Developer Diary 243 - Discussion

[LukeFF]

1 minute ago, JohnBrownStan said:

Why not? Genuinely curious. I always thought it looked cool. Is it ahistorical?

 

It generally requires a whole lot of concentrated .30 cal gunfire to sever a wing in reality, so no, it's not really historical to have wings come off easily. 

[JohnBrownStan]

17 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

It generally requires a whole lot of concentrated .30 cal gunfire to sever a wing in reality, so no, it's not really historical to have wings come off easily. 

 

I'm not an engineer or anything, so I don't know what's reasonable, but ".30 cal bullets break some of the internal wooden structure and the whole wing comes off from the added stress on the remaining structural elements" makes intuitive sense.

 

Agree .30 cal wouldn't do that to a WW2 plane, or even a Fokker DVIII. But with a SPAD 13 or something... feels appropriate?

 

EDIT: And thinking about it some more, I've shot wood boards/planks with 30 cal before, and they can crack in one or two shots. Doesn't seem unreasonable at all that 10-15 or so 30 cal hits into one wing could cause structural failure.

 

Here's some video of WW1 plane construction. The wood pieces are not very thick. Any one of those that got hit with a 30 cal would definitely break in half, it's just a question of how many need to be cracked for the wing to break and the hit probability for any given shot into the wing.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by JohnBrownStan

[Legioneod]

50 minutes ago, JohnBrownStan said:

 

I'm not an engineer or anything, so I don't know what's reasonable, but ".30 cal bullets break some of the internal wooden structure and the whole wing comes off from the added stress on the remaining structural elements" makes intuitive sense.

 

Agree .30 cal wouldn't do that to a WW2 plane, or even a Fokker DVIII. But with a SPAD 13 or something... feels appropriate?

 

EDIT: And thinking about it some more, I've shot wood boards/planks with 30 cal before, and they can crack in one or two shots. Doesn't seem unreasonable at all that 10-15 or so 30 cal hits into one wing could cause structural failure.

 

Here's some video of WW1 plane construction. The wood pieces are not very thick. Any one of those that got hit with a 30 cal would definitely break in half, it's just a question of how many need to be cracked for the wing to break and the hit probability for any given shot into the wing.

 

 

You're really underestimating the amount of accuracy needed to have a spar severed from gunfire. An aircraft is constantly moving back/forth up/down.  Gunnery is nowhere near as easy irl as it is in-game.

Most common way to down a fighter in WW1 iirc was through killing the pilot or engine. There's a reason pilots aimed for center fuselage/pilot and not the wings.

 

Video games have warped people perception of what things should look like, the real thing is far less spectacular.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Yeah it looks cool but ANY amount of hits ANYWHERE on the wings caused them to shed. What we have now lines up perfectly with historical accounts. Lots of flamers, lots of out of control planes, very little wings being shot off.

[-RR-Napoleon-]

Any chance that engines breaking off mounts will be added?? and even a crushed version for planes with glass nosez?

Edited March 10, 2020 by -RR-Napoleon-
Spelling

[Turban]

You guys are awesome ! ?

[Livai]

Just now, JohnBrownStan said:

I'm not an engineer or anything, so I don't know what's reasonable, but ".30 cal bullets break some of the internal wooden structure and the whole wing comes off from the added stress on the remaining structural elements" makes intuitive sense.

 

Wooden structure can be solid same as aluminum or steel but this depends how good the engineering was at this time.

 

 

 

.30 cal bullets on WW2 here are .50 cal and 20 cal on a 111 shot down from a 109. You can easy assume how a wooden plane could look

[Source] https://www.quora.com/Have-the-Swiss-border-guards-shot-at-Axis-soldiers-during-WW2-like-in-the-movie-Shining-Through-1992

 

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Livai

[PatrickAWlson]

14 hours ago, Legioneod said:

You're really underestimating the amount of accuracy needed to have a spar severed from gunfire. An aircraft is constantly moving back/forth up/down.  Gunnery is nowhere near as easy irl as it is in-game.

Most common way to down a fighter in WW1 iirc was through killing the pilot or engine. There's a reason pilots aimed for center fuselage/pilot and not the wings.

 

Video games have warped people perception of what things should look like, the real thing is far less spectacular.

 

Agree.  Shooting at wings mostly means shredding canvas.  Even hitting a spar is not generally going to cause instant failure.  They might fold if they were stressed further but it was very rare for wings to just fold up under a burst of fire.  There was enough other bits of wood joined together that a break in one piece wouldn't cause tot al failure.

 

Meat or metal was the theme for a reason.  No protection at all for the pilot.  Lots of planes were brought down by shooting out the engine - pilot survives.  Then there were the flamers.  Once a fire started it was pretty rare to put it out.  

[crewchief]

With regard to the DF loop seen on the P47 model I don't think it is at all typical of the usual fit on high back D models. I have looked in several books and all the photos of American high back Thunderbolts with the loop fitting are from China and Burma. Interestingly the Thunderbolt I's supplied to the RAF in Burma do not seem to have had them and I cannot see them on any 5th Air Force examples although one would have expected aircraft in New Guinea and the Philippines to have required any navigational aids that were available. The Red Air Force got either 192 or 196 Thunderbolts, depending on which source you believe. 3 of these were P47D-10-RE's and 100 P47D-22-RE's, all of which were low backs and had the DF loop. The first three seem to have been examined at various VVS test establishments and extensively photographed so I wonder if this where the developers got the photographs they worked from. The Soviets don't seem to have been too impressed with them, especially their low altitude performance. 14 of the 10-RE's are said to have ended up on the Kola Peninsula with 225 IAP and it could be these ones that appeared in the photo in Iceland. Most including 100 highback models were shipped via Iran. The Kola examples were immediately put into store until the end of the war so they clearly were not hugely common in Soviet service. Gordon and Komissarov's "US Aircraft in the Soviet Union and Russia" seems to be the best source on this. I have also looked at numerous photos of low back P47's in United Kingdom, France and Germany and Italy and not seen a single example of a DF loop. All seem to have a blade type radio aerial behind the canopy. The model is lovely but if it represents a ETO P47D the DF loop should really go.

 

Incidentally does anybody know if "razorback" is a genuine wartime term? I saw many years ago an interview in an aviation magazine (Flypast?, The Aeroplane?) with a veteran who had never come across the word in connection with the P47. 

 

Regards

 

Ouston

Last post should have read "I have looked at numerous photos of high back P47's in United Kingdom, France and Germany and Italy and not seen a single example of a DF loop."

 

Apologies

 

Ouston

[LukeFF]

33 minutes ago, crewchief said:

The model is lovely but if it represents a ETO P47D the DF loop should really go.

 

It'll undoubtedly be an optional mod, just like on the P-47 we have now and on the Mustang and Lightning. Not a big deal.  

[Jameswildwood]

 

 

19 hours ago, JohnBrownStan said:

 

I'm not an engineer or anything, so I don't know what's reasonable, but ".30 cal bullets break some of the internal wooden structure and the whole wing comes off from the added stress on the remaining structural elements" makes intuitive sense.

 

Agree .30 cal wouldn't do that to a WW2 plane, or even a Fokker DVIII. But with a SPAD 13 or something... feels appropriate?

 

EDIT: And thinking about it some more, I've shot wood boards/planks with 30 cal before, and they can crack in one or two shots. Doesn't seem unreasonable at all that 10-15 or so 30 cal hits into one wing could cause structural failure.

 

Here's some video of WW1 plane construction. The wood pieces are not very thick. Any one of those that got hit with a 30 cal would definitely break in half, it's just a question of how many need to be cracked for the wing to break and the hit probability for any given shot into the wing.

 

 

This video is fascinating , I know the footage is slightly sped up as film from that era always is but what teamwork !  I'd like to see a robot make one of those!

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Jameswildwood

[Mysticpuma]

One thing CloD does which always impressed the hell out of me was hydraulic damage. So shooting up a He-111 (or other aircraft) would sometimes see one of the undercarriage wheels slowly extend as the hydraulic fluid leaked away.
Simply because I have never seen it, can this happen in BoX?

Oh and I have already pre-ordered (as soon as it was available) and can't wait to see the Razorback with 325th FG markings (which is MTO but I don't care ?)

Great WiP update ?

[THERION]

43 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

Simply because I have never seen it, can this happen in BoX?

 

Oh, I've seen it and I was truly amazed by this effect - I was chasing a Fw190 and placed some good shots. All of a sudden

the right leg of the undercarriage went down about 10° and then slowly, slowly went all the way down. But at very same

moment the pilot jettisoned his canopy which hit my prop - so, it was over for both of us.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

7 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Agree.  Shooting at wings mostly means shredding canvas.  Even hitting a spar is not generally going to cause instant failure.  They might fold if they were stressed further but it was very rare for wings to just fold up under a burst of fire.  There was enough other bits of wood joined together that a break in one piece wouldn't cause tot al failure.

 

Meat or metal was the theme for a reason.  No protection at all for the pilot.  Lots of planes were brought down by shooting out the engine - pilot survives.  Then there were the flamers.  Once a fire started it was pretty rare to put it out.  

 

Meat or metal agree , but we unfortunately missing something which must also be the factor how outgoing fight ended (for example going down out of control) - loosing control of aeroplane by shot through control surfaces cables (aileron, elevator or rudder). 

[Legioneod]

12 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

Meat or metal agree , but we unfortunately missing something which must also be the factor how outgoing fight ended (for example going down out of control) - loosing control of aeroplane by shot through control surfaces cables (aileron, elevator or rudder). 

We already have this in-game. You can sever/jam control rods and go out of control. Havent tested this in FC but it is modeled for every other aircraft.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

We already have this in-game. You can sever/jam control rods and go out of control. Havent tested this in FC but it is modeled for every other aircraft.

I known it's the case in ww2 fighters , we  were speaking about ww1 FC aeroplanes which lack this dm future. BTW whole control surface can be blow out like in ww2 but not the control cables.

Edited March 10, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I known it's the case in ww2 fighters , we  were speaking about ww1 FC aeroplanes which lack this dm future. BTW whole control surface can be blow out like in ww2 but not the control cables.

Like I said I wasn't sure if it was modeled for FC. Should definitely be added.

[CUJO_1970]

9 hours ago, Livai said:

 

[Source] https://www.quora.com/Have-the-Swiss-border-guards-shot-at-Axis-soldiers-during-WW2-like-in-the-movie-Shining-Through-1992

 

 

Can’t be damage from 109 as we clearly see penetration all over the 111. 
 

German cannon rounds would mostly bounce off and explode harmlessly outside ?

[Dakpilot]

Unlikely to be damage from 109 or the multiple 20mm mineshelll hits should have blown huge chunks out of it and the tail and fuselage should have fallen off  ?

 

Edited with smiley 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Dakpilot

[BraveSirRobin]

Pretty sure it would have been vaporized if a mineshell hit it.  ?

[JtD]

As per usual when AnPetrovich makes the DD, an extremely interesting read. I'm very much looking forward to these DM changes. It will make me play BoX again, even if it only was to check the improvements.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 3/10/2020 at 12:23 AM, JohnBrownStan said:

 

I'm not an engineer or anything, so I don't know what's reasonable, but ".30 cal bullets break some of the internal wooden structure and the whole wing comes off from the added stress on the remaining structural elements" makes intuitive sense.

 

Agree .30 cal wouldn't do that to a WW2 plane, or even a Fokker DVIII. But with a SPAD 13 or something... feels appropriate?

 

EDIT: And thinking about it some more, I've shot wood boards/planks with 30 cal before, and they can crack in one or two shots. Doesn't seem unreasonable at all that 10-15 or so 30 cal hits into one wing could cause structural failure.

 

Here's some video of WW1 plane construction. The wood pieces are not very thick. Any one of those that got hit with a 30 cal would definitely break in half, it's just a question of how many need to be cracked for the wing to break and the hit probability for any given shot into the wing.

 

 

 

It this video you can see how they put  shiny dope on the wings , and letter when they carry it how it reflects the light. For my test FC wings are too much  into  matt skin property especially do not reflect sun as I would expected as seen from longer distances.

Edited March 11, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[THERION]

12 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Can’t be damage from 109 as we clearly see penetration all over the 111. 
 

German cannon rounds would mostly bounce off and explode harmlessly outside ?

 

Well, I wouldn't be that sure, mate. Because our 109 were quite different to those German ones. Most of them had Swiss modifications, like

for example the steering column - it looked more like a Hurricane column (spade grip) - and we had different armament. We mostly used

Oerlikon heavy MG and/or Hispano Suiza canons.

[Tbolt47]

Great to see a new DM ( hopefully the ground handling can get an overhaul at some point as well ) also great to see the P-47 Razorback.

 

I know the P-47 is WIP, but just in case they haven't noticed the problem with the prop I thought I would mention it. The prop hub and dome is too small and the prop blades have far too much taper on them, giving more point to the tip than the classic rounded shape of the HS prop. It's also got the incorrect version of the R-2800, but I guess that's just carried over from the D-28 which is incorrect, but that's minor, the prop/hub makes the look of the aircraft wrong.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Tbolt47

[ZachariasX]

On 3/10/2020 at 3:21 PM, Livai said:

30 cal bullets on WW2 here are .50 cal and 20 cal on a 111 shot down from a 109. You can easy assume how a wooden plane could look

[Source] https://www.quora.com/Have-the-Swiss-border-guards-shot-at-Axis-soldiers-during-WW2-like-in-the-movie-Shining-Through-1992

 

 

This He-111 is most likely one that was brought down by the Allies in 1941 over France.

 

4 hours ago, -=-THERION said:

Well, I wouldn't be that sure, mate. Because our 109 were quite different to those German ones. Most of them had Swiss modifications, like

for example the steering column - it looked more like a Hurricane column (spade grip) - and we had different armament. We mostly used

Oerlikon heavy MG and/or Hispano Suiza canons.

True. At that time, there were 10 Bf-109D, 78 Bf-109E and 38 Morane D-3800 in service. (The rest was flying trash.) The 109D had 4x 7.9 mm MG's (wings and nose), while the 109 E had 2x 7.45 mm plus 20 mm Oerlikon cannons in the wings. The planes that were delivered were lacking most instrumentation as well as lacking guns. Hence the armament was mostly of local supply. They were also lacking the armor plate behind the pilots seat.

 

As far as DM and "black out upon hitting the pilot" goes, some anectotal evidence from Oberleutnant Homberger, flying a Bf-109D (J-328) alongside Oberleutnant Kuhn on June 8th, 1940. Together wth the Patrouille Lindecker/Egli, they attacked defensive formations of Bf-110D over the Canton of Jura near the French border. After passing through some clouds, Homberger got hit in the back by a 110. He kept on fighting for some time before he opted for discretion and pushed the aircraft forward in a dive to make an exit. After leveling out at tree top level, he noticed something was not right with him and he felt increasingly nauseated. It became obvious to him that he couldn't make it back to his airfield at Olten, as his vision would narrow to the point of blindness. As he put the aicraft down for landing, only one wheel would deploy, the other stuck due to a hit in the hydraulics. After he spun out on landing in a field, he passed out. He had collected 34 MG hits in his aircraft. Two hits went through the back fuselage and hit him in the back just above the seat, piecing his lungs and one hit his pelvic bone. One bullet got stuck in his wallet. (Being rich helps sometimes.)

 

Maybe it would be an idea to add slow incapacitation to the DM effects on the pilot. In some places you're knocked out at once, some hits take their time to have effect.

Edited March 11, 2020 by ZachariasX

[Garven]

On 3/9/2020 at 7:12 PM, JohnBrownStan said:

 

Why not? Genuinely curious. I always thought it looked cool. Is it ahistorical?

Wings were shot off way too often in RoF.

[nickj123]

1 hour ago, Tbolt47 said:

Great to see a new DM ( hopefully the ground handling can get an overhaul at some point as well ) also great to see the P-47 Razorback.

 

I know the P-47 is WIP, but just in case they haven't noticed the problem with the prop I thought I would mention it. The prop hub and dome is too small and the prop blades have far too much taper on them, giving more point to the tip than the classic rounded shape of the HS prop. It's also got the incorrect version of the R-2800, but I guess that's just carried over from the D-28 which is incorrect, but that's minor, the prop/hub makes the look of the aircraft wrong.

 

 

 

Many P-47s were fitted with the Curtiss Electric paddle blade props, including the 'Razorbacks'.

[Tbolt47]

4 minutes ago, nickj123 said:

 

Many P-47s were fitted with the Curtiss Electric paddle blade props, including the 'Razorbacks'.

 

The D-22 came from the factory with a HS prop and although the props could be interchanged the one modelled here in 3D has the HS prop - you can tell by the HS hub dome, the CE one is very different. I know a bit about P-47's hence my name here ?

Edited March 11, 2020 by Tbolt47

[nickj123]

I agree the dome/boss doesn't look right, almost looks like a mix and match, with an HS boss/dome and CE props.

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, Tbolt47 said:

Great to see a new DM ( hopefully the ground handling can get an overhaul at some point as well ) also great to see the P-47 Razorback.

 

I know the P-47 is WIP, but just in case they haven't noticed the problem with the prop I thought I would mention it. The prop hub and dome is too small and the prop blades have far too much taper on them, giving more point to the tip than the classic rounded shape of the HS prop. It's also got the incorrect version of the R-2800, but I guess that's just carried over from the D-28 which is incorrect, but that's minor, the prop/hub makes the look of the aircraft wrong.

 

 

What version of the R-2800 should they have, and how can you tell? Just curious.

[Tbolt47]

1 hour ago, nickj123 said:

I agree the dome/boss doesn't look right, almost looks like a mix and match, with an HS boss/dome and CE props.

 

To me it looks thicker/rounder than the original P-47 CE prop and the symmetrical and asymmetrical CE prop blades had a similar shape to the HS prop, though with cuffs. I don't think they are too far of with the shape just reduce the curve towards the tip which will give it a rounder tip.

 

53 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

What version of the R-2800 should they have, and how can you tell? Just curious.

 

I don't want to bore people here to much, but the D-22 used the R-2800-59, which started with the D-20 and was used in all D versions thereafter. Earlier P-47's used the -21 and -63 and the main visual difference is in the ignition system. The -21 and -63 used a separate magneto and distributors whereas the -59 used what is know as  turtleback mags, which was the magneto combined into the distributors. In the 3D render you can just see the round shape of the separate distributors. Like I said it's very minor as it's hard to notice so doesn't really matter as long as the prop and hub look right.

 

The correct ignition system for a -59

 

 

What it looks like they have modelled ( even missing the prop governor just like in sim! )

 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Tbolt47

[RedKestrel]

20 minutes ago, Tbolt47 said:

 

To me it looks thicker/rounder than the original P-47 CE prop and the symmetrical and asymmetrical CE prop blades had a similar shape to the HS prop, though with cuffs. I don't thing they are too far of with the shape just reduce the curve towards the tip which will give it a rounder tip.

 

 

I don't want to bore people here to much, but the D-22 used the R-2800-59, which started with the D-20 and was used in all D versions thereafter. Earlier P-47's used the -21 and -63 and the main visual difference is in the ignition system. The -21 and -63 used a separate magneto and distributors whereas the -59 used what is know as  turtleback mags, which was the magneto combined into the distributors. In the 3D render you can just see the round shape of the separate distributors. Like I said it's very minor as it's hard to notice so doesn't really matter as long as the prop and hub look right.

 

The correct ignition system for a -59

 

 

What it looks like they have modelled ( even missing the prop governor just like in sim! )

 

 

Huh, I never noticed that! I mean, I wouldn't even have known where to look lol. I'm usually in the cockpit anyway...on fire...spinning earthward.

FWIW the tech stats say the P-47 currently in game uses the R-2800-59 so they are using the performance from that engine, if not the actual 3D model.

[Tbolt47]

2 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Huh, I never noticed that! I mean, I wouldn't even have known where to look lol. I'm usually in the cockpit anyway...on fire...spinning earthward.

FWIW the tech stats say the P-47 currently in game uses the R-2800-59 so they are using the performance from that engine, if not the actual 3D model.

 

Yes the performance is the main thing, which is why I said it's very minor l and it only effects people like me who like to do screenshots. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Tbolt47

[Guest deleted@134347]

On 3/9/2020 at 7:23 PM, JohnBrownStan said:

the whole wing comes off from the added stress on the remaining structural elements" makes intuitive sense.

 

Having watched pretty much every single episode of Myth Busters it's evident that intuition has absolutely nothing on physics. Even during the controlled and repeatable experiments with as few variables as possible the testers' intuition was quite often wrong. Forget about the field testing with myriad possibilities...

[nickj123]

I see what you mean about the CE cuffs now I've seen this:

 

 

I agree they look too fat, you'll have to do your screenshots with it turning!

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

@AnPetrovich you and the rest of the team are champs! Thanks for this great write-up and work on making the Great Battles series even more immersive and detailed! Really looking forward to the new damage model!

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

A Razorback P-47!  Over the moon, I just think it looks a real beast. I know the bubble top was 'better' but the razor back just looks mean. Appreciated

[MaxTurn]

On the damage from 20mm and 30mm guns attention needs to be paid to

kineticenergy.  The Germans tended to use lower velocity guns with projectiles that were lighter compared to the HS used by U.S. and GB.  Many of the German shells (esp. the Minengeschoss) had a very thin projectile enclosing a large amount of HE.  These shells were very effective if they exploded inside of an aircraft structure but they also exploded on the outside of the structure.  Yesterday by chance,  I saw an interview with Yeager done in 1998 where he mentioned that the German cannon would  sometimes blow a hole in the surface of the wing without destroying the structure (he was talking about the Mustang).  Flying Guns of WW2 and also the book "The Big Bang" should be referenced.  Not only the guns but the fuses and explosives used differed by countries.  The German FF cannon and the HS 404 fired very different forms of projectiles.  The American .50 inch machine gun was successful (as many have pointed out) because it was reliable and it produced reasonable kinetic energy.  Even the high explosive shells for the .50 had very little explosive.  Also, not all explosives have an equal amount of chemical energy.  I am not going to dig out my books to find details but just remember that not all weapons of the same caliber are equally as effective.  The FF for example was a delayed blow back weapon and its muzzle velocity was limited by the use of an action which was light but did not allow the use of projectiles with the mass of other heavier 20 mm guns.  Based on my readings of Flying Guns and Rapid Fire, I think the best overall cannons were developed by the USSR.  The Browning is regarded by the authors of Flying Guns as a mediocre weapon which did the job of shooting down fighters and medium bombers but was out classed by other  heavy MGs. It was reliable and 6 .50 caliber Browning put out a lot of projectiles with enough velocity and mass to do the job against a 109 or a medium bomber but it probably would not have been that effective in attacking B-17s.  It was not a wonder weapon.  I find it interesting that of all the heavy machine guns used in WW2, that the Browning is the only one (as far as I know) still in active service with a major military.  The German guns were good and many used electrical primers (at least for the synchronized guns).  Damage has to be very difficult to model correctly.  Both the Germans and the US and GB did tests on the ground using damaged enemy aircraft to estimate how many hits were required to destroy enemy planes.  Of course, the test could only provide approximate data.  Consider the never ending debate about the effectiveness of handgun cartridges.  Is it better to have a .45 ACP round with a muzzle velocity of 900 fps and a mass of 230 grains (15 grams) or a 9mm with a mass of 120 to 130 grains (usually) but a muzzle velocity of 1200 to 1300 fps.  And for aircraft weapons,  the rate of fire is especially important.  I think everyone agrees that after BOB, the 30 caliber guns were not powerful enough.  Just some things that I think need to be considered. 

 

A good reference is at: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/an_introduction_to_collecting_20.htm 

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by MaxTurn
added a url and correcting the wrong choice of word

[Legioneod]

7 hours ago, Tbolt47 said:

Great to see a new DM ( hopefully the ground handling can get an overhaul at some point as well ) also great to see the P-47 Razorback.

 

I know the P-47 is WIP, but just in case they haven't noticed the problem with the prop I thought I would mention it. The prop hub and dome is too small and the prop blades have far too much taper on them, giving more point to the tip than the classic rounded shape of the HS prop. It's also got the incorrect version of the R-2800, but I guess that's just carried over from the D-28 which is incorrect, but that's minor, the prop/hub makes the look of the aircraft wrong.

 

 

 

I was thinking the same thing and I had said something in my original post but removed it. I do agree though it needs fixing. The D-22 used the Hamilton Prop not CE.

 

6 hours ago, nickj123 said:

 

Many P-47s were fitted with the Curtiss Electric paddle blade props, including the 'Razorbacks'.

Yes but not the D-22. The D-22 came from the factory with the Hamilton and it was a better prop than the Curtis. The prop in the WIP is clearly supposed to be a Hamilton as far as I can tell. It's just a little too tapered at the end and the hub is too small.

 

6 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

What version of the R-2800 should they have, and how can you tell? Just curious.

R-2800-59. Performance wise there was no real difference, I think just some changes with the ignition system iirc.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Legioneod

[nickj123]

Props were switched in the field, even if it didn't come out of the factory like that it doesn't mean D-22s weren't fitted with the CE prop that was fitted to D-23s.