The P-47D and the Turbocharger

[RedKestrel]

As far as I know, all the aircraft modeled in this sim so far have been equipped with superchargers of some form or another. 

The P-47, however, had both a supercharger and a turbocharger. The single speed supercharger was integral to the engine, while the turbocharger was a separate unit.

The manual for the P-47 indicates that, when using '100 grade fuel' (100 octane?), that the turbocharger lever could be interlinked with the throttle. On 91 grade fuel, one needed to control the turbo RPM lever separately below 7000 feet. 

At very high altitudes, or with WEP on, it was apparently sometimes necessary to lower the turbo RPM manually in order to prevent overspeeding the turbocharger.

So I find myself wondering how this is going to be modeled in this sim? I would love to see it faithfully reproduced, with the ability to interlink the turbocharger or control it manually to prevent overspeeding. 

So what does everyone think? How would you like to see it done?

[Legioneod]

However it was in real life is the way they should do it. Just have an option to link and unlink the turbo with the throttle that way we have both options. I'd rather not have any simplifications for gameplay sake.

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

However it was in real life is the way they should do it. Just have an option to link and unlink the turbo with the throttle that way we have both options. I'd rather not have any simplifications for gameplay sake.

 

I agree on the whole.

[unreasonable]

Just as you say, as per the manual. Interested to see how the "interlinkage" is described: as it a fairly simple physical link between two levers, or something a little more sophisticated as we should have in a late Mk IX Spitfire. (But don't, at least yet).

 

We might get a simplification for programming reasons rather than game play reasons. I am still not sure why we have the current Spitfire throttle/rpm  without linkage. 

 

IIRC as a general rule the USAAF used 91 grade in the continental USA and 100 overseas (leaving the 150 issue to one side), so I do not think the 91 grade scenario is an issue, but one of the historians will have the details. 

[RedKestrel]

9 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Just as you say, as per the manual. Interested to see how the "interlinkage" is described: as it a fairly simple physical link between two levers, or something a little more sophisticated as we should have in a late Mk IX Spitfire. (But don't, at least yet).

 

We might get a simplification for programming reasons rather than game play reasons. I am still not sure why we have the current Spitfire throttle/rpm  without linkage. 

 

IIRC as a general rule the USAAF used 91 grade in the continental USA and 100 overseas (leaving the 150 issue to one side), so I do not think the 91 grade scenario is an issue, but one of the historians will have the details. 

As far as 91 grade goes, the manual confirms that this was what was used in training in the US, so you are absolutely correct. While overseas it was at least 100. So probably not relevant for our purposes.

One manual mentions interlock for all the engine operation levers via spring-loaded latch - throttle, propeller, and 'boost' (the turbocharger). Apparently the propeller could also be placed into a kind of manual adjustable pitch mode, in case of failure of the prop. In Auto, it worked as a standard CSP governor, whereas in manual there were two switches, one called increase RPM, and another decrease RPM, where you could make the blade coarser or finer as needed. Since this is modeled in the 109 it could probably be done in the P-47, though I suspect it would never really be used...

A simple 'engage/disengage interlock' command would be nice. Not as sophisticated as the german automatic system maybe, but it was used operationally. That being said, i do prefer to control my own prop rpm, mixture, etc. Just more fun for me for some reason. 
 

I thinkthat the combat altitude is going to be low enough in BoBP that the automatic interlock of the turbo will suffice for most operations, but I think it would be awesome to have the turbo overspeed modeled for realism purposes, even if it only comes into play for most people with WEP and not with extreme high altitude.

That being said, when the P-47 comes out I'm going to take it right up to 30 000 feet and cruise around just for fun.  Just gotta scrape the money together for a pre-order.

Here's a link to the manuals I'm looking at btw, very good information in all of them!

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt.html

[ZachariasX]

You will see, interlinkage is just a makeshift solution for flying monkeys not blowing their turbocharger.

 

You will be amazed about how well you can fine tune the performance and efficiency of your aircraft by manual operation of the supercharger. You will learn A LOT.

 

What is important that the turbo lever is kept at a certain minimum for it being kept spinning sufficiantly while not advanced more than the throttle lever. Going over 20'000 rpm is bad for things. You have a gauge for the supercharger, as well as a blinkenlight (that has to keep blinking, or else) to tell you, blinking, all well.

 

You will learn how:

- to adjust your carb temp

- to get max economy from your engine

- you leave a 109 in the dust during a boom&zoom @22k feet altitude

 

Essentially, you will learn why whe have turbocharged engines to get most power and best milage in our cars.

 

It is a great plane. All manual. The P-38 has more automatation.

17 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

So probably not relevant for our purposes.

Once you understood how the supercharger works, it is very logic. It will remain relevant for our purposes as you have two levers that, if handled wrong, can blow up your engines. You know how much MAP you can have depending on the soup you put in the tank.

 

Besides, you have a gauge "carb temp" and you cab actually control that as opposed to the case of hard linked superchargers. You actually have more play room to get most of your MAP than in other engines. I wonder how the devs will implement that. Going strictly after manual values will lead to perfectly permissible engine conficgurations that will trigger a timer.

 

The devs really will have to go beyond to what they did so far in engine systems modelling.

[unreasonable]

I agree that using manual controls in general helps you to understand what your plane is doing in a way that the Hun systems do not. And therefore manual control of turbo will also be educational.  It sounds from RedKestrel's post as though the interlinkage was basically just a physical link - but I have not read any of the manuals yet: still trying to get the hang of the last release! 

 

There may be a bit of an issue of modelling - essentially you would have to tell the PC that from now on (button press) the axis assigned to throttle also moves the interlinked controls. But they (your PC axes) might not be in the correct position when you press the button, or when you press again to unlink, therefore becoming messed up in some way. With some throttle quadrants you can physically link the levers, so no as long as the PC has the correct setting at each lever position there would be no problem.  

 

We will see what the team comes up with. My betting would be on independent controls, without a software interpretation of interlinkage, as per the Spit IX, but we shall see. 

Interesting, isn't it?

[RedKestrel]

15 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You will see, interlinkage is just a makeshift solution for flying monkeys not blowing their turbocharger.

 

You will be amazed about how well you can fine tune the performance and efficiency of your aircraft by manual operation of the supercharger. You will learn A LOT.

 

What is important that the turbo lever is kept at a certain minimum for it being kept spinning sufficiantly while not advanced more than the throttle lever. Going over 20'000 rpm is bad for things. You have a gauge for the supercharger, as well as a blinkenlight (that has to keep blinking, or else) to tell you, blinking, all well.

 

You will learn how:

- to adjust your carb temp

- to get max economy from your engine

- you leave a 109 in the dust during a boom&zoom @22k feet altitude

 

Essentially, you will learn why whe have turbocharged engines to get most power and best milage in our cars.

 

It is a great plane. All manual. The P-38 has more automatation.

Once you understood how the supercharger works, it is very logic. It will remain relevant for our purposes as you have two levers that, if handled wrong, can blow up your engines. You know how much MAP you can have depending on the soup you put in the tank.

 

Besides, you have a gauge "carb temp" and you cab actually control that as opposed to the case of hard linked superchargers. You actually have more play room to get most of your MAP than in other engines. I wonder how the devs will implement that. Going strictly after manual values will lead to perfectly permissible engine conficgurations that will trigger a timer.

 

The devs really will have to go beyond to what they did so far in engine systems modelling.

Oh, all I meant with regard to relevancy was the instructions for managing the turbo with lower grade fuel, since its not likely going to be modelled that way anyway. 

Now I am really hoping the devs go all in on the turbo modelling!

[danielprates]

The B24 also had this type of lever-controlled turbocharger,  which team daidalos also tried to replicate faithfully in il21946 so it shouldn't be beyond 1C's abitily to do it even better.

 

What I can't still understand very well is how exactely to operate it in conjunction with the throttle. More throttle, more MP. More turbo,  more MP also. How to decide the correct combination of both? For a slow paced bomber,  I imagine there were predefined optimal settings for every given altitude and speed. But in the rapidly changing scenario of a dogfifht,  it's probably more complicated than that.

 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

I agree that using manual controls in general helps you to understand what your plane is doing in a way that the Hun systems do not. And therefore manual control of turbo will also be educational.  It sounds from RedKestrel's post as though the interlinkage was basically just a physical link - but I have not read any of the manuals yet: still trying to get the hang of the last release! 

 

There may be a bit of an issue of modelling - essentially you would have to tell the PC that from now on (button press) the axis assigned to throttle also moves the interlinked controls. But they (your PC axes) might not be in the correct position when you press the button, or when you press again to unlink, therefore becoming messed up in some way. With some throttle quadrants you can physically link the levers, so no as long as the PC has the correct setting at each lever position there would be no problem.  

 

We will see what the team comes up with. My betting would be on independent controls, without a software interpretation of interlinkage, as per the Spit IX, but we shall see. 

Interesting, isn't it?

 

You indeed do need two levers, one for throttle, and one for turbo.

 

If you have only one lever on your HOTAS, there are ways to deal with this.

 

Either you place turbo on any axis you have (this is ok since you will have to be operating the turbo lever as careful as with the Me-262's throttle) OR you can make a button that basically toggles your throttle lever as turbo lever, while leaving the other lever in place. This way, you can set throttle, then toggle the button to make your throttle lever to be the turbo lever and set that one accordingly. For common flight regimes, this will be okay.

 

In combat, there is a problem causing that neither this solution, nor direct linkeage of the throttle will be really useful. Here's why:

 

Know that you have to keep the turbo at least at a minimum speed for it to operate normally and to be able to spin up if you forward the turbo lever. Not doing so will give you the best of all "turbo holes", meaning it will take some time to come up to speed and it will sobstancially lag your input, especially if you forward it from a very low setting. You cannot make coarse movements with the turbo. You can with the throttle. but if you reduce throttle less than your turbo, you will cause excessive strain on your turbo. This will make youl go home at lower altitude.

 

If you have throttle and turbo linked, this might help you to not do something stupid when fighting for your life BUT you are at risk of overspeeding your turbo. Past 12'000 ft, the power from your engine is progressively generated by the turbocharger, at 28k ft, most of the power is actually made by the turbocharger. Up there, it is the speed of the turbo (and the bearing temperature) that sets the limit of your power setting. Above that altitude, your supercharger will not be able to produce full permissible MAP anymore. But you might be still in a position to make the turbo spin faster and you consequently will blow your turbo, not your engine.

 

You will see that when you climb, you rapidly approach an altitude where you have full throttle, and from then on, you can move the turbo lever forward until you reach an altitude where the turbo starts to overspeed. Having throttle hard linked to turbo, you will close the carb at an intermediate setting and the turbo will have a harder time providing full MAP. You are hurting yourself if you always keep this link.

 

Another problem is carb tempereature. If you advance turbo down low and MAP rises, so will carb temperature. The first stage supercharger gives you all the MAP you can have down low. Now if you have the turbo operating along with that, you will heat the air flowing into your engine even more and with rising carb temperature, there goes the efficiency of your engine. This means you have to balance turbocharging and supercharging such that you have an ideal carb temperature and then you are getting more out of your engine compared to the poor schmocks who can't fine tune their engine like that.

 

It's really cool.

[RedKestrel]

6 minutes ago, danielprates said:

The B24 also had this type of lever-controlled turbocharger,  which team daidalos also tried to replicate faithfully in il21946 so it shouldn't be beyond 1C's abitily to do it even better.

 

What I can't still understand very well is how exactely to operate it in conjunction with the throttle. More throttle, more MP. More turbo,  more MP also. How to decide the correct combination of both? For a slow paced bomber,  I imagine there were predefined optimal settings for every given altitude and speed. But in the rapidly changing scenario of a dogfifht,  it's probably more complicated than that.

 

The manual talks about using the turbo as a 'second throttle' once the throttle is at maximum if you don't choose the interlock route. So if you don't have it interlocked, you just use the turbo to control the MP you want once your throttle is at max. 

The rule of thumb appears to be to keep it just a little less or the same as the throttle and if you see the little overspeed warning drop it back a little. And never let it get in front of the throttle. If the turbo lever is further forward than the throttle, that means its containing more pressure than it knows what to do with and you can overspeed the turbo quite easily.

The various manuals also have RPM and MP settings for various flight regimes, so you in effect do have pre-defined optimal settings for the engine like the bomber. So I guess you have set your RPM, and once the throttle is maxed, you can use the turbo to adjust for the desired MP for your setting (cruise, combat, climb, etc.).

In a dogfight I think you'd just keep it maxed with your throttle and move it back a little if you get the overspeed warning, just like you'd adjust radiators if you start overheating. Combat is probably the reason they put the interlock on there, so you only have to move one lever and you wont accidentally move the throttle back first and blow your turbo.

All this is just going from the manuals, of course. In Il-2 1946 there was no manual turbo control for the P-47 and I never tried the B-24, so there's no hints for me there as to how it will be implemented.

I'm sure there are ways, As Zacharias pointed out above, to tweak and exploit the turbo for every possible ounce of power in combat. But discovering how far you can push things is a matter for some practice runs in the QMB and a few blown engines.

[ZachariasX]

18 minutes ago, danielprates said:

The B24 also had this type of lever-controlled turbocharger,  which team daidalos also tried to replicate faithfully in il21946 so it shouldn't be beyond 1C's abitily to do it even better.

So has the B-17. It is a knob that you can turn to set the speed of the superchargers. Along with that, you have 4 little "screws" that allow you to synchronize the 4 turbos to make all 4 engines generate the same MAP.

 

This is important as in the B-17 (and B-24) there are different components attached to each engine (generator etc.) that make the 4 engines have 4 different critical altitudes! The bombers operated very near their critical altitudes, so you better set things right or you might require an awkward trim and a dinghy tomake it back across the channel.

[BigMotor]

Then there are the intercooler levers, man those guys were busy.

[Venturi]

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

The devs really will have to go beyond to what they did so far in engine systems modelling.

 

Depending on if they want to "dumb it down" or not...

I hope they keep it correct. ?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Watch this

 

 

It is so mad the level of tech and engineering they had in the 1940s.

Edited May 30, 2018 by AeroAce

[danielprates]

Hmmm.

 

Looks like you get less busy with the trottle than with the turbo lever!

[Poochnboo]

 

16 hours ago, danielprates said:

Hmmm.

 

Looks like you get less busy with the trottle than with the turbo lever!

Here's what it says in the "Pilot's Manual For The P-47 Thunderbolt."

 b. Engine Controls

 (1) Throttle.- Additional supercharging for this engine is provided by an exhaust driven turbine supercharger. The engine in controlled by the conventional throttle, propellar and mixture controls. The supercharger is controlled by a control located out-board of the throttle. On P-47C and subsequent models, the throttle, supercharger control, and propeller control are made so that they can all be pushed forward by throttle alone. When properly adjusted, this position should give about 52 inches Hg and 2700 rpm at altitudes up to 25,000 feet. It may be necessary to push past the stop to obtain full power above 25,000 feet. When the controls are connected, the supercharger control will come back as the throttle is retarded, but the propeller control will remain at the farthest advanced position. Rpm must be reduced by pulling the propeller control back. 

    It sounds as though, if you want to make your life easier, the way to go would be to bind the Throttle, supercharger, and prop controls to your throttle. You should keep from blowing your engine by operating like that. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Poochnboo

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

It sounds as though, if you want to make your life easier, the way to go would be to bind the Throttle, supercharger, and prop controls to your throttle. You should keep from blowing your engine by operating like that. 

 

You do that, you ensure almost always an unsuitable engine configuration. On top of that, you will most likely hurt yourself trying to take off.

 

Even if you do it right, the Jug likes MUCH more runway than the Mustang, Spit or the 109. And you would trying to take off with the prop at around 1‘800 rpm or so. 

 

What happens in a take off in your way of doing things is that you apply throttle and you can forward the throttle until takeoff power. Now as you start moving, the MAP gauge goes amok as the turbo starts to spin up and you have yank back the throttle for MAP not jumping past the scale. Doing so, you also set the prop down to a very coarse setting that is not likely to get you airborne, but you now are already at speed racing down the runway aiming for the perimeter fence.

 

The first stage supercharger gives you full MAP in all altitudes where 95% of all people in WoL fly at. You only need it when you also would set a Yak in second stage gear. And then it is capable of keeping MAP at maximum all the way up past 25k feet. And it is to be operated with care, you can blow it easily. Think of it as operating the Me262 throttle.

[LukeFF]

Not sure if it adds anything, but this is from the January 1945 manual for models D-25 through D-35:

 

[MicEzo]

11 hours ago, unreasonable said:

as we should have in a late Mk IX Spitfire. (But don't, at least yet).

Did you post that in Bug section? If not you should definitely do that. I saw the documents and i doubt it would be difficult to implement.

(i.e. adding auto/manual switch to prop pitch like in Bf109 where auto would be synchronized with throttle)? 

Edited May 31, 2018 by MicEzo

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Does anyone have a flow diagram of p-47 turbo? Also how does the control of turbo rpm work? Is there an exhaust waste gate for by-passing turbine or something?

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, LLv44_Mprhead said:

Does anyone have a flow diagram of p-47 turbo? Also how does the control of turbo rpm work? Is there an exhaust waste gate for by-passing turbine or something?

Found this, if it helps any.

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Legioneod

[LLv44_Mprhead]

16 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Found this, if it helps any.

 

Thanks! Yes, there seems to be waste gate after exhaust manifold, so by closing and opening that you would control the amount of exhaust gas going to turbine and by that control the turbocharger speed also. Everything clear now ?

[unreasonable]

36 minutes ago, MicEzo said:

Did you post that in Bug section? If not you should definitely do that. I saw the documents and i doubt it would be difficult to implement.

(i.e. adding auto/manual switch to prop pitch like in Bf109 where auto would be synchronized with throttle)? 

 

I did not do a bug report about it because it is not exactly a bug - unless the developers intended to model the interconnection, in which case I cannot make it work. Earlier Mk IXs had the system we have in the game: but later ones had an interconnection that worked automatically if the rpm control was placed at the rear stop, and not if it was anywhere forwards of the rear stop, by my reading of the PNs.  With the late fin, gyro gunsight, 4 spoke wheel, E wing etc, we have a late 44 - early 45 timeframe plane: except in this regard. (And possibly the slip indicator).

 

But if it is not an actual bug I do not want to pester the developers while they still have so much to do. Maybe Gavrick will give an explanation at some point, or they will get it into a future update. 

 

Apologies to OP for OT. 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

1 hour ago, LLv44_Mprhead said:

Does anyone have a flow diagram of p-47 turbo? Also how does the control of turbo rpm work? Is there an exhaust waste gate for by-passing turbine or something?

Watch the above video. It is all in there.

[danielprates]

10 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

It may be necessary to push past the stop to obtain full power above 25,000 feet

But push which one past the stop? The boost? Its the only thing I didnt quite understand. Great info, though!

 

I think it makes sense that controls were binded, for use in most situations,  and that you would only need to unbind them here and there. Say more boost in very high altitudes,  less rpm in excessive speeds etc.

 

BoS already has a control-binding thing going on with the ju52 flaps system. Should be an easy thing to implement.

 

Btw,  there is a ww2-used p47 here in my hometown,  in a square of a museum,  some 10 ft up a pedestal. I can get pretty close to it to get some pictures if it helps.

[Poochnboo]

41 minutes ago, danielprates said:

Btw,  there is a ww2-used p47 here in my hometown,  in a square of a museum,  some 10 ft up a pedestal. I can get pretty close to it to get some pictures if it helps.

Pedestal airplanes are most likely lightened up as much as possible. I would be very surprised if the turbocharger is even in that airplane. I'm near an airport that has an F4 Phantom up on a pedestal and I doubt that the engines are even inside the airplane.

9 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

you would trying to take off with the prop at around 1‘800 rpm or so. 

But, according to the pilot's manual, "this position should give about 52 inches Hg and 2700 rpm at altitudes up to 25,000 feet." 

Well, unitl we get the airplane I suppose we're just going to have to guess as to how this is going to work in game. Fun to talk about though. Gonna be even more fun to fly it. Very, very much looking forward to this big fighter. It is NOT gonna be for beginners, I think. 

[danielprates]

18 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Pedestal airplanes are most likely lightened up as much as possible. I would be very surprised if the turbocharger is even in that airplane. I'm near an airport that has an F4 Phantom up on a pedestal and I doubt that the engines are even inside the airplane

 

Oh,  you bet. You can clearly see the radial engine but other concealed features were most likely removed. I wouldnt be able to photograph them anyway. My offer was mostly intended for surface details,  should the devs need some closeup picture. Hope they are reading this!

[Poochnboo]

1 hour ago, danielprates said:

I wouldnt be able to photograph them anyway. My offer was mostly intended for surface details,  should the devs need some closeup picture. Hope they are reading this!

Honestly, while a nice gesture, you can be sure that they have been viewing restored, flying examples of the Thunderbolt and have sat in and touched and walked over every inch of them.

[danielprates]

30 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Honestly, while a nice gesture, you can be sure that they have been viewing restored, flying examples of the Thunderbolt and have sat in and touched and walked over every inch of them.

Good!

[-TBC-AeroAce]

41 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Honestly, while a nice gesture, you can be sure that they have been viewing restored, flying examples of the Thunderbolt and have sat in and touched and walked over every inch of them.

 

Actually Jason was saying that they gave  going to museums and flying collections. ....because they were always too expensive and too much hard work. 

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, danielprates said:

But push which one past the stop? The boost? Its the only thing I didnt quite understand. Great info, though!

 

I think it makes sense that controls were binded, for use in most situations,  and that you would only need to unbind them here and there. Say more boost in very high altitudes,  less rpm in excessive speeds etc.

 

BoS already has a control-binding thing going on with the ju52 flaps system. Should be an easy thing to implement.

 

Btw,  there is a ww2-used p47 here in my hometown,  in a square of a museum,  some 10 ft up a pedestal. I can get pretty close to it to get some pictures if it helps.

The manual mentions a 'take off stop'. The stop is probably the maximum that the throttle should be pushed forward for take off power at ground level. The stop can be disengaged at higher altitudes to allow the throttle to move forward a bit.

The one thing the manuals all have in common is to never push  the 'boost' (turbocharger lever) past the throttle.

If you're doing things manually, here's how you'd do it I think:

So for accelerating: increase Prop RPM, Increase Throttle, Decrease Turbo.
To slow down: Decrease Turbo, Decrease Throttle, Decrease Prop RPM.

 

Do things in that order and you won't blow the turbo. At least, thats how it was IRL.

 

[Legioneod]

I'm most interested in the power ratings we will get for the P-47. Will we be getting the 56" power settings or will we get the 70" with the 150 fuel, it's gonna make a big difference gameplay wise.

[RedKestrel]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

I'm most interested in the power ratings we will get for the P-47. Will we be getting the 56" power settings or will we get the 70" with the 150 fuel, it's gonna make a big difference gameplay wise.

It's possible we'll get both as an engine modification.

For the Spitfire, we only got the +18lbs boost setting, but I don't think that precludes getting the +25lbs setting in the future. I kinda think the 18lbs boost setting was put on the early access spitfire so that it would be usable but not OP on multiplayer. So instead of a 1944 Spit blowing everything out of the water, we get what amounts to a 1943 spit that's very good but not an order of magnitude better than the fighters from BoK.

Thats just a theory though.

[Poochnboo]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

The manual mentions a 'take off stop'. The stop is probably the maximum that the throttle should be pushed forward for take off power at ground level. The stop can be disengaged at higher altitudes to allow the throttle to move forward a bit.

Here's another entry from the Pilot's Manual:

11. Supercharger Operations During Climb And Flight.

    a. The supercharger control sould be set so that with full throttle, and supercharger control "FULL ON," 52 inches Hg at 2700 rpm is obtained for take off. When operating at high power above 7,000 feet, the throttle should be wide open and should be left there. Adjustments of power should then be made by the supercharger controls. The supercharger controls should always be moved slowly, so that manifold pressure will follow and overboost will be avoided.

[Willy__]

36 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

For the Spitfire, we only got the +18lbs boost setting, but I don't think that precludes getting the +25lbs setting in the future. I kinda think the 18lbs boost setting was put on the early access spitfire so that it would be usable but not OP on multiplayer. So instead of a 1944 Spit blowing everything out of the water, we get what amounts to a 1943 spit that's very good but not an order of magnitude better than the fighters from BoK.

Thats just a theory though.

 

That doesnt make any sense, since the server owners can choose which modifications is available for the players on the mission

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

P-47 Thunderbolt should have 64" producing 2535hp up to 24,000ft on 100 octane

[Willy__]

4 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

P-47 Thunderbolt should have 64" producing 2535hp up to 24,000ft on 100 octane

 

Were there any reports, charts/manuals stating that it was available on good numbers by the time of BoPB operation ? If not, then we shouldnt have it ingame. But if it was available, then make a report with all the documents necessary and send to devs.

 

Just saying that the p47 should have 64' and not providing any document is the same as people asking for the G6 with MW50 and GM1.....

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

P-47 Thunderbolt should have 64" producing 2535hp up to 24,000ft on 100 octane

Yes but it should also have the option of 150 fuel for 70", the main settings used throughout the war were 52", 56", 65" and 70". 70" makes sense from a late war stadpoint and 65" could represent mid-late 44 (operation market garden, etc.) even though the Jug was cleared for 70" in June of 44.

[danielprates]

17 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Here's another entry from the Pilot's Manual:

11. Supercharger Operations During Climb And Flight.

    a. The supercharger control sould be set so that with full throttle, and supercharger control "FULL ON," 52 inches Hg at 2700 rpm is obtained for take off. When operating at high power above 7,000 feet, the throttle should be wide open and should be left there. Adjustments of power should then be made by the supercharger controls. The supercharger controls should always be moved slowly, so that manifold pressure will follow and overboost will be avoided.

 

Now that's the info I was looking for. It would seem the boost lever gets busier that the throttle!