Jump to content

DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion


Barrett_g

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying any of that is easy to model - far from it - but I'd be surprised if someone simulating those complex systems never resorted to "black box" thinking. What that means is that you're not interested in the real-world logic and/or electronics level of the box per se; instead, what you need to know exactly is its behaviour, i.e. the inputs and outputs it provides and its connections to (and dependencies on) the whole, and then work out the innards from there.

 

Again, not saying this is easy, because it isn't. But at least it gives you some freedom in how to implement the box, instead of trying to clone it exactly.

 

Anyway, I do agree that modelling a WW2 A/C is most likely easier than modelling a 4th generation fighter jet, due to the complexity of the systems the latter carries.

 

Yes, agree and ED cant recreate real system logic for modern fighters, only what they can do is to simulate inputs and outputs of it, but internal logic is forbidden to replicate here.

It is forbidden to discuss this on this forum as well.

So the true simulation like true true simulation is only available for older birds :) which can be challenging some time.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found it.EA shall be.

0rw0YeR.png

I would delete "hope", it will be great addition to ww2!

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure developing a modern jet fighter takes much more time and resources then a WW2 fighter.

 

You don't have to worry about modeling radar, RWR, TPOD, air to air refueling, programmable smart weapons, modern navigation systems, HUD, MFDs, fly by wire, remote guided weapons etc in a way that they all function realistically together whilst using in cockpit buttons and controls.

 

For WW2 fighters it's basically engine, radiators, gear, flaps, battery, damage model and flight model. Which all has to be done for Modern fighters as well.

 

The other issue is, how do you validate it when none of the pilots are still alive? There is a large debate that recently popped up on flap usage. At least according to the listed flight profiles, the P-47 flaps generate ridiculous amounts of lift, that when combined with the additional excess power and relatively benign stall characteristic appear to allow the aircraft to do some rather bonkers turn rates. Yet, there is absolutely nothing in the historical accounts mentioning this at all.

 

What gives? Is the flight model wrong? Yet, if you drop the flap lift, the landing speeds go up by 20+mph, and you certainly can't land with the engine on idle like the manual directs you to: you'd fall out of the sky like a brick, yet it sure a anything wasn't a turn fighter either.

 

Turns out there are a couple of missing pieces of info. Post war dogfight testing turned out that the P-47 could actually effectively do prop-hang nuttiness much better than other US fighters. (Very clean wing with an even lift distribution apparently helps, ala Spitfire)

 

It also turns out that one flap always drops to 20 degrees, before the other one drops beyond 5. Drop flaps in a turn and you spin. Always. So of course, no-one every thought of using PO-47 flaps in combat because that would be stupid. What I haven't been able to determine is, if it is always the left flap that drops first, if it changes from plane to plane, if it is dependent some factor of your flight attitude at the moment, or if it is a truly random function driven by some race condition in the mechanisms. Interestingly enough, the Pilot Handbooks do mention that there is something squirrelly about the flaps, but they don't actually say what. They just tell you to only lower them on final, and that you shouldn't do it earlier until you have enough time in the plane.

 

What I can tell you is most sim developers aren't likely to go into the baseline engine development with the baseline assumption that an aircraft would have a random function generator for a heavy lift device...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other issue is, how do you validate it when none of the pilots are still alive? There is a large debate that recently popped up on flap usage. At least according to the listed flight profiles, the P-47 flaps generate ridiculous amounts of lift, that when combined with the additional excess power and relatively benign stall characteristic appear to allow the aircraft to do some rather bonkers turn rates. Yet, there is absolutely nothing in the historical accounts mentioning this at all.

 

What gives? Is the flight model wrong? Yet, if you drop the flap lift, the landing speeds go up by 20+mph, and you certainly can't land with the engine on idle like the manual directs you to: you'd fall out of the sky like a brick, yet it sure a anything wasn't a turn fighter either.

 

Turns out there are a couple of missing pieces of info. Post war dogfight testing turned out that the P-47 could actually effectively do prop-hang nuttiness much better than other US fighters. (Very clean wing with an even lift distribution apparently helps, ala Spitfire)

 

It also turns out that one flap always drops to 20 degrees, before the other one drops beyond 5. Drop flaps in a turn and you spin. Always. So of course, no-one every thought of using PO-47 flaps in combat because that would be stupid. What I haven't been able to determine is, if it is always the left flap that drops first, if it changes from plane to plane, if it is dependent some factor of your flight attitude at the moment, or if it is a truly random function driven by some race condition in the mechanisms. Interestingly enough, the Pilot Handbooks do mention that there is something squirrelly about the flaps, but they don't actually say what. They just tell you to only lower them on final, and that you shouldn't do it earlier until you have enough time in the plane.

 

What I can tell you is most sim developers aren't likely to go into the baseline engine development with the baseline assumption that an aircraft would have a random function generator for a heavy lift device...

 

 

In the book Thunderbolt! Robert Johnson talks about watching a pilot (Gabby Gabresiki?) successfully turning on the deck with a Me109. I think pilot skill has a lot to do with it too. If I remember correctly the pilot ran out of ammo and was trying to ram the 109

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey does anyone know what the price range will be for this module?

 

I'm assuming that P-47 price will fall in line with other ED's warbirds that is 49.99$ but we cant be sure until we will see the price he :)


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If I remember correctly the pilot ran out of ammo and was trying to ram the 109"

 

Doesn't sound like something Gabresky would have done. He didn't get to be one of the highest scoring U.S pilots in the ETO, and survive the war, by doing anything as stupid as that.

However, for a short time a group of Polish pilots were transferred to the 56th. Gabby knew most of them. As a matter of fact Johnson tells a funny story about one of them. While on a mission, the unit was ordered to drop it's tanks. One of the Poles forgot to switch over to his main tanks and the engine hesitated from lack of fuel. Everyone heard him call out, desperately over the radio, "Gabby, Gabby! My motor...she go, poof, poof! Vot I do, Vot I do!!"

It was probably one of those Poles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If I remember correctly the pilot ran out of ammo and was trying to ram the 109"

 

Doesn't sound like something Gabresky would have done. He didn't get to be one of the highest scoring U.S pilots in the ETO, and survive the war, by doing anything as stupid as that.

However, for a short time a group of Polish pilots were transferred to the 56th. Gabby knew most of them. As a matter of fact Johnson tells a funny story about one of them. While on a mission, the unit was ordered to drop it's tanks. One of the Poles forgot to switch over to his main tanks and the engine hesitated from lack of fuel. Everyone heard him call out, desperately over the radio, "Gabby, Gabby! My motor...she go, poof, poof! Vot I do, Vot I do!!"

It was probably one of those Poles.

 

 

Hence the question mark. I haven’t re-read the book for a couple years and could only remember the outline of the fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If I remember correctly the pilot ran out of ammo and was trying to ram the 109"

 

Doesn't sound like something Gabresky would have done. He didn't get to be one of the highest scoring U.S pilots in the ETO, and survive the war, by doing anything as stupid as that.

However, for a short time a group of Polish pilots were transferred to the 56th. Gabby knew most of them. As a matter of fact Johnson tells a funny story about one of them. While on a mission, the unit was ordered to drop it's tanks. One of the Poles forgot to switch over to his main tanks and the engine hesitated from lack of fuel. Everyone heard him call out, desperately over the radio, "Gabby, Gabby! My motor...she go, poof, poof! Vot I do, Vot I do!!"

It was probably one of those Poles.

 

He got rather aggressive later in the war. He was downed and captured because he clipped the ground with the prop while strafing He-111's on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually on the fence as to whether or not I'll buy the Jug. I've always liked the airplane but I've also always sucked in it. I mean, BAD. I've been flying combat flight sims on computers since the early nineties, and in every one that had a P-47, I could not do a thing with that airplane. I find myself wondering if I'll spend money on this and wind up not flying it out of frustration. Air to ground is fine...I mean, anyone can drop a bomb. But A/A combat, fuggedaboudit!

I'll wait and see what you guys think of it before I jump in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that P-47 price will fall in line with other ED's warbirds that is 49.99$ but we cant be sure until we will see the price he :)

 

I never thought to mention that. The price is a good indication of the complexity of developing a plane in DCS.

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually on the fence as to whether or not I'll buy the Jug. I've always liked the airplane but I've also always sucked in it. I mean, BAD. I've been flying combat flight sims on computers since the early nineties, and in every one that had a P-47, I could not do a thing with that airplane. I find myself wondering if I'll spend money on this and wind up not flying it out of frustration. Air to ground is fine...I mean, anyone can drop a bomb. But A/A combat, fuggedaboudit!

I'll wait and see what you guys think of it before I jump in.

 

I’ll just be glad to have the P-47 in my possession... to be able to look it over, flip all the switches, and get it started..... which is what you could do in Microsoft Flight Simulator.... but now I have live ammunition!

 

I’m sure I’ll suck at it for quite some time... but I’ve always loved the jug so I’ll keep at it. I can always strafe trains or bomb panzers! We can’t all be aces!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm going to have to look at it that way, too. Just having it to fly should be pretty exciting. As a real life pilot, if someone said, "Joe, would you like to fly my P-47?" I most likely wouldn't say, "Oh, no, not really! I fly it in IL-2 and I'm really bad in it. But, hey, thanks though. Really!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the book Thunderbolt! Robert Johnson talks about watching a pilot (Gabby Gabresiki?) successfully turning on the deck with a Me109. I think pilot skill has a lot to do with it too. If I remember correctly the pilot ran out of ammo and was trying to ram the 109

 

I think R. Johnson talked about "Mike" Gladych. Very aggressive polish pilot (he hated nazis because they badly hurt his family, friends and his country at the beginning of the war)

See here: http://www.56thfightergroup.co.uk/61pilots/polishpilots.htm

Smoke me a kipper I'll be back for breakfast! (Ken Gatward before his solo Beaufighter mission 1943)See vid here

HW: i7-12700K, 32 GB RAM, MB PRO Z690-A DDR4 , GTX 3080, LCD UltraWQHD (3440x1440) G-SYNC 120Hz,Tobii Eye Tracker 5, VKB Gunfighter III (KG12 WWII), MFG Crosswind, AuthentiKit Throttle & Trims, Windows 11 64-bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually on the fence as to whether or not I'll buy the Jug. I've always liked the airplane but I've also always sucked in it. I mean, BAD. I've been flying combat flight sims on computers since the early nineties, and in every one that had a P-47, I could not do a thing with that airplane. I find myself wondering if I'll spend money on this and wind up not flying it out of frustration. Air to ground is fine...I mean, anyone can drop a bomb. But A/A combat, fuggedaboudit!

I'll wait and see what you guys think of it before I jump in.

 

I know what you mean. I doubt its going to be much of a dog fighter at low altitude because its slow and heavy. But at high altitude it should be good and it brings some cool new features that the other warbirds don't have like dive recovery flaps.

 

My biggest concern is it's dive performance. Planes in DCS eject their control surfaces at high speed, I hope the P47D doesn't do that. There would be no point in dive recovery flaps if the plane falls apart before you get to speeds where you need them. This is one thing I want to know before I get the module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why you should not use trim while diving in p-47.

M5mwV8s.png

Diving flaps are used only at high alt above 12k. At low alt P-47 do not experience any compresibility problems.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why you should not use trim while diving in p-47.

M5mwV8s.png

Diving flaps are used only at high alt above 12k. At low alt P-47 do not experience any compresibility problems.

 

It experiences compressibility only in the vacuum of space, not @ sea level..:lol:

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It experiences compressibility only in the vacuum of space, not @ sea level..:lol:

 

When diving from high alt compressibility appear, but once plane enter low alt compressibility passing away because mach number is lower at low alt. Unless you diving straight down with no intention of pulling out then maybe yes

Diving flaps job is to allow pilot to recover from high alt dives, w/o necessity to wait unlit plane reach low alt to be able to pull out form a dive.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When diving from high alt compressibility appear, but once plane enter low alt compressibility passing away because mach number is lower at low alt. Unless you diving straight down with no intention of pulling out then maybe yes

Diving flaps job is to allow pilot to recover from high alt dives, w/o necessity to wait unlit plane reach low alt to be able to pull out form a dive.

 

I thought it was because pilots were crashing into the ground because they lost the ability to pull up when their speed got to high in a dive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was because pilots were crashing into the ground because they lost the ability to pull up when their speed got to high in a dive.
Same thing. Compressibility is the cone of pressure that surrounds an aircraft. The higher the speed the tighter the cone. Eventually the cone is almost slick with the airframe, and the control surfaces become useless. This is why a major breakthrough in supersonic aircraft was the introduction of the horizontal stabilizer instead of the elevator. The stabilizer remains functional at much higher speeds.

 

So as you can imagine, as the p47 approached 600 or so miles per hour in a dive, the resulting compressibility renders the elevators useless. Meaning the pilot can no longer recover from the dive.

 

At least that's how Chuck Yeager explained it.

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...