Jump to content
Arthur-A

What's your top speed on P-47 at about 5000 ft?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Yep, this is one of the problems imo, ailerons rip off at speeds that they shouldn't. Control structural failure was only a problem for early P-47s.

P-47 should be faster than that, it's top speed should be (from the document that the devs showed) 438 mph (704 kmh) at around 24,000ft. (7,300m)

 

regarding the speeds i get this as indicated in kmh on stalingrad summer map, 6km 499kmh, 7km 489kmh, 8km 458kmh, 9km 428kmh and 10km 388kmh, all with 100% turbo, trottle, rpm, mix and boost on and 50%(exept for 10km at 70%)  inlet and 0% outlet. ( it can go faster then that when you manualy incres rpm abow 2700 but you risking braking engine then)

and if you covert that in TAS youll get good speeds, 489kmh ias at 7km is around 710kmh if im not wrong. ( http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html used this online callcualtor just now and it says thats 715kmh at 7km)

109k4 in game can match that speeds at thuse alts (no mather what engine mod) and even go faster at 10km then in game 47. 

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it seems odd, I believe that the speed increase regarding the decreased RPM is historically accurate.

Initially, the P-47 was equipped with a 12' 2" diameter Curtiss 714 propeller, but the later models featured the Hamilton Standard 6501 and Curtiss 836 propellers, both of which had diameters of 13'.

Spoiler

p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

All B-series R-2800 engines used in the P-47 featured a reduction gearing of 0.5, so this increase in diameter increased the propeller tip speed past its critical mach number at high altitudes where the speed of sound was lower. As a result, one could get more effective thrust out of the propeller at a slightly lower RPM, where the increase in propulsive efficiency more than made up for the loss in engine horsepower. I can't find any sources directly stating this for the P-47, but the F4U had a similar issue. The relevant report is here, with the relevant data being in Section 4.3 and Table IV.

It is also enlightening to note that if the P-47M or N were ever to be added, this should not be an issue, as their C-series R-2800 engines featured a reduced reduction gearing of 0.45 (Page 3, "Power Plant").

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Silavite said:

Although it seems odd, I believe that the speed increase regarding the decreased RPM is historically accurate.

Initially, the P-47 was equipped with a 12' 2" diameter Curtiss 714 propeller, but the later models featured the Hamilton Standard 6501 and Curtiss 836 propellers, both of which had diameters of 13'.

  Hide contents

p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

All B-series R-2800 engines used in the P-47 featured a reduction gearing of 0.5, so this increase in diameter increased the propeller tip speed past its critical mach number at high altitudes where the speed of sound was lower. As a result, one could get more effective thrust out of the propeller at a slightly lower RPM, where the increase in propulsive efficiency more than made up for the loss in engine horsepower. I can't find any sources directly stating this for the P-47, but the F4U had a similar issue. The relevant report is here, with the relevant data being in Section 4.3 and Table IV.

It is also enlightening to note that if the P-47M or N were ever to be added, this should not be an issue, as their C-series R-2800 engines featured a reduced reduction gearing of 0.45 (Page 3, "Power Plant").

Could be, very interesting.

Those speeds in that chart are for 56" WEP not 64" like we have in-game. The difference between 56" and 64" was around 19mph at most altitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

P-47 should be faster than that, it's top speed should be (from the document that the devs showed) 438 mph (704 kmh) at around 24,000ft. (7,300m)

 

I believe K-4 should break the 700 km/h barrier too, but it doesnt. Its very likely my testing method, I use stalingrad autumn quick mission at noon for each test. Even if its not standard atmosphere(which it should be?) the results between planes are comparable.

Edited by LeLv76_Erkki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

I believe K-4 should break the 700 km/h barrier too, but it doesnt. Its very likely my testing method, I use stalingrad autumn quick mission at noon for each test. Even if its not standard atmosphere(which it should be?) the results between planes are comparable.

I ran some test at 52" and it seems to be underperforming by about 18-20mph.

 

Speeds at 52" should be close to the second column (military power) in this chart but they are off by quite a bit.

D-26 is the closest in performance to the D-28, same engine and prop.

p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I ran some test at 52" and it seems to be underperforming by about 18-20mph.

 

Speeds at 52" should be close to the second column (military power) in this chart but they are off by quite a bit.

D-26 is the closest in performance to the D-28, same engine and prop.

 

 

I cant match the speed curves I get to any P-47 engine-propeller combination seen in performance charts available to me. 65" top speed at low altitude is right, but 52" must be too low, and I dont even know what happens at higher altitudes.

 

"Improved water injection" was introduced in D-27 - what did that do? Are you sure D-26 in charts has Curtiss prop, wiki page says Farmingdale used Hamilton for D-22, 25 and 27 switching to Curtiss for D-28, and D-26 in the charts is identical to D-25, just built at Evansville?

 

edit: yeh Curtiss prop, it actually says so on the chart while wiki is just confusing the reader. Different propellers is not "identical".

 

I think we might just not have the right charts at the moment.

Edited by LeLv76_Erkki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

I cant match the speed curves I get to any P-47 engine-propeller combination seen in performance charts available to me. 65" top speed at low altitude is right, but 52" must be too low, and I dont even know what happens at higher altitudes.

 

"Improved water injection" was introduced in D-27 - what did that do? Are you sure D-26 in charts has Curtiss prop, wiki page says Farmingdale used Hamilton for D-22, 25 and 27 switching to Curtiss for D-28, and D-26 in the charts is identical to D-25, just built at Evansville?

 

edit: yeh Curtiss prop, it actually says so on the chart while wiki is just confusing the reader. Different propellers is not "identical".

 

I think we might just not have the right charts at the moment.

Iirc the only real difference between the D-26, D-27, and D-28 was that the D-27 had a hamilton prop and the D-27, D-28 could operate at higher MAP settings with 130 fuel (64").

 

At 52" the D-28 and D-26 should be almost exactly the same, the D-27 would be faster due to the Hamilton Prop.

The military power speeds should match the chart yet they are off by about 20 mph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

I believe K-4 should break the 700 km/h barrier too, but it doesnt. Its very likely my testing method, I use stalingrad autumn quick mission at noon for each test. Even if its not standard atmosphere(which it should be?) the results between planes are comparable.

 

K4 1.8 (7km and abow 1,98 do same speeds) from my tests on full power ias at 6km=506kmh (1.98 522kmh), 7km=491kmh, 8km=460kmh, 9km=429kmh, 10km=396kmh

so 1.8 k4 then does 698kmh tas at 6km, 716kmh tas at 7km, and 698kmh tas at 8km, by that tas callculator.

(k4 1,98 ata at 6km 720kmh tas)

same stalingrad summer map i used to see speeds for p-47 on same alts

 

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

K4 1.8 (7km and abow 1,98 do same speeds) from my tests on full power ias at 6km=506kmh (1.98 522kmh), 7km=491kmh, 8km=460kmh, 9km=429kmh, 10km=396kmh

so 1.8 k4 then does 698kmh tas at 6km, 716kmh tas at 7km, and 698kmh tas at 8km, by that tas callculator.

(k4 1,98 ata at 6km 720kmh tas)

same stalingrad summer map i used to see speeds for p-47 on same alts

 

 

The tas calculator/formula you use gives rather high speeds. But it should be ok as long as you always use the same so results can be compared.

 

Did you remember to push stabilizer ahead to -90% at least? It gives a couple more kph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

The tas calculator/formula you use gives rather high speeds. But it should be ok as long as you always use the same so results can be compared.

 

Did you remember to push stabilizer ahead to -90% at least? It gives a couple more kph

This is what I use: http://indoavis.co.id/main/tas.html

Just set the data accordingly just keep the Altimeter setting at 29.92 no matter the altitude. It's given me very accurate results when I tested the 190 A-8 and 109 G-14.

106422271_Temp_Pressuredata.thumb.PNG.c6ff39ad3a462c2f77738d58b05a0dc7.PNG

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

The tas calculator/formula you use gives rather high speeds. But it should be ok as long as you always use the same so results can be compared.

 

Did you remember to push stabilizer ahead to -90% at least? It gives a couple more kph

i first run test with autopilot then when i see what speed is posible with perfect trim , i try to do close to that without autopilot, no i didnt use -90%.

thats why i post ias from game, as i dont know what ias tas callculations other ppl can use, but if they get closee to same ias from game then its ok, and i always use same map and time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

i first run test with autopilot then when i see what speed is posible with perfect trim , i try to do close to that without autopilot, no i didnt use -90%.

thats why i post ias from game, as i dont know what ias tas callculations other ppl can use, but if they get closee to same ias from game then its ok, and i always use same map and time. 

 

P-47 has so many things to work with and remember that I think I will create a look-up notes with engine and other settings and achievable IAS and TAS speeds at various altitudes 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

P-47 has so many things to work with and remember that I think I will create a look-up notes with engine and other settings and achievable IAS and TAS speeds at various altitudes 

 

Yes that 2550rpm works better then 2700 up to 7km, then after that its no change in gaining top speed, but then raising manualy rpm abow 2700 dont give you anything below 7km but give you more abow that, but its risky,i was able to go to 2900rpm for 3min and not brake engine, and other times it would brake it. Its same as on k4 closing fully rads manualy it gives you more speed but it overheats fast so its good for 1-2min top.

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just did a totally un-scientific (but fun) experiment. Multiple ground attack strafing passes, either with: 1) turbo+throttle+RPM interlocked or 2) setting RPM at 2550/turbo at 100% and controlling speed just with throttle. Not much noticeable difference, although the engine seems to lack a little oomph when RPM is locked at 2550.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

2550 is probably best when your runing from some one or in strait, 2700 better for climb and df

 

Most likely due to the way the game interprets the propeller pitch data. Whether that is a simulation of real life effects or a programming anomaly is an open question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With linked controls throttle response is quicker for sure. 2700 might also be better for low speed thrust as blade tips will be slightly slower relative to still air or something

 

We need to test the #### out of the Jug :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reference for P-47D-28 top speed:

 

1.thumb.jpg.21ab986f9fa209f649366aedae137c85.jpg

 

2.jpg.212a7a2f599854aa427bdfe25ddff34a.jpg

 

Check top speed at standart atmosphere, +15C temperature and 760 mm.hg pressure AGL. In quick mission - on autumn maps.

 

Airplane - 50% of fuel, 8 guns, standart ammunition. 64 inch MAP, 2700 rpm, auto rich mixture (80% of lever), cowl flaps and oil cooler flaps closed, intercooler flaps - neutral (50%).

 

  • Thanks 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gavrick said:

Reference for P-47D-28 top speed:

 

1.thumb.jpg.21ab986f9fa209f649366aedae137c85.jpg

 

2.jpg.212a7a2f599854aa427bdfe25ddff34a.jpg

 

Check top speed at standart atmosphere, +15C temperature and 760 mm.hg pressure AGL. In quick mission - on autumn maps.

 

Airplane - 50% of fuel, 8 guns, standart ammunition. 64 inch MAP, 2700 rpm, auto rich mixture (80% of lever), cowl flaps and oil cooler flaps closed, intercooler flaps - neutral (50%).

 

Where did you come to the conclusion that it was using only 50% of it's total fuel? Just curious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Where did you come to the conclusion that it was using only 50% of it's total fuel? Just curious 

 

With 8 guns and 50% fuel in simulator gross weight of P-47 is 13220 lb.
It is near to gross weight from model specifications of P-47D-28  - 12958 lb - with 6 guns and 205 gals of fuel.
If you chose this variant ingame (205 gals - 55%), you has gross weight 13025 lbs. The difference appears in general due to the fact that in the simulator only one version of the filling with oil (full tank). In reality, dressing with oil could also be partial.
But 50% of the fuel and 8 machine guns - just easier to remember and advise to use.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gavrick said:

 

With 8 guns and 50% fuel in simulator gross weight of P-47 is 13220 lb.
It is near to gross weight from model specifications of P-47D-28  - 12958 lb - with 6 guns and 205 gals of fuel.
If you chose this variant ingame (205 gals - 55%), you has gross weight 13025 lbs. The difference appears in general due to the fact that in the simulator only one version of the filling with oil (full tank). In reality, dressing with oil could also be partial.
But 50% of the fuel and 8 machine guns - just easier to remember and advise to use.

Interesting. So the P-47 in that report was only using 205 gallons of fuel? It says it was carrying a belly tank as well.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gavrick said:

Reference for P-47D-28 top speed:

 

1.thumb.jpg.21ab986f9fa209f649366aedae137c85.jpg

 

2.jpg.212a7a2f599854aa427bdfe25ddff34a.jpg

 

Check top speed at standart atmosphere, +15C temperature and 760 mm.hg pressure AGL. In quick mission - on autumn maps.

 

Airplane - 50% of fuel, 8 guns, standart ammunition. 64 inch MAP, 2700 rpm, auto rich mixture (80% of lever), cowl flaps and oil cooler flaps closed, intercooler flaps - neutral (50%).

 

Run tests same as you say and this is what i get when i use that online tas callculator ( http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html )

 

5000ft IAS in game 291 337mph = 370mph TAS (80% mix)

15000ft IAS in game 319mph = 407mph TAS (80% mix)

24500ft IAS in game with 80% mix 292mph = 433mph TAS  also tested with 100% mix and got 295 IAS mph thats 437mph TAS

 

so all in game is like you say on that document, if using 100% mix it can go faster and below 23000ft if using 2550rpm insted 2700 it can go faster, but when testing like you make it to be speeds are matching perfectly from what i see. Tested on stalingrad autumn like you say.

Edited by 77.CountZero
fix mistyp on 5000ft, placed knots speed insted mph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

So the P-47 in that report was only using 205 gallons of fuel?

 

Another reference, for example (weight - lbs):

3.jpg.2b3805a943702aa2d88e43865b509334.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gavrick said:

 

Another reference, for example (weight - lbs):

3.jpg.2b3805a943702aa2d88e43865b509334.jpg

It states the combat weight as 14,411 pounds, I imagine the test were conducted in combat load so was this considered when modeling the P-47?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks gavrick, excellent job in designing the P47. 

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

It states the combat weight as 14,411 pounds, I imagine the test were conducted in combat load so was this considered when modeling the P-47?

 

no, my understanding is the tests were done with the design load. Gavrick explained that in his post.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

thanks gavrick, excellent job in designing the P47. 

 

no, my understanding is the tests were done with the design load. Gavrick explained that in his post.

 

Doesn't make much sense to me, every test report I've read says the test were conducted with combat weight, even the P-47s in the chart I posted were at combat load.

I'm not saying the speed in-game is wrong it's actually pretty close from the test I've run in-game, I'm just wondering why were these test done without full fuel when all other test had combat weight with full fuel load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Legioneod said:

 

Doesn't make much sense to me, every test report I've read says the test were conducted with combat weight, even the P-47s in the chart I posted were at combat load.

I'm not saying the speed in-game is wrong it's actually pretty close from the test I've run in-game, I'm just wondering why were these test done without full fuel when all other test had combat weight with full fuel load.

 

Gavrick explained his reasoning and from what I can see the in game result pretty much matches the test data plus or minus 1%. That is enough for me.

 

If you feel there is a mistake, do your research and present your documentation to the team.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In various tests from various references, the weight of the aircraft was mainly about 13,000 pounds.
For example, from different references (from wwiiaircraftperformance):

NACA stability and control tests of P-47D-30 - gross weight 12810 ... 11870 pounds,

P-47D-10 43-75035 - 13244 pounds,

P-47D      42-26167 - 13230 pounds,

Comparison of P-47D-30, P-47M and P-47N Performance - 12731 pounds.

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Gavrick,

 

At 15 kft I achieve 320-321 mph and in normal atmosphere that is 403-404 mph. Exactly what the manual says.

 

What I still wonder is the possible slowness when using 52" but testing continues tonight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested the P-47 speed in standard conditions (Kuban Autumn, which has 15ºC at sea level and 760mmHg), and compared it with a real test with a P-47D-22 No.42-26167, both at 6000 Kg weight (13230 lb, eight guns and 50% fuel load), with wing pylons, cowling flaps closed, intercooler neutral, and oil radiator neutral (as that's how it's described in the report). The TAS calculation is done by this website http://indoavis.co.id/main/tas.html  the temperature data I got it from measuring it in game with the Bf 110 G and Pe-2, the TAS is accurate, comparing it with a German Bf 109 G test which has both IAS and TAS, and could get the same numbers the Germans got while putting the IAS (maybe a 3 km/h difference at the most at high altitudes).

The P-47D-22 report: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

P-47D-28_vs_P-47D-22_IRL.png

I'm doing something wrong? or maybe there is something I'm missing about that particular test? I also noticed I was getting less manifold pressure than the D-22 above critical altitude, for example at 8000 meters the report shows around 62" while in game it was doing around 57".

What seems strange to me is that while at sea level both speeds are quite close, the higher you go the difference increases. While in general when there is a difference in drag the speed difference tends to remain constant (for example when testing different 109G variants which have the same power but more or less drag). I guess it has to do with power or the propeller.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

that plane was using 150 octane fuel. we have 100 octane in game.

At the same power settings I don't think it'd make that much difference though I'm not 100% sure.

 

Does 150 fuel really result in higher speeds at the same power settings? I was under the impression that it allowed for higher boost settings and the use of 65" without water but not that it increased speeds at the same settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

that plane was using 150 octane fuel. we have 100 octane in game.

 

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

At the same power settings I don't think it'd make that much difference though I'm not 100% sure.

 

Does 150 fuel really result in higher speeds at the same power settings? I was under the impression that it allowed for higher boost settings and the use of 65" without water but not that it increased speeds at the same settings.


I think that at the same settings they would have the same power. Also notice how 65" without water is slower than 65" with water. At sea level the speeds are almost identical so I think they are doing the same power in that situation.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The P-47D-22 report:

It is good reference. Data from this report correlate well with data from "model specification" at 64 inch MAP (+-10 mph). Also it is corellate well with ingame P-47 at 52 inch MAP (ingame top speed 407 mph at 29500 feet and 410 from report).

19 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I'm doing something wrong?

Probably. Ingame top speed is 700 kph TAS (485 IAS) at 7000m.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 


I think that at the same settings they would have the same power. Also notice how 65" without water is slower than 65" with water. At sea level the speeds are almost identical so I think they are doing the same power in that situation.
 

The D-22 was using water in those test as well so I'm not sure why there is such a large speed difference between the two aircraft, unless 150 realy does increase the speeds at the same settings, though I've never heard such a thing.

3 minutes ago, Gavrick said:

It is good reference. Data from this report correlate well with data from "model specification" at 64 inch MAP (+-10 mph). Also it is corellate well with ingame P-47 at 52 inch MAP (ingame top speed 407 mph at 29500 feet and 410 from report).

Probably. Ingame top speed is 700 kph at 7000m.

Why would the top speed be lower than in th reports? And why at a different altitude other than it's critical altitude?

 

Also those tops speeds of the D-22 were with wing racks whereas in-game we can't even reach those speeds without racks.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

At the same power settings I don't think it'd make that much difference though I'm not 100% sure.

 

Does 150 fuel really result in higher speeds at the same power settings? I was under the impression that it allowed for higher boost settings and the use of 65" without water but not that it increased speeds at the same settings.

 

150 octane fuel has a different chemical composition than 100 octane fuel, so obviously not having the same fuel will have an impact on performance whether it is a 3%, 5% or whatever % difference.

 

German C3 fuel is also 130 or 150 octane depending on the source, but it is doubtful it will not have an impact on performance if you try to run it in a P47.

 

it is always better to compare apples to apples.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

150 octane fuel has a different chemical composition than 100 octane fuel, so obviously not having the same fuel will have an impact on performance whether it is a 3%, 5% or whatever difference.

 

German C3 fuel is also 130 or 150 octane depending on the source, but it is doubtful it will not have an impact on performance if you try to run it in a P47.

 

it is always better to compare apples to apples.

At the exact same power settings there shouldn't be any performance increase iirc, both the D-22 in that report and the D-28 in-game produce 2600hp at 64-65" no matter what fuel is used iirc so I'm not sure why there would be such a large speed disparity between the two when at the same settings and configuration.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

At the exact same power settings there shouldn't be any performance increase iirc, both the D-22 in that report and the D-28 in-game produce 2600hp at 64-65" no matter what fuel is used iirc so I'm not sure why there would be such a large speed disparity between the two when at the same settings and configuration.


Maybe it's the propeller? Later on I will test in clean conditions to see if it matches the document Gavrick posted about the D-28 specifically.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I see, we do not have the Curtiss 836 series 13 ft propeller mounted but rather the AO Smith SPA series 12 ft 2 in wide cord blades
  

 

image.png.f6eadcafb419a288f2c3b81735f3a355.png

 

helice10.png

unknown.png

AO Smith P-47Ds

 

 

 


image.thumb.png.32bd2b5a270957ec63e0c74e9f80340a.png

imageproxy.png

p47d25-7.png

1337024640565.png

 

 
 

 

 


CE Blades

 



nprop.jpg
Dprop.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

So as far as I am aware we shouldn't have to reduce RPM to achieve highest top end as we the propeller on the aircraft we have modelled is of the original length (12 ft 2 in).

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

As far as I see, we do not have the Curtiss 836 series 13 ft propeller mounted but rather the AO Smith SPA series 12 ft 2 in wide cord blades
  

 

image.png.f6eadcafb419a288f2c3b81735f3a355.png

 

helice10.png

unknown.png

AO Smith P-47Ds

 

  Hide contents

 


image.thumb.png.32bd2b5a270957ec63e0c74e9f80340a.png

imageproxy.png

p47d25-7.png

1337024640565.png

 

 
 

 

 


CE Blades

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 


nprop.jpg
Dprop.jpg

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

So as far as I am aware we shouldn't have to reduce RPM to achieve highest top end as we the propeller on the aircraft we have modelled is of the original length (12 ft 2 in).

 

The prop should be a curtis electric paddle blade, not an AO Smith SPA, not sure why it's modeled that way in-game. Maybe it's just the 3d model and it has no effect on the flight model?

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×