1945: As you can see, at a certain point, blade angles were increased (the procedure involves moving those cams by 5 notches towards a higher coarse limit). There is still a discrepancy between this technical order and the curtiss prop manual, but I am assuming that is because the curtiss manual is 5 years more recent (1950). The one thing this does seem to prove, though, is that in all instances the curtiss electric prop installation on the P-47 had the same coarse pitch limits, whether governing in automatic mode, or set manually with the decrease RPM switch in fixed pitch mode. Also worth noting is that the increase limits in the technical order were done to help prevent engine overspeed in high-speed dives. Lastly, would like to reiterate the fact that, as others have mentioned multiple times on this forum, that the allowable engine overspeed limit in the P-47 pilot manuals is listed as 3060 RPM, probably owing to the fact that you WILL exceed the RPM redline in a dive at high speeds with any power applied: I believe getting the proper blade angle limits implemented would be a great first step on the road to really tightening up the P-47 module. Thanks for following along and I hope the devs really consider taking a second look at this.

Never seen that before. Maybe it's old. Used to be, fly through power lines, nothing happens (power line tower strike has always been a thing). What's new? Visible flash on power line strike (nice touch), propeller vibrates whole plane (only apparent at low speed) but engine doesn't stop. Big chunks of three blades gone. New damage graphic(?), all four blades damaged on ground strike(at least in old 2.5.6). Someone (me?) will use the track, take control and see if and how much top speed is reduced and whine if it isn't. spitpowerlines.trk

as we have the Marianas map its only fitting we get a ground pounder from that part of WW2, i say the TBF or M avenger its the heaviest single engine aircraft in WW2, equiped with an assortment of weapons it was used to sink ships and strafe, bomb or rocket any thing that moved, you could argue that 3-4 crew is to much but as the plane is only flown by one id argue that there is nothing wrong with the amount of crew also the top turret can be an AI gunner. i think the TBF/M would fit nicely among the F-4U as a ground attack plane from the pacific and Atlantic personally i think we should get an early model for the 12.7mm's but i think picking the model is up to what is available

Hi everyone, Another very minor issue with the South Atlantic assets - the Mk 46 torpedo has a few errors with it's 3D model compared to the real thing. Firstly, the nose is the wrong shape - the real thing is much more rounded, the one in DCS is almost completely flat: Secondly, there's the propellor, the rearmost one is significantly smaller than the one in front of it, which doesn't seem to be accurate (EDIT in some images the rear most propeller is slightly smaller, but not to the extent as the model in DCS): These are both fairly minor issues but at the same time they shouldn't be too difficult to fix (though the nose might have to be retextured, though the thing is only 2 colours). The other thing is that most weapons in DCS (including the Sea Cat and Sea Dart) have animated control surfaces, the Mk 46 doesn't (all 4 fins on the rear are supposed to be all-moving, not sure what the range is, but I'd say 30-45° is probably about right.