DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion

[NineLine]

I want to see the Hornet development be the benchmark for all development within and outside ED, but its based on the time and comfort level for everyone. I am always asking for more WWII updates, you will see some in this newsletter, not on the P-47 this week, but I think WWII updates and info has been improving.

[Raven68]

Very true! I am loving the attention WWII is getting even though I have not played much lately.

[BuzzU]

Well, I have the avatar already. My job is done. :)

[Calinho]

[Ercoupe]

I came in here to ask about the p-47, and see this. Good video. I was going to inquire, though, as to how serious is the possibility that we are actually getting the P-47 Thunderbolt?

I've heard a lot of, we might get this and we might get that, but might we actually see this soon? At least next year, maybe? Might it be the next WW2 release? I'm enjoying the hell out of the Spitfire. I think it's terrific. Beautiful model. And I'm looking forward to the Mustang updates. But a DCS Jug. Damn....it would have to be a day one buy. I normally wait for the sales, but I just wouldn't be able to with this one. How far along are they with it?

[Lieuie]

In the previous week's newsletter they mentioned that the next warbird we are going to get is the Fw 190 A-8. Now as to how far they are we really don't know. This is how much I was able to find:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3458972&postcount=137

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3605822&postcount=156

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3644925&postcount=162

[Ercoupe]

Nice looking work on the 190. But we've come to expect that, really. No matter how much people complain about DCS, they can't say that their planes aren't beautifully done. Gonna be fun to fight that in the Spitfire.

Hopefully, the P-47 won't be far behind.

[NineLine]

In the previous week's newsletter they mentioned that the next warbird we are going to get is the Fw 190 A-8. Now as to how far they are we really don't know. This is how much I was able to find:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3458972&postcount=137

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3605822&postcount=156

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3644925&postcount=162

 

I dont have anything firm of any sorts, but I am hearing we could see the Jug and A-8 right around the same time. Again, nothing firm, no idea when, no promises, nothing in concrete, just chatter.

[Pasquale1986]

I dont have anything firm of any sorts, but I am hearing we could see the Jug and A-8 right around the same time. Again, nothing firm, no idea when, no promises, nothing in concrete, just chatter.

 

:D

 

Thx for keeping us informed

[Ercoupe]

Hmmm...I see that if I had simply read some earlier posts I would have seen that the question I asked was already being talked about. Sorry for the redundancy. Glad to see that it might not be far away.

[Lieuie]

I dont have anything firm of any sorts, but I am hearing we could see the Jug and A-8 right around the same time. Again, nothing firm, no idea when, no promises, nothing in concrete, just chatter.

 

Nice to hear that. Maybe they could release them in a bundle.

[Captain Orso]

Well now they almost have to :)

 

DCS WWII Ground-Pounder Bundle :D

[Brigg]

I dont have anything firm of any sorts, but I am hearing we could see the Jug and A-8 right around the same time. Again, nothing firm, no idea when, no promises, nothing in concrete, just chatter.

 

Oh wow NineLine that would be freakin awsome

[Voyager]

Given some of what was dug up in the Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles video above, I'm wondering if DCS is set up to handle the fuel grade and detonation complexities of that turbo supercharger system?

 

I could see a P-47 campaign essentially having a subthread of getting the necessary tuning, engine settings and 130 octane fuel to get the engine to run reliably at 70-72" boost. It sounds like, from the High Stakes P-51 campaign that it is possible to have persistent damage in a campaign. I wonder if it would be possible to handle partially persistent damage and repair: i.e. after each flight, a certain amount of repair happens, on certain things, but not necessarily back up to 100%, and a new plane is not a 100% perfect plane?

 

According to RS Johnston's memoir, his best plane was a D-5, that someone else crashed, and while his later planes were newer configurations, none of them were quite as good as that one was tuned up to be.

 

I may have to get the Charnwood and High Stakes campaigns and start poking around in how they, and the mission editors work... I'm rather late to the party and haven't actually played any of the DCS World WWII games yet; all this kicked off because I've got Thunderbolts on the mind again and was just dropping in to see if one had been added yet.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Given some of what was dug up in the Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles video above, I'm wondering if DCS is set up to handle the fuel grade and detonation complexities of that turbo supercharger system?

Do you know previous DCS WWII modules? It's pretty much set up.

 

 

S!

[IJN Nagato]

Been waiting for the P-47 release for a few years now as an excuse to start playing again. Has there been any media in regards to it in game? Name of the devs who's building it, trailer, or screenshots?

[xvii-Dietrich]

Been waiting for the P-47 release for a few years now as an excuse to start playing again. Has there been any media in regards to it in game? Name of the devs who's building it, trailer, or screenshots?

 

There have been numerous posts and details about the project. Try searching for "P-47D" in the official news threads of this forum.

 

No trailer yet (that I know of), but there are screenshots. For just one example: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3605822&postcount=156

[Legioneod]

I could see a P-47 campaign essentially having a subthread of getting the necessary tuning, engine settings and 130 octane fuel to get the engine to run reliably at 70-72" boost.

 

"Officially" the P-47 never ran past 64-65" when using 130 fuel, it was only cleared for 70" with 150. That being said the P-47 was a very hot rodded aircraft, especially in the 56th FG, a few pilot accounts attest to this fact including Johnson and Gabreski, who state they used 70-72"

[DD_Fenrir]

Regards manifold pressure, the same equivocations that afflict the P-51D apply to the P-47.

 

If we get an airframe representative of a 9th Air Force machine then the 64-65" setting is what we would get as the 9th never used anything other than 130 Grade fuel.

 

If we get an airframe representative of a 8th Air Force machine then the 70-72" setting is what we would get as the 8th used 150 Grade fuel.

 

During the period the Normandy map is set the following numbers of Fighter Squadrons were equipped with P-47s:

 

8th Airforce:

 

61st

62nd

63rd

82nd

83rd

84th

350th

351st

352nd

359th

360th

361st

368th

369th

370th

 

Total Squadrons = 15

 

 

9th Airforce:

 

10th

22nd

23rd

53rd

81st

313th

365th

366th

367th

377th

378th

379th

386th

387th

388th

389th

390th

391st

395th

396th

397th

404th

405th

406th

410th

411th

412th

492nd

493rd

494th

506th

507th

508th

509th

510th

511th

512th

513th

514th

 

Total Squadrons = 39

 

So in the simplest terms, as a Luftwaffe pilot, you were more than twice as likely to encounter a 64-65" setting P-47.

 

This changes if we are a bit more defined as to our area of combat ops.

 

Aside from the immediate post D-Day period, 8th Air Force aircraft were employed on strategic bomber escort in the enemies rear.

 

Ergo, as a Luftwaffe pilot doing bomber intercept over Germany you were much more likely to meet 70" P-47.

 

As a Luftwaffe pilot over Normandy you were much more likely to encounter a 64-65" setting P-47.

 

Given the Normandy map, I therefore argue a 63" P-47 is better representative.

[birdstrike]

give us both i say. as we will hopefully not stay in normandy only forever.

this " normandy representative " argument is a bit shortsighted i think and we should not limit us more than necessary.

Edited October 18, 2018 by birdstrike

[DD_Fenrir]

Your point is valid birdstrike, however the general rule applies even if we get further WW2 maps focussed on ETO.

 

If, as is widely suspected we get an Ardennes style map, it is a tactical air war situation - ergo the 9th Air Force predominates and thus aircraft with MP settings for 130 grade fuel.

 

Hey if they give us an East Anglia - Berlin map I will be the first arguing for -47s & -51s with 150 grade fuel. However, flying 6-7hr missions riding escort for B-17s is gonna be an endeavour for a very niche part of the community, and as such I find it improbable.

[DefaultFace]

I don’t know where the idea that Bodenplatte is widely suspected comes from... I think most of us would agree that that would be a poor decision considering the direction some other sims are going in. A north or south Germany/Austria map would be much more interesting IMO, and missions can be made that aren’t just 8 hour escort missions. Either way I agree that the best would be to get options for both engine ratings.

[zxrex]

I don't know the answer, that's why I'm bringing it up. What variants of the competition will we be fighting? Were the 109 and 190 in game also the most likely to be encountered? Just curious.

[DefaultFace]

For Normandy no.

[DD_Fenrir]

Were the 109 and 190 in game also the most likely to be encountered?

 

If referring to the Bf 109K-4 and the Fw-190D-9, then maybe in 1945 there's an argument that these would be representative.

 

For any map set in 1944 - not a chance.