P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 1A Throttle and Boost Lever Use

[@jakey-poo401]

I couldn't help but test this in DCS. For my test: 2550 RPM with 45" manifold at 17,000' in level flight there was a difference of about 12mph indicated between linked and independent turbo levers. I could have checked the exact airspeed in the map, but I didn't think of it, so indicated is good enough for me. Thank you for this info as well as your (exhausting, I imagine) research! This channel has become the gold standard for imaginary-aviators who just NEED to understand "Why my plane do this?!"

[@spitfirefrench]

The DCS P47 seems to have fairly accurate behaviours to what you have shown here. I'm very pleased with it!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

DCS is really good, I'm flying the Dora there.

[@gnashings]

Wow, am I ever grateful for this channel!!! I don't know if anyone can relate, but I absolutely CRINGE when I see most WWII aircraft topics on YoutTube (I suppose this goes back to TV documentary days too). The sort of pop bubble gum hot takes and "factoids" aimed at the wow factor, the various experts trying to sound cool by finding the most outlandishly oversimplified analogies and then looking incredibly smug after making them, and just the limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter are the norm. THIS CHANNEL IS THE EXCEPTION! I can't tell you how many times I have navigated past your videos thinking "nah... its gotta be one of those...I don't have the energy to scream at my computer" ;) My disdain for the coverage this subject receives is such that even though it is a life long passion of mine, you'd hardly know from the videos I watch. And then I found this channel. And all was well with the world. Thank you so much for restoring my faith and giving a safe harbour for all those aviation geeks who just can't take any more insults to their intelligence and have for far too long resigned themselves to content that was either overly simplistic, inaccurate or both just to see pretty pictures of our favourite things (which were also often misidentified etc). What a breath of fresh air, keep doing what you're doing, this channel rocks (and yes I am also a car nut).

[@roryvonbrutt7302]

gnashings : nicks garage ! ! ! Car stuff awesome

[@m.r.donovan8743]

All too true Sir. I'm sick of some pup who couldn't even fly a C-172 telling us why one WW2 aircraft was better than another (and propping himself up as an "expert" on the subject)... because he flew one for fifteen minutes in a computer simulator.

[@jackthatmonkey8994]

I love the fact that your open with a hi and close with a greeting and that's it. Finally somebody who's not begging for likes

[@dirtypure2023]

Me too, it's old fashioned and I respect it infinitely.

[@PappyGunn]

DCS models it accurately. You can disconnect the boost lever from the throttle or run it connected to simplify management in combat. If you use the boost on takeoff, it takes 350 hp to run it. It you are very heavy it is recommended to use boost and water. At high altitude everything is in the wall and you mange the engine with the boost lever only (and all the cooling flaps & intercooler). Neat simulator, the best yet for the P-47.

[@Lemard77]

Hey Greg, thanks for the info about the P-47 engine management. This is how it's implemented in IL-2 currently: At sea level, with turbo off and full RPM and Throttle, without water injection the engine will do 49.5" of pressure, for around 306 mph top speed. With water injection activated, the manifold pressure remains the same but speed increases to 313 mph. With water off, advancing the turbo lever doesn't activate it until you hit 89% of the lever position, then the light starts blinking and the tachometer spools up to around 900 RPM, speed doesn't change, as the turbocharger RPM rises, so does the manifold pressure and the speed. Going 100% turbo it spools up to 6000 RPM, manifold pressure increases to 55.5" and top speed increases to 320 mph. With water injection on, the turbo activates when the lever is at the 59% position. Going 100% on the turbo increases manifold pressure to around 67.2" at 11000 turbo RPM. To achieve the listed 64", you can have full throttle and decrease turbo a bit, or link both throttle and turbo to do it. With full throttle and going back a bit with the turbo (8700 RPM) top speed is 348 mph at 64". Now at the same setting but now linking the throttle and turbo levers (95%, 10500 RPM) the top speed is 347 mph, there is a bit of power loss but it's very small. There is no damage by having the turbo boost lever ahead of the throttle lever. There is some power loss by running the turbo at full speed but it doesn't look like it is so much. For example with water injection and full turbo, but pulling back the throttle to make 52", top speed is 313 mph. With full throttle but pulling back the turbo to make the same 52", top speed is 319 mph. The speed values are for a clean plane (no wing racks), 50% fuel and both oil and cowl shutters fully closed, intercooler at neutral position. Also looks like the turbo gives a too low critical altitude, with 22000 RPM the critical altitude for 64" is 23000 feet. At this altitude top speed is 435 mph. Looks like the turbosupercharger needs some adjustments, but I bet given the correct information and presented in a constructive way they will look at it ^^

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Wow, that was some complete data collection. It sounds to me like they have it pretty close, but not quite right. The IL2 people are a good company and they will probably tweak it in the future.

[@mururoa7024]

Thanks for putting out the numbers. Very useful.

[@EduEnYT]

Greetings from 2021! As it's currently implemented, the P-47D-28 in Il-2 Great Battles seems to work this way: You can set engine RPM and manifold pressure at max continuous without turbo at ground level. As you climb, manifold pressure will start dropping. Moving the throttle forward at this point won't have any effect. The throttle lever doesn't control the throttle directly. The boost lever also doesn't control the waste gates directly. At any altitude up to 28 thousand feet, without water injection, smacking the levers forward won't result in either overboosting the engine or overspeeding the turbo. At five thousand feet, with all the levers fully forward and without water injection, the turbo RPM stays at around ten thousand RPM and the manifold pressure stays squarely at 52 inches. If you go to exterior view, you can see the waste gates flopping slightly.

[@grafspeem9402]

Greg said that throttle alone give 52" for take off, this is not true. And looks like il2 got it right since 49.5 is achievable at full throttle alone at 306mph, at this speed ram air will add couple inches of boost. For stationary plane it will be around 45" at full throttle alone. I made a test in il2 so 49" is possible throttle alone when stationary, looks like il2 is missing ram air effect on MP so no matter your airspeed MP stay the same, in DCS MP on throttle alone changes with speed from 45" at low speed to +52" at very high speeds. looks like IL2 took average value and applied it.

[@LHX88]

as someone who just got the DCS P-47 these videos are an absolute godsend.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Vlad.

[@aw448]

Another great video , Thanks Greg . Reminds me of a German pilots impression after flying a captured P47 ."The cockpit was immense and unfamiliar.,. With all those levers, controls and switches in the cockpit. I'm surprised your pilots could find the time to fight. We had nothing like this Our instrumentation was complete, but simple: throttle, mixture control and prop pitch. How your pilots were able to work on all their gadgets and still function amazes me." Walter Wolfrum

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

The Germans had a good point. The plane is fairly complex to operate, but you would be amazed at how fast and natural it is to manipulate the controls after a time. The U.S. pilots basically committed all the controls to muscle memory. Part of their training was in gaining the ability to manipulate every control blindfolded. It's also worth pointing out that once the controls are positioned for combat, most don't have to be manipulated much other than the throttle and or turbo lever. Still, I'll say that the FW 190's set up was overall superior, and probably would have been the way forward for fighters had the jets not shown up.

[@PappyGunn]

"That's because everything goes in the wall in combat." - The P-47 could take it.

[@m.r.donovan8743]

I can't tell you how revealing your videos are for me. Being an A&P with forty years of experience and also a rated Multi-engine Commercial and instrument pilot, your videos tell me in no uncertain terms how complex these aircraft were to fly, let alone fight in. It doubles my respect for the 20-25 year old kids who flew them, even though I already had a lot. Their courage and exceptional skill is extremely admirable. It's apparent that the Jug was not only a handful to take off & land because of the high stall speed, but the pilot had intellectual challenges for the remainder of his missions. Non-pilots who watch this probably have no idea that today's average aviator would feel like the beast was trying to kill him if he strapped it on (tail wheel airplane, Seversky wing, super powerful engine with a huge prop and enough torque to put you into the weeds in the blink of an eye). I've flown a T-6/SNJ and felt overmatched in that airplane... I can only imagine what it must have felt like to walk out to the flight line, having had a couple hours of ground instruction, and climb into it with hands shaking. Bravo Greg! The amount of research and work you've put into this is much appreciated.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks M.R. I really appreciate your kind words.

[@bobdyer422]

From everything I've read pilots found this easy to use and a valuable tool in combat. Since most pilots had their mounts set up for battle after crossing the Channel and making "Dry Feet". Basically the only things left they had to do was punch tanks and hit the throttle, then play with the boost. A majority of the time the P-47 groups assigned to Bomber escort were above the Germans. The Luftwaffe at first called the Americans "Upstairs maids" which the Luftwaffe considered an insult and slur. Prop over rev was a serious problem with the Curtiss electric series, the "Pencil Prop" and "Paddle blade" was fairly tame, but the Asymmetrical and symmetrical caused headaches to Crew chiefs for a few months. The Hamilton Standard 13'3" was the perfect blade for the 47 until Curtiss straightened out their gremlins. Great explanation on use of all levers. Great job on 1A!

[@rayschoch5882]

Nicely done, again, for the non-engineer and non-pilot. This is the sort of thing I wouldn't have thought of when writing about my Dad "transitioning" from the F6F to the F4U-4. Obviously, neither one is/was a P-47, but all 3 used basically the same engine, even if not the same boost mechanism(s), and these are the kinds of details - if you don't want to get yourself killed, either operationally or in combat - that you'd need to learn and practice until they became habit when moving from one fighter to another. Flying a WW II fighter was complicated enough without having to remember in one cockpit the details of (or exceptions to) procedures you'd learned in a different cockpit.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi Ray. The F6F and F4U certainly presented their own challenges! Typically U.S. WW2 pilots would sit in the cockpit and practice certain things until they became almost muscle memory. Some were required to be able to find and operate every switch blindfolded.

[@rayschoch5882]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I suspected as much, and am not surprised by the "blindfolded" part. I've seen instrument panels of both the F6F and the F4U in person, and they make even a race car's instrument cluster look pretty much like child's play.

[@sultros]

It's amazing just how complex WWII were to operate. Take this scenario as an example. You and the boys are flying a fighter sweep when you get bounced by Jerry. You're in a P-47D, set up for cruise, running external drop tanks. (fuel settings and drop tank operation vary depending on model) You change your primary fuel selector switch to main, reach to the left of your seat and pull the two T shaped handles to release the left and right drop tanks, Mixture goes to auto rich, prop pitch set to auto to get RPM's up, then throttle full. If you're above 7000ft, your turbo will be set linked to throttle. If not, there's that to manage too. On top of all of this, you need to be turning and likely starting a dive to build energy / speed, flip the master arm switch for camera / gun, check gun heat is on, and turn on your gun sight which a lot of pilots turned off when not in combat to ensure the bulb worked. Most kept a spare on them and hey, if you can do all the above, changing a bulb out is a piece of cake while your head is on a swivel trying to figure out where those cannon wielding Kraut's went.

[@BrookieCooki84]

Escape Velocity And our boys were the best at it! Love the skill it took to fly these beauties.

[@helzevec]

Escape Velocity - agreed. I think in general - no matter what your machine - you truly had to "know" its mechanics back in the day. One thing to consider though is that a lot of the fine tuning was ideal, but not fatal if it wasn't done in all scenarios. Many aces claimed that they became aces not by winning epic dogfights (where fine tuning could be the difference maker), but by picking weak opponents ("Tail-end Charlie"), attacking them unawares, and then escaping (something the 47 excelled at). These were the type of attacks that, although risky if it went wrong, it wouldn't be fatal if say there was some marginal HP loss due to some non-ideal setting the pilot might have missed. So when you throw in adrenaline, fear, timing, etc. - it's likely the case that WWII fighters, on both sides, were frequently in combat while their birds were not in the most optimal, by the book settings. Still though, there was a lot to remember about the basic mechanics of your plane. I think what's so interesting about that factor is that it likely created a lot of room for pilot variation. Skill levels, styles, tactics, preferences, etc., likely varied in subtle, but important ways pilot to pilot based on mechanical know-how and/or the ability to tune the plane on the fly in combat.

[@sultros]

@@helzevec I haven't read up much on the P47 but I have read some on the P38 and the order for increasing and decreasing power would trash the engines if not done correctly. While the R2800 and the V1750 aren't the same, its something to consider. Also, I think there are limitations on an aircraft when drop tanks were attached. Id have to go back and look at the manual. When combat started and how a pilot reacted often made the difference between life and death. On escort missions, it was routine for leads to call out 15 minutes before fighter contact was expected to make sure everyone was set up. Later versions of the P47 featured an electric release mechanism for drop tanks that had to be armed and ready and could be released with a touch of a button the stick. Pilots in these aircraft were always busy and a good example is managing fuel when flying on external drop tanks. Pilots would cycle back and forth between tanks every 15 minutes and with no fuel gauge, tanks would be dropped at a certain time when fuel was expected to run out.

[@monkatraz]

I think the main differentiation between an advanced WW2 fighter and say something like a F/A-18 Hornet in switchology complexity is just throttle management. Everything else there (except for the gun sight shenanigans) is about the same. Of course, a big difference is when you're in a Hornet and you need to pull a 7G turn all you do is slam the throttles forward and PULL. The computer handles everything for you in making sure you don't overstress the airframe (although, you can pull the lever on your stick and get maximum performance). Meanwhile if you do that in a WW2 fighter you're probably gonna start a very nasty stall state.

[@sultros]

@@monkatraz Cant comment on the Hornet, but when it comes to Jet's vs props, Jet's definitely simplified things and reduced pilot workloads. Later jets starting incorporating advanced HUD's and HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) controls meant to keep the pilots focused on flying and fighting rather than navigating their systems in the cockpit.

[@jamesturner2126]

This video is correct about the boost and throttle. By leaving the boost lever down, the exhaust pressure is essentially bypassing or freewheeling the turbo, leaving the R-2800's blower to make boost. Closing the wastegates too early/fast causes that big turbo-supercharger to have MONSTER turbo lag.

[@cannonfodder4376]

Between this video and the previous one, I am quite happy to be around during Thanksgiving break to watch and enjoy both informative videos in their totality. I can certainly see some advantages and uses to such a intricate control of the engine and systems as mentioned, but I would still end up sticking to the 190's automated systems.

[@skylordbob3237]

I must say that you are real "talking encyclopedia" regarding the WW2 stuff Greg. Again a excellent video from you. You mentioned fly sims and possibility to use this throttle as it should be used. Since I frequently fly in IL2 BoS flight sim and fue days ago they release P-47D-28 as a early acces airplane , I just want to say that this is simulated in this airplane and it is possible to use throttle and turbocharger (boost) levers together (they are fixed to each other also with prop pitch lever) and you can move them together or adjust them separately as you like or as it required. Thx for this video! Keep them coming ;D

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Skylord. With any luck I'll be on IL2 late tomorrow. I don't have track IR or comms so I'll mostly be getting shot down, but if you see me there, say hi. I usually fly the 190, id is GregHF

[@skylordbob3237]

I also fly as "lone wolf" without comms so I also get shot down most of the time :/ I usualy fly on Wings of Liberty server in Fw 190 or Bf 109/110 as escort, bombing sortie or watching on our targets because I am not a good "dog fighter". Hope I see you there !

[@mikebeeton4982]

Yet again, many thanks for additional info..l It brings to light just one aspect of flying an aeroplane in combat during this historic period ! then there is the flying/trim of the "beastie" then trying to keep out of harms way but also be aggressive to ones opponent. These pilots had to be intelligent and alert and of course lucky !

[@thearisen7301]

I love these super detailed videos. Would you ever consider doing a video that talks about the strengths and weaknesses of these planes? You've mentioned them in passing so it'd be fun to have your breakdown of them.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I will do that.

[@tuttebelleke]

Have watched several of your videos, they are fantastic. You have the calm, the perfect voice and the correct speed when explaining things. And for most, you seem to have profound knowledge on your subjects. And where you're not sure, you just tell it. What I learned from your video's: In WW2 they were far far more advanced on (motor) technology than I ever thought. Why did it take till the 80's before turbochargers were applied in cars???

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thank you. We didn't see turbos in cars until 1962 with the Jetfire (I have a video about that car) and the Corvair. However as you point out, they didn't become somewhat common until the 1980s. The main reason that most cars up until then were not fuel injected, and without injection, reliable turbocharging is relatively difficult. The WW2 aircraft which were turbocharged had an early version of throttle body fuel injection called a "pressure carburetor".

[@cmbaileytstc]

Greg, right now in Il-2 this is what most of us are doing. It yields about 90-95% of top speed at WEP and 3000fpm climb, but it takes 15 minutes to kill your engine instead of 5 “You can enable the water injection just on the nominal (47" @ 2530rpm) to get something like an "intermediate WEP" - rpm stays the same but MP rises to 59". Not only it's significantly stronger than the "normal" combat power at 55" @ 2700rpm but lasts as long. Even better, after that you can switch to "full" WEP for full 5m without a hitch. I managed to climb to the 20k ft on the "boosted nominal" at initial rate around 3000ft/m then enabled full power; was running very fast at that alt for 5m and 45s before the engine finally seized.”

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Good information. Can you run it up to 64" or 72" with the water on?

[@cmbaileytstc]

64”, and the engine busts in a little over 5 minutes. You basically cannot use all of the water you have available for emergency power by standard memes because the game breaks you after five minutes!

[@cmbaileytstc]

*Standard means

[@cmbaileytstc]

Just to keep you abreast of the current Jug quirks in Il2: Item 1: Someone came up with the information that the P-47Ds ended up fitted with a prop that was 10” greater in diameter. Apparently this could cause prop tips to reach too high a Mach at high speed high alt. The M and N got a greater gear reduction to the prop because of this. This MIGHT explain why dropping RPM to 2550 in-game gives the D-28 more speed, but I’m not sure. Item 2: The best way to get the most power for a given manifold pressure setting is indeed to set the prop to 2550, firewall the throttle, and then adjust the turbo. This gives notably higher speeds than any other combination of lever-juggling. Item 3: Adjusting the mixture to full rich gives slightly more power whenever boost is also engaged.

[@iflycentral]

Would be nice if this system had the same level of automation found in the German planes. ( Push throttle forward, get power! ) seem that to get the most out of this plane one may need a proper throttle quadrant with multiple levers.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

The 190 does have the most pilot friendly system. interestingly the Germans tried than again with the Mooney-Porsche collaboration in the 80's. it just didn't go anywhere, but the idea is sound.

[@daszieher]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles the PFM failed, because it entered the market at the wrong time. It is what general aviation aircraft should have as a standard. Fiddling with mixture, prop and throttle nowadays is ridiculous. Worst of all, spark curve is fixed although operating conditions aren't.

[@t6vim12]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I would be very interested in seeing a video done on the fw-190 kommandogerat. Wonder if there is sufficient info/data out there to allow that.

[@richardlahan7068]

@Incog Nito Later versions of the D, M an N had increasing levels of automation especially with the water injection, turbo and cowl flaps. The lack of automation in the initial models of the P-47 probably had to do with the fact that after WWI, the US military was severely curtailed. Aircraft design, technology and innovation wasn't a priority. It was with the Luftwaffe.

[@nightshade7745]

I believe the P-47N-25 has a similar mechanism, but only governs the throttle and turbo but not the propeller.

[@gsr4535]

Excellent Greg! The mysterious throttle quandrant!

[@adamb3286]

I know this was from four years ago but the way DCS tells you to use the boost lever is wrong. In the manual it tells you to connect them at take off and leave them there. Where as A2A's excellent P-47 for Microsoft Flight Simulator works exactly as you explained here. I found this video because DCS made me question my memory of the many hours with A2A's P-47. I'll give the high altitude test a try and see what happens. Thanks for the upload.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I fly the P-47 in DCS and use the levers exactly as I describe here. More often than not when in combat I have the throttle fully forward and used the boost lever to make changes to power.

[@Sundowner111]

Greg, while we are in the topic of simulations, I would really like to see an indepth analysis of the Allison V-1710, especially in the context of its combat reliability in the Curtiss P-40E when facing the Bf109G2. In il2 BoS, the engine still appears to be made out of glass, easy to missmanage - which is contrary to what I read about both the plane, and those engines. But I do not look into the NACA documentation as you are.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I'll get to that. There are some issues with IL2, but it does some things really well. First IL2 review is going up today.

[@julianneale6128]

A2A Simulations do some of the very best addons for flight sims, and their P47 is absolutely fantastic!

[@nc687-]

you're kidding, it's JUNK!, badly modelled, you can see all the edges etc from the mesh! get that garbage out of here! I am remodelling the Jug for the FREE www.flightgear.org and it's far better than a2a stuff

[@clydecessna737]

I love the nitty gritty. Thanks Greg.

[@connorosborn1950]

Looking forward to the P-47 in IL-2 BOS

[@stefanoconti4426]

Hi Greg ALL of yoir videos are more than excellent, thank you ! Greetings and Merry Christmas from Italy

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Merry Christmas Stefano, and thanks.

[@Bottle-RUM]

Chuck brought me here (chucks dcs guides) and now i understand fully. If they where smart, they did somekind of a double linking system for the boost and the throttle lever, so you can link it with “2 pins” where the forward pin is movable so in the down position the boost lever wil always moves with the throttle lever (backward & forward) and the backward pin is unmovable so when you move the throttle lever backwards the boost throttle always moves with it backwards so it never goes past the throttle lever.

[@dntlss]

Man what a great video and you explain everything so well,im one of those that you have to explain things to me with diagrams and much pointing but once i get it down its down for good, thank you.

[@monkeypainter808]

Perhaps it is because I'm from the automotive world, but it looks to me that the 300 hp loss isn't really a hit to performance, but rather a hit to fuel economy. Am I missing something? You just adjust both or one of the levers to the power level you desire and you get the same desired result; only fuel consumption and maybe a bit of wear and tear going up? BTW I'm a huge fan of your videos! This channel is a true gem!

[@khaccanhle1930]

Sooner than I expected. Yesss

[@BigHorseFilm]

I am really enjoying these videos, but I'm a bit of a novice. If it's something you'd be interested in doing, I'd love to see a video explaining the basics of things like throttling, boost / pressure and all the terms you frequently use. I follow these videos and have a basic understand of these terms, but I feel you could do a good job giving people like me a fuller understanding of these concepts. Just a thought. I really enjoy your content!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi BigHorse. Throttling means to cut off air as if to choke off the supply of air. That's exactly what a throttle does. Full throttle means no restriction, closed throttle means a lot of restriction. With this channel it's a good idea to start with the airplane videos at the beginning and watch them in chronological order. This is a good place to start: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJSsZ2qmj8qSidU then, kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJCTpHyMireYZq8 . Those two should take care of a lot of the terminology.

[@SheriffsSimShack]

You have a fantastic timing ;)

[@SheriffsSimShack]

@Asif Talpur I wouldn't mind ;)

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Sherriff, it was after watching your video that I decided to cover this.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Love to, but I need to get a microphone, track ir, and talk my wife into buying me Bobp.

[@GnaedigerJupp]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e5OVgp-ol8pkkMU

[@Drspoe]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles it's a worthwhile investment. Might I suggest vr for the most immersion.

[@moxie_ST]

Thank you man, this was wery interesting and useful, i will chech what sim do regarding this trotle feature in P-47. 👍

[@stevendurham9996]

Another great video on my favorite plane!

[@kellyreim6627]

Always wondered how the p-38 controlled it’s turbo’s , l actually met lefty and white lighting but the turbo’s were long gone and never got a chance to ask him how they worked.

[@tomcassity8075]

Greg, I'm enjoying your P-47 series immensely. Just finishing up part 5 but there's a piece of data I'm missing...what is the glide ratio on the p-47? You showed a piece of the chart which would have that data when you were talking about power off landing speed, etc. This is important to me because my uncle was killed in a p-47 that had just been uncrated and assembled at Prestwick for him to ferry down to the southeast for the d-day buildup. He lost power completely at about 6k feet and misjudged his landing site in a light snowfall. I've often wondered how much time he had to decide on a site. If I knew the glide ratio I could work out how much time he had from engine stop to touchdown. Thanks for all your work. Tom C. Athens GA

[@sultros]

Greg, let's be honest... You don't need to talk about throttle control on the P47, but im pretty sure everyone here is glad you are. These detailed videos are fascinating and im that much more of a aviation nerd for knowing all these little details. I hope at some point you take a look at the P38 Lightning and it's controls and just how complex and difficult the aircraft was to fight in. I stumbled across this article and its a topic ive never heard covered. www.historynet.com/p-38-flunked-europe.htm

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks. I will get to the P-38. It's going to be a facinating plane to talk about. There are so many great features, combined with so many issues and later resolutions to most of the issues, that there is a lot of subject matter there.

[@sultros]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I greatly look forward to it. Was there anything in the manual or did you come across anything in your reading covering how sensitive the 47 was to mismanaged prop settings and excessive EGT's?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

There is a bit about the prop settings. You don't want to combine very low rpm with very high manifold pressure. The Auto-Rich function of the injection carb pretty well take care of the EGTs although cylinder head temps are something you have to keep an eye on.

[@danpatterson8009]

Put me down for some dope on the P-38. After reading Bodie's book I wondered why it wasn't used more often for bomber escort in Europe, given its speed and range. Just a bit too complex to operate for its own good?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi Dan. I'll get to the P-38 in time. It had issues in Europe that really didn't effect it in the Pacific theater. For example, it's mach number limitation hurts it in high altitude dives. Not a problem against Japanese planes, but with it's limitation of mach .67 it can't out dive a 109 or 190. The heater was almost totally ineffective. That's an issue at 25,000 feet, especially over Germany in the winter. There is a lot more, I'll cover it eventually.

[@SUPRAMIKE18]

Just my opinion on this, i believe using the turbo lever for takeoff would be helpful in very hot climates where engines dont quite reach the rated numbers.

[@dirtypure2023]

Thanks, Greg. Very interesting as always.

[@dieselrotor]

Of course I now have to open FSX and grab My A2A jug to see !

[@visionist7]

Thanks for the very informative video

[@Magpie...]

Great video. I'm flying in DCS but chucks guide says to only move throttle to 95% when in WEP. I'm not sure of the reason for this? Also would you leave the prop rpm to the wall when looking for power during a dogfight?

[@BlueBaron3339]

Always interesting, Greg, and always factual.

[@SVTL4799]

Another awesome video! Keep them coming!

[@DCS_World_Japan]

Something must be funky with the DCS implementation of boost. Without boost I cannot get more than 46" on takeoff from sea level, and to mantain 42" during the climb I have to start using boost once I pass through 4,000ft. I'm still trying to figure out if it's me doing something wrong or DCS doing something wrong, but either way I'm not getting what real-world sources say I should.

[@grafspeem9402]

It is correct, for 52" take off boost from turbo is required. It is mentioned in pretty much every P-47 manual from B to D. DCS has by far the best turbo/supercharging simulation.

[@HoundDogMech]

In every constant speed type airplane I have flown the trotter controls Manifold pressure (Power) and the Prop control controls the Engine / Prop RPM. and the only air plane that you could have Manifold pressure exceed RPM i.e. 35"mp over 2700 RPM was in Turbo Charged planes like the Turbo Piper Lance or the Turbo Cessna 210.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That's absolutely false. That myth has been around forever, and I have no idea where it started. It's absolutely normal to have manifold pressure in inches hg above rpm in 100s. For example a 172RG has allowable cruise power settings of 25"/2300rpm, 24"/2200rpm, and 23"/2100rpm and a lot more like this. Here is the manual, go to figure 5-7, it's page 86 on my pdf viewer: sportysacademy.com/files/2015/09/172RG-POH-from-Web.pdf. There may be some where this isn't allowed, but in the 50+ types I have flown I have never seen this specific prohibition and in fact, there are usually cruise numbers specifically telling you to do this.

[@notaire2]

Viel kultivierter als im Sportwagen von siebziger Jahre. Danke für die zusätzliche Erklärung!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

There Germans did have some pretty sophisticated cars in the 70's, but not quite this complex.

[@notaire2]

Quite true. The throttle and boost lever of this awesome airplane is probably the most sophisticated one in the history of WWII.

[@MrRobertX70]

Thank you

[@buffalobob870]

I have read anecdotal comments on prop changes later in the war 'paddle blade' type...not sure what exactly was changed and what actually improved by the prop change...do you have any insights as to the changes and performance differences...if any.

[@ArtietheArchon]

sounds like in a pinch you can push both levers all the way forward and then start easing the boost lever back until the manifold pressure "responds"

[@wujekstalina]

Merchants' guild is pleased.

[@DanBlake3rd]

Great video Greg. I love flying the Jug in IL2 Greatest Battles and your videos have really been the icing on the cake. Since the prop can also be linked to the throttle, when would one want to do this? The P-47 is such a fascinating aircraft. Cheers.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi Dan, I am glad you like the Jug. I am not a believer in ever linking the throttle and prop lever. Set the prop for max RPM which gives max power, and for combat purposes leave it there. For cruise of course you would pull it back a bit.

[@DanBlake3rd]

​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles thanks Greg! With the release of DCS 2.7 and Reflected Wolf Pack campaign, a bunch of us have jumped in the Jug again. It's outstanding if you haven't tried it yet. Thinking of what the AAF training manual referencing the two "superchargers", I wondering if the boost lever controls just the waste gates at the bottom of the engine cowling or also mechanically linked to the supercharger on the engine?

[@cmbaileytstc]

@Greg's Airplanes And Automobiles I'm searching for some documentary evidence on 1. How effective the elevators of the 47 were between 350-500 mph (right now in Il-2 you can't really pull any more G than the 109 at those speeds, and he can pull more if he works stab trim) 2. Roll rates at various speeds and 3. Evidence that the engine could be and was run at WEP continuously as long as the water lasted in actual operations. Can you point me in the right direction on that?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi cmbailey. Those are all super complex questions that I can't do justice to in the comment section. I'll be sure to cover 1 and 2 in my maneuverability episode, which will be either 4 or 5. To get you started, you can look here: ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090022749.pdf . That's some complex reading, and I'll break it down later, but it's a start. As for 3, the flight manual lists a 5 min limitation for WEP, but it's a fact that they could be run literally for hours at WEP: www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p-47-66inch.jpg . The dilemma for game designers is, do they want to limit things to the numbers in the pilot's manual's or go by testing results?

[@Spectre407]

Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles Testing results I hope

[@cmbaileytstc]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you very much. My primary focus right now is trying to find some data I can present elevator authority at speed, since the current lack of G capacity when pulling for a shot or doing evasives at 400mph IAS is a bit of problem for an aircraft whose largest advantage is the ability to dive fast.

[@legion6049]

Great video lots of nice info. Any eta on the next video? I'm very curious to see what you say about the P-47s high speed handling, from all the research I've done it was quite good at high speed maneuvering. Currently in Il2 however it is very sluggish and can't even outmaneuver/pull more g than a 109 at high speeds. It also can't outdive 109s ingame as well and suffers from structural loss at around 540 IAS when in reality it shouldn't suffer any loss. The 109 however can dive upwards of 580-590 mph IAS before suffering structural damage. Il2 is great but the P-47 needs alot of work to get it correct imo. Great videos, I really enjoy them. I Can't wait for the next one.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi Legion, I assume you mean the next P-47 video. I should be adding pt. 3 and 4 in Dec.

[@legion6049]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Ok cool, can't wait to see what you have to say. I'm curious to see if it confirms my suspicions on the il2 flight model.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I haven't flown the P-47 in IL2. I will eventually, but I don't want to make a video about its flight model too soon. I think it's fair to give them a chance to refine it. Having flown against it in the FW190 it seems like it's not quite as agile as it should be, and not quite as rugged, but wow does it look great.

[@legion6049]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yep it's a beautiful aircraft and very fun to fly despite some of the issues with it.

[@cqc2238]

Great video but I’m still not sure where the parasitic drain from the turbo system is. The supercharger is a constant 300 HP drain to make more horsepower then 300 obviously, or put another way, a power adder that requires an investment of 300 HP at the crank and is a constant costs. The B lever to my understanding controls the waste gate of the turbocharger. Aft being open (no boost) to the nose waste gate closed allowing maximum exposure of the exhaust impeller to exhaust gasses. With no physical connection to the engine, with the turbo being driven by exhaust velocity, why would it cost horsepower? Thanks in advance. I’m not an aeronautical engineer but I am a mechanic, just not understanding. If anything at low altitude in thick air I would think the turbo would OVERBOOST the manifold. The only possible explanation I can think of would be thermodynamic inefficiency but this would be managed by MW injection. Great video!!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I have an entire video that explains this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i32vpHylZrutitk . The super short version is that driving the turbo costs power via increased exhaust back pressure.

[@cqc2238]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles man that engine is a BEAST if back pressure loss is 300 HP 😂. I want to know if this is modeled in dcs. Hoping to answer my question in the next year. Thanks for the reply. I watched your whole series last night on the jug. Very well done. They are modeling a D9 with mw50 but no high octane fuel for the Allies….. 🙃

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I'm playing DCS, but haven't flown the P-47 so I'm not sure how it's modeled. In order to tell I would have to see what the top speed is at a given manifold pressure with different lever positions. DCS is pretty good, so I'll bet it's modeled correctly. They have the Allied planes set up with 130 octane, I think that's a good idea for online play to keep it balanced.

[@b.griffin317]

another great video! I learn so much!

[@johnturner7582]

Looking at various Pilot Flight Operating Instructions issued 1943-1945, the earliest procedures I found state: "Take-off may be made with or without turbine supercharger. To obtain shortest run, supercharger should be used as follows: (a) Push turbine control FULL ON or to setting previously determined to give 52 inches Hg. (b) Hold with brakes while opening throttle to about 30 inches Hg. (c) Release brakes and push throttle FULL ON. (d) Manifold pressure should not exceed 52 inches Hg. (See T.O. No. 01-65BC-1 for P-47B,-C,-D and -G Airplanes, dated 20 JAN 1943). The take-off procedure in later POIs is to link the turbo and throttle. (See AN 01-65-1 for RP-47B & C and P-47D & G Airplanes, dated 20 NOV 1943; AN 01-65BC-1A for Army Models P-47D-25, -26, -27, -28, -30 and -35 Airplanes, dated 25 JAN 1945; and AN 01-65BD-1 for P-47N Series Airplane, revised 20 JULY 1945). Furthermore, AN 01-65BC-1A states: "Above critical altitude it will be necessary to disconnect controls and adjust boost and throttle independently to avoid overspeeding of the turbosupercharger." The landing checklist calls for interconnecting the engine controls. The 1943 US Army Air Forces training films No. 107A-C presented to familiarize pilots on the the P-47 somewhat confuse the matter by demonstrating take-off procedures never using the turbo lever. The films mention that the controls are usually linked, but also that trainees wouldn't be using the turbo until they transitioned to high altitude work. Regarding how Thunderbolts are modelled in PC simulations, I learned take-off without turbo from the A2A Simulations P-47D Razorback in FSX. The A2A product manual instructs: "With the turbo boost pulled all the way back, advance throttle slowly until 52 inches Hg at 2700 rpm is obtained for take-off ... You may interconnect the turbo boost and throttle control when over 10,000 feet." I carried that habit over to the IL-2 Great Battles P-47D-22 and D-28. The DCS P-47D-30 manual seemed to contradict so I went back to the historical POIs to check. I now follow the checklists in the later POIs. However, I'll test out not using the turbo below 7,000 feet and see if I notice a 300 HP gain in any of the current sims.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

We know they used the turbo for take off sometimes because we can see it in films. It's very clear when the are using the turbo from the exhaust coming out of it, a lot of exhaust! However it wasn't normally needed for takeoff, and the official procedures on this varied from one manual to another.

[@Spectre407]

Love your vids, Greg. Any love for the P-38? It has turbos, not to mention uncommon flight characteristics because of it’s counter-rotating props, turbos, and unique design.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I do like the P-38. I does have some issues which is why it didn't really work out in Europe. I'll cover it at some point.

[@Spectre407]

Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - I agree with a post you made elsewhere about freezing cockpit, low Mach number. Had the P-38K become operational, it would have flown precipitously close to it’s Mach number when flying full speed at critical alt. There’s also the inter cooler handicap up to the H models, as well as overcooling/fuel issue that became an issue in the ETO. Be sure to take a look at the NACA report/recommendations for Lockheed to raise the Mach number by lengthening pilot gondola, more sloped windscreen, and moving radiators to wing’s leading edge a la DH Mosquito

[@jaredneaves7007]

Thanks!

[@Autopilot_Austin]

These are really great videos! I’ve watched them serval times now. I am a bit confused regarding the configuration of boost controller and the throttle. It seems to me the supercharger creates this ~300hp loss as parasitic loss. Regardless of how the turbocharger is configured, this loss should always be present in some capacity, this is the nature of a directly driven supercharger unit. So what PEAK power loss would be experienced by advancing the throttle and boost simultaneously? The engine would reach its maximum power under its supercharger manifold pressure and the turbo would be helping increase air density/MAP at the same time independently. The interaction between the two should never cause ore or less parasitic power. I think operation guidelines page in the video suggests this is the case. What I think it is trying to convey is that, if there is throttle left to utilize from a system that has proportionate parasitic loss:power output, utilize it. Other wise you would be wasting the purpose of the supercharger unit’s natural losses. I don’t believe it is indicating a PEAK power loss due to order of operations. ie: throttle before boost vs throttle and boost. What do y’all think?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi Austin, I think you might want to watch my Turbo vs. Supercharging in WW2 planes video. That will explain this more clearly. You are correct it that the mechanically driven supercharger's losses don't change here, it the exhaust driven turbo that varies. If the turbo is spinning like crazy but the throttle is partially closed, then a lot of exhaust backpressure is created for turbo boost that doesn't reach the engine, that causes a loss in power.

[@bamboosa]

I want to ride in a Juggernaut before I die..."well the Spit, yeah she's alright, just strap her on - too many Marks to remember...the Mustang, yeah she's thoroughbred just watch out for those one-nine-oh cannons...just give me a Juggernaut, anytime, half the rudder gone the port wing's got a hole or three, I'll land her anyway...".

[@roryvonbrutt7302]

Fascinating

[@fldrms-hy2yr]

thanks

[@HoundDogMech]

Question as a Private Pilot with time in many different Single Engine Land AC I have a question about the P&W R-2800 series of engines. Being they have a gear reduction of I believe 2 to 1 is the tach reading Propeller RPM or Engine RPM since all props over 3 feet in diameter seem to red line at or below 2700 rpm.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

The tach in the P-47 and all R-2800 aircraft applications I know of the tach reads engine and not propeller RPM.

[@SheriffsSimShack]

Can you explain briefly why the Turbo lever is required to be infront of the throttle? Since I still havent understood why. I have understood why moving them together is bad, but to get higher MAP than just 52" Turbo is required. I can hardly imagine that pilots had the discipline to remind this rule in heated combat.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Good question. The turbo lever should never be in front of the throttle. There is a whole page in the manual about this. The reason is that it will cause a situation where there isn't enough exhaust to spin the turbo, and the boost the turbo is putting out will be partially blocked the the throttle plate. Recovery is to lower the nose and advance the throttle. The manual says it may take up to 30 seconds to get back up to full power. In more mild situations, it will cause pulsing in power and irregular mixture control, not as serious, recovery is the same.

[@JackEnneking]

What are the good simulators for realism and especially for a newbie?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

IL2

[@wpherigo1]

Nice work! I need a turbo to keep up with you!

[@rustycoleman9018]

I don't know how to contact you about a suggestion/question that might explain inverted engines on German aircraft. Sorry for it appearing here. Could it be upper cylinder lubrication (which would be a reference to non-inverted engines of today) or, in this case, lower cylinder lubrication?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I just don't think so. Neither design has lubrication issues, at least not on an engine that uses pressure lubrication as opposed to the really old babbitt bearing types.

[@Le_Rouge_Estrangere]

Thanks this video came as a good help. Mostly i fly german planes (as a semi-far family of a germany ww2 fighter ace i feel kinda forced to haha) but you can't resist the Jug right ;) i needed info when to use the turbo and when not. Thanks again. Martijn Schroer (PIBInvictus)

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Excellent ! Thanks

[@countzero7]

in il-2 bodenplatte i had turbo on higher position then trottle and on 2 ocasions when i moved trottle in df from 80 to 20 and then back to 100 i damaged engine, i guess it was because i didnt move turbo lever also with trottle or below it. So it looks like thats also modeled in game.

[@jeanmarcgalzy7747]

Bonjour mon ami félicitations de FRANCE 👍🇫🇷hello my friend awesome model P47 Thunderbolt Thank you for your explanation very interesting for me I understand a little 👍 Congrats buddy good days of French 🇫🇷👍

[@sotabaka]

You should seriously have your own "computer voice" ... I could watch endless hours od documentaries about anything and everything then.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Well thank you.

[@Jeff-es1yr]

How about the water injection thing?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I'm not sure what you are asking.

[@Jeff-es1yr]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hi Greg! I just saw a video of a Brazilian Air Force Vet who fought on WW2, and his airplane was a P-47. At a certain moment, he said that there was some kind of water injection into the cylinders, wich could help improving performance. I guess it had something to do with water injection in the exhaustion cycle. I'll put the link here (not sure if are there going to be english subtitles available). Thanks a lot for your attention. And congratulations for such a good job you've been doing on this channel.

[@Jeff-es1yr]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKC3gJtsa5asZqs around 1:52

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

OH, OK, yes, I have a lot of information on that in my P-47 series and in my 109K4 video.

[@Jeff-es1yr]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Nice! I'll keep watching your playlist. Thanks a lot!

[@speeedmaster01]

Do you have any information on the 47 increasing its manifold pressure when at or near (

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Some 47's did have regulators set for a maximum of 58 inches, but that's not dependent on being at or near sea level.

[@projenitor2387]

Do you have any knowledge on what the turbo lever is actually adjusting, is it blow off valve or something else? how does it directly influence the RPM of the Turbo?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Wastegate position.

[@projenitor2387]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you sir! What sim do you fly on?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

IL2, usually on the Berloga server, and usually in an FW190.

[@drstrangelove4998]

Very interesting to see. But, give me a P47 with a Kommandogerät Greg 😉

[@rawnukles]

Interesting points Greg. I just tested the IL2 BOX P47-D28 to see how they modeled it and this is what I found. The supercharger alone seems to have critical altitude at sea level. So it is not throttled at low alt at all. With just supercharger it gets only 49' MAP and with turbo that increases to 52" at combat power at sea level. So it seems that even at low alt you can't get full power without using the turbo. Also the Turbo has no risk of over pressuring the cylinders even if you reduce the throttle lever below the turbo lever. I think that is just not modeled. The forums have a link to the real life P47 manual which instructs to use both levers linked from take off until reaching high alt when the turbo RPM will become too hi and then unlink them and manually control the turbo rpm to keep it from over speeding. forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_2018_11/310416774_2018-11-2113_17_34-P-47AAFManual.pdf-SumatraPDF.jpg.7ad0b8f2e0d4142622604ab9303fdc3a.jpg That method seems to make sense with the way it is modeled in the sim. You seemed to believe the supercharger had a crit alt of 12 ft? and using full turbo below this is wasting boost in the supercharger that is then just throttled.... I wonder if this was different in different models of P47 or if the sim just simplifies the turbo use . Thanks for the video . Lots of us very interested in this right now. I've been looking forward to playing with this plane since I watched your P47 turbo video a few months ago :) I also note that in a high alt emergency, with a bf109 on my tail, I was able to manually over speed the turbo and get extra boost temporarily, and climb away from contrailing bf109. Maybe it was a G6 I don't know . But I would not have thought to even try that if I have not watched your video about he P47 ace who over sped his turbo to get extra performance at high alt.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks for that info. Its sounds like the modeling in IL2 is very close to the real thing, which is impressive. What's important here is to understand the relationship of the two levers so you can get the most out of the plane. The actual pilot techniques are sort of a matter of personal preference. There is no doubt that you can link the two levers for take off (provided you have higher octane fuel, which you would have), but there are some good reasons not to do it that way as seen in the USAAF's instructional video.

[@rawnukles]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I hope you can get some head tracking and try it out yourself. Your videos have definitely enriched my understanding of War bird engines. Looking forward to more content.

[@thearisen7301]

A suggestion if I may. Don't use black letters when putting in a text as it can be hard to see unless there is a light background.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Good point.

[@cluerip]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles white with a black outline or black with a white outline usually work for any background color.

[@zardozqq]

dang i didnt know they were that complicated

[@dixierebel8422]

What is a P47 November?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

There is a P47B, C, D, G, M, and N. M and N sound almost the same so sometimes I need to go with the phonetic alphabet.

[@dixierebel8422]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for the prompt response and clarification. I greatly enjoy all of your videos! Great 'stuff'. Just curious to know, what is your background in these subjects? Engineering in the subject matter, technician, etc.?

[@HarryMcW]

Manual says do not use turbo below 7K feet IF you are using 91 octane fuel, like was commonly used for training.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That's correct, I actually mentioned that in the description but forgot to add that into the video itself. I made the video is a bit of a hurry and just listed the prohibitions and not all the qualifying statements. The main point is that moving both levers together costs power.

[@HarryMcW]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles See that in the description, interesting video, as are they all. For what it is worth in Il-2 BoBP you get max speed at sea level with full throttle and RPM, water on, and the boost lever nearly or full forward, turbo is going about 12K, so power doesn't to be getting robbed.

[@jamesedwards647]

All of you who are interested in this type of detail in a simulator, come on over to DCS world!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I'm already there in Heatblur's awesome F-14. That's an amazing sim.

[@ryanhawn1846]

Greg do you play war thunder?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Hi Ryan, no, I am afraid not. I think it looks good though.

[@Paughco]

Greg: You get your sim going yet? Check out the A2A P-47!Seeya ATB

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I do have it going, playing IL2 a bit. I may check out other sims, but right now, IL2 is taking up my sim time.

[@michaelw6277]

That’s so freaking cool. I wish my car had a lever that allowed me to adjust boost on the fly.

[@jonskowitz]

I just wish that my throttle quadrant had more than three levers now >.o

[@cdrseabee]

Missed water injection!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I have covered that extensively in other episodes.

[@xXLtDudeXx]

That one dislike?

[@billbright1755]

Hubert Zemke

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

He will be mentioned in Part 3.

[@alexlupsor5484]

The aircraft that you don’t mention is the Tempest V or the Typhoon which is in the P-47 D. You always put the Spitfire MK-9 when the Spitfire Mk-XlV through Mk-XX was used till the end of the war. How about the Spitfire that dived to Mach 8.5. This was computed with gauged for this reach. Eric “Winkle” Brown said as much and the airframe and wings show no structural damage to the Spitfire as it was inspected by British officials. This comment was ment for part 2 and not 3

[@kainhall]

im SURE!!!!! when the p-47 for "DCS flight sim" releases...... it will be EXACTLY like it should be in real life it takes 10 mins for the navigation systems to align in stuff like the a-10c, f18, f16, f14......during which time, if you move even one inch, it screws up the alignment and you get drift exactly like real life

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

The 767 is the same way, we have three laser ring gyros that have to spool up and talk the the computers.

[@4toes1nose]

Thank you