Sign in to follow this  
Guest Gnoopey

Thunderbolt 'mania' (P-47M-1-RE) patching blues ;(

Recommended Posts

folks, fellas, shipmates, competition shipmates and dear friends,it's even 'worse' Geee, I'm so sorry, I really blew it this time - first 'minor' error in v2 distribution, then first patch (OK). Then decided to re-package and re-uploaded and made it worse.Rigid process of re-packaging to a v2.2 distribution now passed ! I'm in the process of re-uploading to all distribution sites."Patchin' blues":The v2 distribution contained a wrong file 'model.cfg' for the MODERN cockpit version only. That was addressed and fixed with the patch file 'P47M_P89.zip'.Then I repackaged a v2.1, thought everything was now fixed and haven't seen, that I'd included now 'interchanged' model.cfg files.The file, that should have been in directory 'model', pointing to 'P-47M-1.mdl' was residing in the 'model.60-ies' directory. And vice versa.This now prevented both 3D models from the v2.1 base package to show in the aircraft chooser in flightsim and crashed FS2004 to the desktop when the simmer continued and tried to initiate the flight despite the not showing model.This is now addressed with patch file 'P47M_P88.zip' (will fix both of the faulty v2 and the v2.1 distributions and got also attached to this post)! And the present distribution (v2.2) is now also finally 'fixed to death'. Again, I have to apologize for any inconvenience due to this 'hurried' mess.Sorry for the troubles - I'm really sorry - I was forced to do this in an unusual hurry through the committee of the upcoming RTW06 challenge (but this is of course all my fault ONLY!).kindest regards Tom 'Gnoopey' KohlerBTW - as soon as the upload and activation to also AVSIM has passed, I'll post new shortcuts into this thread - stay tuned on this channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

You made more mistakes in the 2.1.For the speed settings in the aircraft config you used the mph figures instead of knots, leading all speeds to be quite a lot too high.There look to be other errors as well, but less glaring ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You made more mistakes in the 2.1.>For the speed settings in the aircraft config you used the mph>figures instead of knots, leading all speeds to be quite a lot>too high.>There look to be other errors as well, but less glaring ;)No Sir, I know what I did wrong but speeds are within 1.5% of well known numbers and were NOT changed between the PRE-RELEASE that was public only in the sim-outhouse download library for well more than a year now!Please try to explain better, so that I might be possibly able to understand it!AFAIK,1 kph ~ 0.62 mph ~ 0.54 knots1 mph ~ 1.61 kph ~ 0.87 knots1 knot ~ 1.15 mph ~ 1.85 kphAssuming that this is correct, your statement is anyway plain wrong!You and nobody else can 'blame' me with 'wrong' speed specs used for this flight model!Aircraft was public for more than a year and got certified from the RTW race committee well ahead of the RTW06 start! I gave loads of intormation to committe members and have proven a number of times, that I am able to convert mph <==> knots <==> kph etc ;)Perhaps you should try to read my comments in the aircraft.cfg you'd criticized - especially the {Reference_speeds} section. I'm sure you'll be able to find the FS2004 SDK's on the web if you would try.To make it 'easier' for you, I'll show it in here anyway:Comment from P-47M-1-RE air file (edited for speed conversion!)+ Weight: 11413 lbs Max 15500 lbs+ Power: 2800 BHP MAX+ 9.0g Corner speed: 308 mph+ Max speed @ SL: 392 mph (TAS) ~ 340 KTAS+ Max speed: 475 mph TAS @ 32500 ft ~ 413 KTAS+ Climb rate: 4200 ft/min @ 165 mphFlight Dynamics By: gregoryp & tomkMudpond Virtual Aircraft @ Gnoopey's -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

redline is at 500 mph, not 548 knots. Your aircraft can do (and I've done it) 600 mph in a dive at sealevel without causing overspeed warnings. fuel capacity is a lot higher than it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>redline is at 500 mph, not 548 knots. Your aircraft can do>(and I've done it) 600 mph in a dive at sealevel without>causing overspeed warnings. >>fuel capacity is a lot higher than it should be.>Jeroen ? (that your name?),just give me a source for your 500 mph (what?) redline? Sorry if I simply don't trust your 'no source policy'.Next 'issue': if you dive - with any aircraft - at sealevel - as you wrote ... then you DITCH! Of course you can dive - from higher up - towards sea level - and if you pull G's to get out of the dive you should brake away your wings if you pull more than 9 G above 308 mph (TAS) ... BUT unfortunately, FS9 doesn't model this behaviour and I haven't done so (yet) either ;) We had a pretty well known extension for CFS2 (a module), where we could 'do' just things like that - the now 'infamous' RealityX ;)548 KIAS ~ 630 ! mph IAS is my redline at the moment.Overspeeding a 'Jug' with speed only is IMNSHO pretty ridiculous. Yes, there were also limits for diving with drop tanks mounted, but unfortunately ... see above.This is a never ending work in progress thing and we will be able to have proper over-G'ing back in FS sometime in the future, also with 'my' Jug - that's a promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing a yahoo search on it....http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/republic/p-47m.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.htmlhttp://www.acepilots.com/planes/specs.htmlAll three sites CLEARLY show max speed at less than 510mph. Nowhere does it mention being able to achieve more than 600mph without any consequences.Edit: Likewise, if you can give me some proof that the real aircraft is able to achieve the airspeeds your model is capable of without overspeeding and overstressing, I'll be happy to take it into consideration to change my standpoint on this aircraft. Right now, I stand with jwenting in that I believe the model is unrealistically too fast in comparision with the real aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all figures I find show a top speed of 470mph, even with a bit of margin that might make 485mph but certainly not 485 knots.The reference to 508 mph indicates an overrated engine, so not a production model.http://www.aero-web.org/specs/republic/p-47m.htm lists 450mph, which is pretty close to what ** uses. Probably closer to operational max speed (though they don't list the altitude, other sources list it as 450 at 250, 470 at 300).http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_12.htmlhttp://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baug...her/mb5-02.htmlIn fact the only higher performance I can find is in Tom's own documentation ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jwenting and StoneC0ld,thanx for the links! None was 'new' for me.Really, seriously, you guys just DON'T read what I'd written in my previous posts. Or if you read it - you obviously don't want to understand it!Do yourself a favor and re-read my previous posts in here! Slowly!Then, do it once more and print it out if you still haven't got it!This model in 'question', that the both of you are 'challenging', will do:A maximum of 475 mph TAS @ FL325 (32,500 ft. AMSL @ ISA athmosphere conditions!)IN LEVEL FLIGHT !!!And it does that within a margin of about 1.5-2% MAX !!!I also wrote, that it will overspeed at 630 mph IAS !!!You can ONLY achieve this in a very STEEP DIVE !!! And then it'll overspeed !!!Everything else is obviously just in your 'dreams'!The RTW committee has 'certified' this model to be eligible for this years RTW because they checked it as it should and can be checked! They knew what they were doing. You two haven't shown a similar level of proficiency yet!I bet, that I'm among those 'designers', that have given the most accurate data - that I could lay my hands on - and also a pretty big amount of precise information and data to the RTW committee than most others. Easy to be verified.Now - please, PLEASE, don't ever, EVER be so lazy to 'forget' to note what you mean - should it be TAS, IAS or 'roman leguas per hour'.Come on, I'm not the one, that has to prove something! I'm already in the public. What I've done is there for everybody. You're the ones, that have to 'prove me wrong'. IMNSHO, you haven't done so yet. And even if you did, show me a better price / performance tag!You're both so 'arrogant', that it's 'hurting' everybody out there in the community who ever did something similar I'd done so far! And you're obviously also too 'ignorant' ... oh well, leave it 'Gnoopster' ;Once again, you're turn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think special consideration (bonuses) should be given to Team Avsim (or other team) members who use a plane with damage modelling as opposed to warbirds travelling at jet speeds for two hours or more with no ill effects.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I think special consideration (bonuses) should be given to>Team Avsim (or other team) members who use a plane with damage>modelling as opposed to warbirds travelling at jet speeds for>two hours or more with no ill effects.>JamesJames,what's the matter with you guys in here? You're now in line as number #3 who DOES NOT read!And then your usage of your own language is IMNSHO, lousy and close to most negligent!This P-47M-1-RE does NOT 'travel' at jet speeds! She does DIVE pretty fast - indeed, that's what she did already during WW2. And that model has damage modeled - it's a multi-resolution 3D model with breaking parts - try it! And she will overspeed at 630 mph IAS - you can try to reach that. Pretty hard to achieve. Try it.You guys in here just argue, you don't present facts that weren't already pretty well known! And you seem to constantly and stubbornly ignore what I'm trying to explain to you. That's OK. I can live with it. Can you?As I'm the thread owner, I'm requesting this thread to be closed, not deleted by a moderator. I've made my points and then we 'steered away' from the main purpose. Let it be in here for everybody to see how 'childish' we all behave (myself included)!TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TomWho says I was just talking about your 'warbird'.Damage modelling in FS9 refers to various engine and system failures such as overheating or overboosting . Also I am not just 'in here' I enjoy many forums including the Sim-Outhouse. Cheers James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellows,We've lost sight of the whole point of this. We're out to have fun, not to get at each other's throats. Please. Let's forget about the stupid minutae and have a good race.I think I've come up with a compromise solution that will satisfy everyone with respect to aircraft eligibility. Until we finalize it with the committee and announce it, let's try to keep things from boiling over.Tensions are running high, and we've got a lot of passionate people. Let's focus our energies on the race rather than trying to belittle each other.I'm not siding with anyone here, I'm just asking everyone to relax a bit and remember that the whole point of this is to get some enjoyment.-Matt Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,Seems every year this race gets more competitive.I've no doubt that Tom's Jug is as accurately or more accurately modeled than the Mustangs you guys here at AVSIM are already flying. While I don't fly them I suspect they are also very difficult to overspeed.It is simply historical fact that the late WWII fighters basically represented the pinnacle of piston engine development. So they had the fundamental advantage of being developed for speed and structural strength necessary to survive dogfights. So virtually all WWII major fighter types - Mustang, Jug even Corsairs had high speed variants near the end of the war. The plane I fly is as fast as any of these and easier IMO to fly - it too was developed as a WWII fighter but then never saw service in WWII but was used in other parts of the world after the war. Then the world went to jets.Turboprops were developed as a cost effective alternative to piston engines and jets. They wwere never developed as fighters and so were never endowed with the structural strength of a fighter even though they are fully capable of high horsepower and durability and reliability. So they are fast but delicate and this is represented well in the aircraft we fly. You might argue that this puts them at a disadvantage compared to WWII fighters because the weakness of the fighters isn't modeled - and that weakness is that piston engines are more prone to breakdowns and are not as durable as turboprops. We can fly fighters and never worry about a breakdown. So is that fair - well no it isn't but that is due to the limitations of the sim and the modeling not to any "cheating" on anybody's part.I do not know what the answer to this dilemma is but clearly these kinds of flame wars isn't it.JMO as a virtual pilot who likes both aircraft types. -ED-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly our point, Tom's aircraft is not as accurate as the ones we have as reference and doesn't match historical performance figures by a wide margin.It looks like Tom made a basic error and inserted mph figures into the performance tables where FS expects to see knots, that's a more than trivial deviation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,No! The max speeds that you see posted around the web are not VNEs. They are speeds based on maximum engine power not including WEP or anything like that. The actual VNEs of the fighters are much higher than those posted speeds because the airframes can handle far more speed than the posted limits your seeing. This is a very key point to understand. We know this to be true because 5 years of fighting in WWII in which fighters were subject to far higher speeds without breaking up has shown it to be so. I don't know if anybody has ever calculated or tested a WWII fighter for VNE - I suspect they simply built them strong and the bigger concern was how fast could they develop a more powerful engine to hang on the wings or front of the airframe.The next issue is fuel. The best information which - as I understand it - is basically word of mouth from actual fighter pilots although maybe somebody knows differently - is that two 150 gallon droptanks had very little impact on fighter performance. A pair of 300 gallon tanks made them dogs. The race committee has accepted this and allows 150 gallon drop tanks but not 300s. So depending on whether or not the plane had wet wings (carried fuel in the wings) decides how critical having drop tanks is for 2 hour legs. The plane I fly has wet wings and so I have no need for drop tanks on a 2 hour leg.As I indicated turboprops were designed to be cost effective balancing power, fuel consumption and airframe strength. This was not the case for WWII fighters - arnament, power and to some extent fuel consumption were the big concerns as the airframes were already plenty strong enough.-Ed-A quick edit to illustrateJapanese zero - Max Speed : 336 statute mi/h at 20,000 ft (540 km/h at 6,000 m) Terminal dive under 410 mph; 460 mph for the A6M5a onward.Spitfire - maximum speed was 362 mph its maximum diving speed was 450 mph.Dive speed is more representative of VNE than maximum speed.

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
Sign in to follow this