DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion

[Ala13_ManOWar]

There it is :beer: .

S!

[too-cool]

6+ and counting, that just me. TC

[philstyle]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3631096&postcount=417

 

 

Fair enough. Ignore my comment :) :thumbup:

[-0303-]

... no matter how they were carried to Europe or not.

Ikea style. Some assembly required. Really, a box with attached instructions.

 

TLDW: Two crates, fuselage + wings. Assembled in open field using the crates as building materials for temporary platforms. Up to 50 ppl needed to lift the wings. Film is 40 min, then it seem to repeat (not 57 minutes).

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by -0303-

[-0303-]

Corsair and P-47 both have R-2800 engine. Will the P-47 completion speed up the F4U? The cooling arrangements are different, so is the supercharger I guess. Otherwise, lots of stuff must be common.

[SmirkingGerbil]

Ikea style. Some assembly required. Really, a box with attached instructions.

 

TLDW: Two crates, fuselage + wings. Assembled in open field using the crates as building materials for temporary platforms. Up to 50 ppl needed to lift the wings. Film is 40 min, then it seem to repeat (not 57 minutes).

 

 

 

 

Like to see folk's try that nowadays with an F-35. :music_whistling:

 

 

Ahhh nope, need connection to ALIS, which is only hosted and owned by Lockheed Martin, and of course, scratch the conformal coating, drop that helmet, or bang up one of those saw tooth panels, you are looking at weeks offline as parts procurement is a train wreck at best. :(:megalol:

[-0303-]

T None of the factory wind tunnel test data from the era appears to have survived, a fire in the old Republic factory design buildings meaning the only reliable source for these literally went up in smoke. ED have had to go to great expense and take the time in order to use Computational Flow Modelling - a very labour and time-intensive process - in order to provide meaningful and reliable aerodynamic and drag data for the FM.

 

"went up in smoke" NOOOOOOOooooooooh:cry:

 

I'm thinking, no computer modeling, no matter how costly or advanced, is a substitute for testing the real thing.

 

ED must have access to a real P-47 and cooperation with P-47 pilots. They do have that? The surviving P-47's are not weighed down with guns and armor, so there's that too.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I'm thinking, no computer modeling, no matter how costly or advanced, is a substitute for testing the real thing

Thanks for your worries but you're a bit late to the party mate :D .

 

Yo-yo already told us some of the Yak-52 modelling a time ago included comparing charts in a well known and fully documented aeroplane as Yak is to RL measures with sensors in the plane (an aerobatic an easily found one as Yak-52 is), and that either compared to a wind tunnel simulation program so they could see how accurate that is and how that compares altogether to their needs for a similarly accurate simulation as the modules we already have.

 

The answer was positive, at least as they said back then, so they could use sensor measures in a real P-47 as well as wind tunnel simulation data with good results. I guess meaning a hell of a lot of work anyway to polish and fine tune that to a similar level we are used now, but doable. So lets hope for the best outcome knowing P-47 is on the works and incoming :beer: .

 

S!

[grafspee]

Thanks for your worries but you're a bit late to the party mate :D .

 

Yo-yo already told us some of the Yak-52 modelling a time ago included comparing charts in a well known and fully documented aeroplane as Yak is to RL measures with sensors in the plane (an aerobatic an easily found one as Yak-52 is), and that either compared to a wind tunnel simulation program so they could see how accurate that is and how that compares altogether to their needs for a similarly accurate simulation as the modules we already have.

 

The answer was positive, at least as they said back then, so they could use sensor measures in a real P-47 as well as wind tunnel simulation data with good results. I guess meaning a hell of a lot of work anyway to polish and fine tune that to a similar level we are used now, but doable. So lets hope for the best outcome knowing P-47 is on the works and incoming :beer: .

 

S!

Im not afraid about FM this one can be tweaked as needed. I am afraid about engine reliability, for example after hitting 65' engine blow up after 2 minutes, that is what i am afraid of.

When ED decide that p-47 was blowing up instantly at 65' running Russian fuel we cant do much then.

In case german planes Russians test were performed while using captured german fuel. Nothing like this was available for allied planes tested in Russian.

Edited September 18, 2019 by grafspee

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Im not afraid about FM this one can be tweaked as needed. I am afraid about engine relability, for exaple after hitting 65' engien blow up after 2 minutes, that is what i am afraid of.

When ED decide that p-47 was blowing up instantly at 65' running Russian fuel we cant do much then.

In case german planes russians test were performed while using captured german fuel. Nothing like this was able for allied planes tested in russia.

What Russian tests?? P-47 never was told to have any Russian tests mate. And what Russian fuel?? I never blew any engine up in 2 minutes unless misusing it and being my fault. Funny, even with the supposed bug in P-51 engine I could run up to 30+ minutes at 67" just keeping my speed up. So better learn to fly the thing properly instead of asking always for the ultimate exploit in a hardcore simulator. And don't start complaining before something is even announced for release :doh:, because you know, that kind of positive feedback always helps :thumbup: .

 

 

S!

[grafspee]

What Russian tests?? P-47 never was told to have any Russian tests mate. And what Russian fuel?? I never blew any engine up in 2 minutes unless misusing it and being my fault. Funny, even with the supposed bug in P-51 engine I could run up to 30+ minutes at 67" just keeping my speed up. So better learn to fly the thing properly instead of asking always for the ultimate exploit in a hardcore simulator. And don't start complaining before something is even announced for release :doh:, because you know, that kind of positive feedback always helps :thumbup: .

 

 

S!

hah when was it when you flown 67" for 30 minutes. Stop talking about keeping speed up, this is not a problem.

i just dont believe that you flown 67' for 30 minutes it crazy amount of time in sim.

yes every one complaining about this and only you can fly 67' for forever hmm.

Edited September 18, 2019 by grafspee

[Yo-Yo]

What Russian tests?? P-47 never was told to have any Russian tests mate. And what Russian fuel??

 

P-47 was delivered to the USSR and was tested, disassembled, but was not widely used because of Eastern front specific conditions.

[Burning Bridges]

interesting video

 

 

What was the particular reason to use P-47s on carriers? Was there anything they could do that the Hellcat/Corsair could not?

[grafspee]

interesting video

 

 

What was the particular reason to use P-47s on carriers? Was there anything they could do that the Hellcat/Corsair could not?

 

It is how US transport them to bases, Uses escort carriers for this, One way launch then landing at airfield.(only for pacyfic theater i think) They did transport bigger planes like bombers etc but cranse were used for unloading those.

It is far from any operational mean as it can get.

most of the time planes were trnsported in parts in crates i presume.

Us used escort carriers as hauling boats later in war,

Edited September 18, 2019 by grafspee

[grafspee]

but was not widely used because of Eastern front specific conditions.

 

= crap fuel.

Not because Russians were not able to make better fuel, reason is different, Russians used large displacement engines above 35L v12 with low boost, they didn't need better fuel.

So this fuel absolutely dint work well with low displacement high boost engines like Merlin 66.

I can see already test rapports.

Plane can operate up to 30" everything above is just capitalists propaganda.

Edited September 19, 2019 by grafspee

[Yo-Yo]

= crap fuel.

Not because Russians were not able to make better fuel, reason is different, Russians used large displacement engines above 35L v12 with low boost, they didn't need better fuel.

So this fuel absolutely dint work well with low displacement high boost engines like Merlin 66.

I can see already test rapports.

Plane can operate up to 30" everything above is just capitalists propaganda.

 

Russians got 100 octane fuel due to lend-lease program, so they could even add TEL to increase octane even higher for tests... THe problem was that even 2000 hp was not enough to get even 18-20 m/s vertical speed at medium altitudes. P-47 is a pure high altitude fighter keeping the power up to 8-9 km where planes with geared blowers became sluggish. Eastern front dogfights usually were lower than 3-4 km.

[grafspee]

Russians got 100 octane fuel due to lend-lease program, so they could even add TEL to increase octane even higher for tests... THe problem was that even 2000 hp was not enough to get even 18-20 m/s vertical speed at medium altitudes. P-47 is a pure high altitude fighter keeping the power up to 8-9 km where planes with geared blowers became sluggish. Eastern front dogfights usually were lower than 3-4 km.

 

I bet that 100 oct was hardly enought for frontline needs, ending up that lend-leased planes used russian fuel.

As far as i know 2000hp it was like starting point for p-47

it end up with 2800hp and paddle prop design imprving both climb and top speed by lot.

BTW bf109's used difrent prop for western and eastern fronts.

But i think Russians got some early version of it B or C

Edited September 19, 2019 by grafspee

[Yo-Yo]

I bet that 100 oct was hardly enought for frontline needs, ending up that lend-leased planes used russian fuel.

As far as i know 2000hp it was like starting point for p-47

it end up with 2800hp and paddle prop design imprving both climb and top speed by lot.

BTW bf109's used difrent prop for western and eastern fronts.

But i think Russians got some early version of it B or C

 

Even at 2800 hp its climb performance at medium and low altitude was mean - 16 m/s was not something outstanding at the end of WWII. Engine cooling at climb speed was not sufficient to maintain climb. 18-22 m/s at low altidues was typical for Soviet fighters.

 

It was excellent E-fighter for high altitudes not required for Soviet tactics and type of air war.

[grafspee]

Even at 2800 hp its climb performance at medium and low altitude was mean - 16 m/s was not something outstanding at the end of WWII. Engine cooling at climb speed was not sufficient to maintain climb. 18-22 m/s at low altidues was typical for Soviet fighters.

 

It was excellent E-fighter for high altitudes not required for Soviet tactics and type of air war.

 

Since you mentioned it, why there is no soviet fighter announced for DCS yet,

i know i-16 is out but its a little outclassed right now. I mean some proper soviet fighter

Yak-9U for example

Edited September 19, 2019 by grafspee

[Zunzun]

Even at 2800 hp its climb performance at medium and low altitude was mean - 16 m/s was not something outstanding at the end of WWII. Engine cooling at climb speed was not sufficient to maintain climb. 18-22 m/s at low altidues was typical for Soviet fighters.

 

It was excellent E-fighter for high altitudes not required for Soviet tactics and type of air war.

 

 

P-47M at 2800hp sustained about 20m/s at S/L down to 18m/s at 22000. Still short of what other allies and, mainly, the opposition where doing in 1945.

 

 

In terms of suitability for eastern front I do not agree it wasn´t suitable (in a wide sense). 9th AF was using it very effectively below 10000ft in the western front. I think, that in general, the niche and use of the Jug was different from the standar of the VVS (mainly a combination of il2 and nimble fighters).

[grafspee]

P-47 was suposed to be High alt fighter but in war, p-47 was used as ground atacker mainly since there was no german bombers for interception missions :)

And range of p-47 wasnt good for allied bomber escort missions. P-47 was realy only one plane immune to coolant system puncture by some random infantry fire :)

Edited September 19, 2019 by grafspee

[Yo-Yo]

P-47M at 2800hp sustained about 20m/s at S/L down to 18m/s at 22000. Still short of what other allies and, mainly, the opposition where doing in 1945.

 

 

In terms of suitability for eastern front I do not agree it wasn´t suitable (in a wide sense). 9th AF was using it very effectively below 10000ft in the western front. I think, that in general, the niche and use of the Jug was different from the standar of the VVS (mainly a combination of il2 and nimble fighters).

 

We are discussing about D and the Eastern front.

Flight Test Engineering Branch

Memo Report No. Eng-47-1774-A

15 July 1944

FLIGHT TESTS ON THE REPUBLIC

P-47D AIRPLANE, AAF NO. 42-26167

USING 44-1 FUEL

I Introduction

 

Flight tests have been conducted at Wright Field on the P-47D airplane, AAF NO. 42-26167, at the request of the Power Plant Laboratory, Engineering Division. These tests were made to determine the increased performance of the airplane using the higher powers allowable by use of 44-1 fuel as compared with powers allowable with the standard fuel, grade 100/130, Spec. No. AN-F-28. From 15 April to 30 June 1944 approximately 30 hours were flown by Captain R. B. Johnston.

 

The P-47D is a single engine, high altitude fighter. It is equipped with a Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine furnished with a water injection system and a four-bladed Curtiss Electric controllable propeller, blade design No. 836-2C2-18.

 

II Summary

 

Preliminary tests were run to clear the airplane for performance with higher powers with and without water injection. Detonation equipment was installed to determine if any flight condition became marginal as to detonation, cooling or improper operation of auxiliary parts. No detonation was observed in level flight up to 65.0" Hg. without water and 70.0" with water. No detonation was observed in climb up to 65" Hg. without water. Detonation occurred at 65.0" with water in climb but was remedied by using a No. 18 water jet. Cylinder head and carburetor air temperatures remained below the limits in level flight. Excessive cylinder head and carburetor air temperatures were encountered in climbs, limiting the duration of any climb to a point where limits are reached.

 

The airplane and engine handled well at all altitudes at the higher powers. At 70.0" Hg., water injection, a maximum speed of 444 MPH was obtained at 23,200 feet. At 65.0" Hg., with water a high speed of 439 MPH at 25,200 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 3260 ft/min. at 10,000 feet were obtained. At 65.0" Hg., without water a high speed of 430 MPH at 25,400 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 2850 ft/min. at 12,000 feet were obtained. At 56.0" Hg. without water a high speed of 418 MPH at 29,600 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 2330 ft/min. at 12,000 feet were obtained. At 52.0" Hg. without water a high speed of 412 MPH at 31,400 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 2030 ft/min. at 12,000 feet were obtained.

 

P-47 was used as a strike plane but there was a nuance - it was time of almost full absence of LW over Germany...

[grafspee]

56' at 29600ft.

Approximately 30 hours were flown by capitan.....

Hmm how many engines did he blow up ??

Edited September 19, 2019 by grafspee

[Zunzun]

We are discussing about D and the Eastern front

 

 

I know was eastern front and VVS. It was, that hypotheticaly, could have been used.

 

 

P-47 was used as a strike plane but there was a nuance - it was time of almost full absence of LW over Germany...

 

 

9th and 12th AFs met LW during all 44 (and 45) in good quantities and with good results. Specially if using the right team tactics.

[Badders46]

Morning all,

 

Sorry if this has been posted before but I just stumbled upon this video on YouTube... Thought you might enjoy it!

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk