SMH Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 Very familiar with it. Greg's videos are great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zunzun Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 I use a Warthog and using the left throttle for boost and right for throttle. It works really good and is simple to join them. I don't have to mess with that fiddly switch to join them on the plane. I do some similar but in my case, for the p-47 I use the right throttle for the turbo and the left for the throttle. The reason is that while below critical altitude you can link both together (I use the warthog physical link), above this altitude you should unlink them and start retarding the turbo to avoid overspeeding. By having the turbo on the right side I can still use all the buttons of the throttle for other functions (like mixture, zoom etc....). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=475FG= Dawger Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) Let's clear up the throttle/boost usage here. This is how you're supposed to use it in real life. The problem is that the technique he describes as the "right" way is ONLY applicable to aircraft serviced with 91 Octane fuel. When serviced with 100 Octane the normal procedure is to link the boost lever to the throttle and leave it that way except at very high altitude when separate control of the turbine speed is required. Edited October 21, 2020 by pmiceli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 I don't believe our warbirds in DCS "use" 100 octane. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all of our warbirds are modeled with non-wartime fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=475FG= Dawger Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 I don't believe our warbirds in DCS "use" 100 octane. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all of our warbirds are modeled with non-wartime fuel. 150 Octane is not modeled. 100 Octane is what is modeled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMH Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 We also have to consider that the manual isn't the Word of God. There's plenty of examples where real pilots ignored manual items on the regular, or real-world procedures differed from the manual for whatever reason. I wish we could get a former Jug pilot in here to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=475FG= Dawger Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 We also have to consider that the manual isn't the Word of God. There's plenty of examples where real pilots ignored manual items on the regular, or real-world procedures differed from the manual for whatever reason. I wish we could get a former Jug pilot in here to clarify. Individuals can choose to operate aircraft in real life or in DCS in whatever manner they wish. The only issue is when folks try to teach others to do it in a prescribed manner that is not necessarily accurate. The identical engine/turbocharger package on a transport or even on a post-war airshow P-47 is going to be operated with a different set of priorities than a wartime P-47 being flown in combat. The goal in any fighter is to simplify the flying part so the pilot can more effectively employ the aircraft as a weapon. Not linking the boost lever immediately after engine start is certainly an option but it unnecessarily complicates procedure with no real benefit in aircraft fueled with 100 Octane. So, unlink if you like, but don't present it as the only way or the right way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) You completely missed my point. Entirely. I'll stress what I said: There's plenty of examples where real pilots ignored manual items on the regular, or real-world procedures differed from the manual for whatever reason. I wish we could get a former Jug pilot in here to clarify. I.e., the manual could be the right way, the video could be the right way, or even both could be the right way. I'm not going to call it either way unless I hear from a wartime pilot. Edited October 23, 2020 by Nealius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zunzun Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Individuals can choose to operate aircraft in real life or in DCS in whatever manner they wish. The only issue is when folks try to teach others to do it in a prescribed manner that is not necessarily accurate. The identical engine/turbocharger package on a transport or even on a post-war airshow P-47 is going to be operated with a different set of priorities than a wartime P-47 being flown in combat. The goal in any fighter is to simplify the flying part so the pilot can more effectively employ the aircraft as a weapon. Not linking the boost lever immediately after engine start is certainly an option but it unnecessarily complicates procedure with no real benefit in aircraft fueled with 100 Octane. So, unlink if you like, but don't present it as the only way or the right way. That is true. But take into account that the engine´s mechanical supercharger use about 300hp of it. I read that by linking it and depending on your settings you waste part of them. So seems to be a real benefit in managing the turbocharger independently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=475FG= Dawger Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 That is true. But take into account that the engine´s mechanical supercharger use about 300hp of it. I read that by linking it and depending on your settings you waste part of them. So seems to be a real benefit in managing the turbocharger independently. I have seen this rather silly argument a few times now. Its true the supercharger has a "penalty" as it is mechanically driven. However, the turbocharger is cargo weight until you spin it and you spin it with exhaust gas that goes out the waste gate if you don't use it to spin the turbo. Think about it for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zunzun Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 I have seen this rather silly argument a few times now. Its true the supercharger has a "penalty" as it is mechanically driven. However, the turbocharger is cargo weight until you spin it and you spin it with exhaust gas that goes out the waste gate if you don't use it to spin the turbo. Think about it for a while. I think the reasoning about this was different. The key is that, as far as I understood, those 300hp are being used in spinning the mechanical supercharger whether you use it or not. If you link Throttle and Turbo, unless you are at full power then you are not using full throttle so part of your 300hp of the supercharger are wasted. If you do not link, then you have full throttle (so all your 300hp are in use) and then graduate the rest with the Turbocharger. The argument about the weight of the Turbo is, in my opinion, irrelevant. You cannot make any use of the weight (doesn´t matter whether you spin the turbo or not regarding the weight and its effect on the plane), while you can make an use of the 300hp. Apples and oranges comparison. Having said all of this, I think the wasting is not that important. In typical combat patrol situation you have your throttle (when linked) quite advanced if you are in high cruise. The theorical loss of hp is not that great and linking is easier and more agile regarding power response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=475FG= Dawger Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 I think the reasoning about this was different. The key is that, as far as I understood, those 300hp are being used in spinning the mechanical supercharger whether you use it or not. If you link Throttle and Turbo, unless you are at full power then you are not using full throttle so part of your 300hp of the supercharger are wasted. If you do not link, then you have full throttle (so all your 300hp are in use) and then graduate the rest with the Turbocharger. The argument about the weight of the Turbo is, in my opinion, irrelevant. You cannot make any use of the weight (doesn´t matter whether you spin the turbo or not regarding the weight and its effect on the plane), while you can make an use of the 300hp. Apples and oranges comparison. Having said all of this, I think the wasting is not that important. In typical combat patrol situation you have your throttle (when linked) quite advanced if you are in high cruise. The theorical loss of hp is not that great and linking is easier and more agile regarding power response. The turbocharger is more efficient in terms of converting fuel to power. There is some very tortured reasoning going on in order to justify a more complex operational procedure simply for the sake of more complexity. That is something only virtual pilots would do. Plane filled with 100 Octane (or greater) = link after engine start. No reason under the sun to not link in DCS except the desire for a more complicated procedure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zunzun Posted October 31, 2020 Share Posted October 31, 2020 The turbocharger is more efficient in terms of converting fuel to power. There is some very tortured reasoning going on in order to justify a more complex operational procedure simply for the sake of more complexity. That is something only virtual pilots would do. Plane filled with 100 Octane (or greater) = link after engine start. No reason under the sun to not link in DCS except the desire for a more complicated procedure. More efficient than part of those 300hp that you loose? Would like to see figures. In any case, mine it was only a technical response to your assertion of "no real benefit". From a practical point of view (what I do too) I think you are quite right. From a purely technical one, I still think you are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=475FG= Dawger Posted November 1, 2020 Share Posted November 1, 2020 More efficient than part of those 300hp that you loose? Would like to see figures. In any case, mine it was only a technical response to your assertion of "no real benefit". From a practical point of view (what I do too) I think you are quite right. From a purely technical one, I still think you are not. Arguing about this sort of inanity is counterproductive to anyone actually trying to learn how to operate a WWII era aircraft. The idea that you "lose" 300 hp if you use the turbo is a bit ridiculous. Once the engine reaches the takeoff RPM, which happens at fairly low power, the supercharger is doing all it will ever do and dragging the engine all it will ever drag it. All you are doing when you add throttle above the point where the engine is up to speed is allowing more air in. I shall repeat myself. There is some very tortured reasoning going on in order to justify a more complex operational procedure simply for the sake of more complexity. That is something only virtual pilots would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zunzun Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 Arguing about this sort of inanity is counterproductive to anyone actually trying to learn how to operate a WWII era aircraft. Again, I do not agree wich your reasoning neither I think we are going to get anything usefull for the rest by answering again. Let´s agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts