A2A P47 Razorback Takeoff and Landing Demonstration Videos

[Lewis - A2A]

Hello ladies and gents,

Scott went all out with this one so as they are ready I will post the videos.

Part 1. Cockpit Familiarization
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7cTL6YhEyg

Part 2. Takeoff and Landing Demonstration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-E50TqJfGk

Part 3. High Speed Flaps Failure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTY11zy5-m8

 Part 4. Emergency Landing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rag1q9OGCPA

(Its best to click watch in HD and FULL SCREEN for the brilliant HD quality)

[Tim-HH]

The videos are absolutely superb! It's great to hear how much fun Scott has with this plane. That makes it even harder to wait

Greetings
Tim

[da Held]

Quite close to the real thing
Nicely done!

But can you actually shoot something down in Microsoft Flight Simulator?
If not, I'm not interested....

[Scott - A2A]

"But can you actually shoot something down in Microsoft Flight Simulator?
If not, I'm not interested...."

FSX is a pure flight simulation, so true combat is not supported.

We simulate the dream so many have to fly real aircraft in today's world. You can fly this aircraft from Alaska to Japan to over your home town, in all kinds of realistic, live conditions.

Scott.

[Legend]

Lovely videos...but as streaming is effing slow in China, could you upload it to Vimeo or so so I can download it - plus it's at an insanely high resolution then.

Love the Razorback! Thanks guys!

[PappyCain]

The Jug is my favorite and this looks like a good birthday gift to me from me.

[Seria17hri11er]

The Jug is my favorite and this looks like a good birthday gift to me from me.

Oh it most certainly is!

[Tigerclaw]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but it's because of the videos I'm here at all.

I've only bought two A2A planes, both small ones. I can't fly big planes, two engines is my limit I'm afraid.

I've read as much as I can about this P47, and watched nearly every single video of it on Youtube, including the ones in this thread. I am so impressed with it, I really want it in my hanger. I'm getting very bored of general aviation models (I've bought quite a few I no longer fly or have installed). This is an absolutely stunning model, very crisp inside and out. It looks pretty complicated inside, and there lies my worries.
I'm not too worried about the cost, but I am worried I won't be able to fly it. I don't care if I crash it, it's only a sim after all, but is looking after the engine that critical? I don't want to be setting up for a nice flight, do all the preps/checks, only to take off and blow my engine up. It would totally ruin it for me. So how complicated is this wonderful plane to fly? Maybe I should explain what I would use it for, and somebody could tell me if this model is suitable?

I like to fly below 4000 feet, twisting through valleys (the Grand Canyon video was great). I don't like to fly particularly fast, upto 160knots at most (my computer gives me hassle because it can't keep up with drawing the scenery ). I like to make short hops, not interested in flying from the US to India say, so I do a lot of take offs and landings in a session. I'm not very keen on just setting up an autopilot, and then going off for a cup of tea. I like to "fly" my planes, but I'm not very good at it. I make mistakes, especially approaches. Can this P47 handle flights like that please? Am I forever going to be repairing the engine because I'm not flying it at 20,000+ feet, at 400mph?

I would love for these worries to be answered. If all is well then I will buy this plane this month after I've bought Pacific Fjords.

Oh ps. It's the whole package I want, I don't want it without Accusim okay. Thanks in advance

[Skycat]

Tigerclaw,
The P-47 is a terriffic plane for sightseeing in FSX. Like the real aircraft it's less agile than the Spitfire, Mustang or Bf109E but as a WWII fighter it could hold its own in dogfights also. The Thunderbolt was heavy but had a big, powerful engine with a turbosupercharger that could get it to higher altitudes. I like that it moves faster than a Cessna but has more 'life' than a jet.

The AccuSim P-47 really isn't that hard to manage, especially once you learn what the guages mean. You can start out like real pilot trainees and do all of your flying under 10,000 feet--then you won't need to use your turbo at all and you won't have to worry about blowing your engine. Mastering the systems is very rewarding, however, and knowing that there are consequences for carelessness makes the flying experience much more exciting. One of my favorite FSX moments was the first time I successfully started the P-47 through fully manual procedures.

I personally think the AccuSim P-47 is easy to land, but then again I started out with the FS2004 versions which felt (to me) less stable. I also think it is easier to fly and land than the Spitfire and some of the other A2A fighters. The videos make it seem like the AccuSim Thunderbolt is a fragile, disaster prone aircraft but in reality it is sturdy, tough and powerful.

[Tigerclaw]

Thanks for the reply Skycat, I was hoping it would be suitable for the sort of flying I like to do. It looks amazing, and I'd really like it in my hanger so to speak. I very much doubt that it will be there for long periods at a time though, I have a feeling I'd fly it quite a lot I don't have a problem flying and landing the Spit, not anymore anyway. I can use the Spit for sightseeing quite easily around the 180-200mph (156-173nm) mark, cruising. If the P47 can do the same without ill effects, then I'll definitely get it this month

[Mitchell - A2A]

Tigerclaw,

We are very pleased that you have had such a good experience with our products. Scott and I and the whole team have tried to present flight sim aircraft that are interesting, accurate, and most of all, fun. To the extent that our customers agree that we have succeeded in this, we are grateful.

Thank you for your kind comments about “P-47 Flying Tips”. Dudley and I have tried to extend our personal experience with big, heavy, radial-engine aircraft to everyone who may benefit from it.

The P-47 was, in its time, the largest and heaviest single-engine, single-seat fighter-bomber in the world. The P-47 was Republic Aviation’s improvement of its P-43 Lancer, which was one of the first American aircraft of its type to be designed from the drawing board with an effective turbo/supercharger. The P-47 variants we present had not yet been fitted with automatic operation of the oil cooler doors, intercooler doors or the turbo/supercharger. All of this was left to the pilot, whose attention was necessary to keep the Pratt & Whitney
R-2800 healthy.

We at A2A believe that there are many flight-sim pilots who relish the historical realism, and find great satisfaction in operating the Accusim P-47 correctly. It’s a tough bird, but it’s not indestructible by a careless pilot. Therein lays the essence and challenge of flying the Accusim P-47 (and all of our Accusim aircraft). This is one of the differences between Accusim aircraft and so many other flight-sim aircraft which permit all kinds of mayhem and carelessness to be perpetrated upon them with nary a whimper.

What this means to you and to all who fly it is that the Accusim P-47 must be flown according to the manual and according to proper flight techniques and procedures, just like the real one was. The flight manual that comes with our Accusim P-47 states all that a pilot needs to know to correctly and safely fly the Accusim P-47, and our thread “P-47 Flying Tips” adds what we hope is additional useful information.

Reference to both the Manual and the “Flying Tips” thread ought to get you up, around and down without adverse incident, providing, of course, that you already have some experience flying complex and heavy aircraft. Therein is the rub. It may be that you need to practice on less-complex and less-demanding airplanes to gain the experience that you need which will make flying the Accusim P-47 easier and more satisfying.

I’m glad to hear that you are flying the A2A Spitfire. In it, we have tried to present a very accurate and authentic aircraft; but flying the real Spit was not as complex or demanding on the pilot as was the P-47; so accordingly, neither is A2A’s Spitfire. Taking your time to learn how to properly fly the Spitfire, or any of the other non-Accusim A2A WWII fighters will go a long way towards getting you ready and up to speed for the Accusim P-47.

I suggest that you try the A2A Accusim Piper “Cub”. It’s a real blast to fly, ultra-realistic, and not so easy or forgiving to fly as other general aviation airplanes that you may have flown and have become bored with. It will teach you a lot about flying which will hold you in good stead when you go on to more complex and faster airplanes; and you’ll have a lot of low altitude and low speed fun with it, too. Many pilots who went on to fly fighters, etc, in WWII learned to fly the Cub first. In any event, I strongly suggest that you at least read the manual for the A2A “Cub”. It contains a lot of useful information for anyone who wants to know more about flying airplanes. I had the pleasure to have written it; but I think that you should read it anyway.

Now, to get to your questions:

Yes, looking after the engine is most critical in any aircraft. You won’t get far without it. Actual WWII aircraft on all sides were often lost and destroyed because of abusive, poor and/or negligent engine management. The revolutionary, huge and complicated piston engines of those days were on the cutting edge of technology, and in many cases were not entirely perfected. Operating these powerful engines initially required a lot of attention. To reduce the number and frequency of further catastrophic pilot and aircraft losses due to engine failure, both the Allied and the Axis air services began to install more and more automatic devices to set the proper positions for the propeller, mixture, turbo, cowl flaps, oil cooler, etc.

The Focke-Wulf Fw-190 was the first to experiment with and ultimately use an automated engine control system called Kommandogerät (“brain box”). This consisted of an early kind of mechanical computer which set the engine’s mixture, propeller pitch, boost, and magneto timing. The pilot only had to operate one control, the throttle and all else would be taken care of automatically. This reduced the pilots' work load regarding the operation of the engine to the throttle control only; but was not the perfect solution as it introduced other control problems. After this system was discovered in a captured Fw-190, the Allies began to try to lessen the workload of Allied pilots with various automated and mechanical devices of their own. As I mentioned before, the Accusim P-47 variants which we present were built and flown before this attempt at systems automation was fully instituted. Accordingly, it is up to you, the pilot, to manually manage each system and engine-related function in the airplane.

How complicated is the Accusim P-47 to fly? That’s not an easy one to answer as one answer does not fit all. For some, it’s a breeze, for others a challenge. As in the real world, it mostly depends upon the pilot’s experience and knowledge. If you refer to and heed the information in the manual and in the “Flying Tips” thread, and practice diligently, you should not find flying this airplane to be difficult. In fact, we think that you will become a better all-around pilot, and have far more realistic and more satisfying flights in all flight-sim aircraft when you have mastered and are aware of how to properly manage the engine and the aircraft’s systems.

Flying below 4,000 feet is no problem in the P-47. After all, it is considered by many to have been the best ground-attack aircraft of WWII. As to airspeed, there you may have a problem. Of course, throttled way back, you can fly the P-47 at 160K or less; that is the landing pattern airspeed, the stall occurring at around 100K clean and a bit less with gear down and full flaps. However, flying the P-47 exclusively at 160K or less all the time would not, I think, be a lot of fun; nor would it take advantage of the excellent performance which was built into the ‘47. This is not the most efficient airspeed range of this airplane. It was designed to go fast, more than 300k down low, more than 400K (TAS) in level flight at high altitudes, and far faster than that in a dive. At less than 160K it will be difficult to do anything interesting with it except to fly it in the landing pattern. For instance, you could not perform any aerobatics in a P-47 at this low airspeed. In any event, give it a chance; you may discover the joys of flying higher and faster with our ’47.

You can twist through canyons to your hearts content in the P-47; but if you fly it at 160K or less, it will be less responsive and maneuverable. That kind of close contact flying is very demanding on your video card, and may be why you have had such refresh problems in the past. Of course, at higher altitudes your computer will not have to refresh as quickly as the scenery will not roll by so fast. Perhaps you need to reduce your scenery settings a bit. If you want to fly the latest and the best flight-sim aircraft, which are always increasing in their demands upon our machines, particularly down low with the scenery settings up high, you may just have to upgrade some of your computer components, particularly your video card.

I find that doing takeoffs, circuits and landings to be the most fun in this or any flight-sim airplane. Good approaches and landings in the P-47 can be challenging to the beginner, but they can be quickly mastered and are very satisfying when done well. I, too, do not use autopilots very much. I like to fly my airplanes by hand as it helps to keep my skills sharp. It seems absurd to me to sit in my office and just watch my computer fly the airplane for very long. Except for very few and very short intervals when I have to look after the navigation or the engine, I just don’t see the point.

You won’t break the engine at low altitudes and low airspeeds, as long as you have set the engine and propeller properly and the various systems and door are opened as necessary to keep the engine and fluid temperatures within operational limits.

Yes, do not fail to purchase the Accusim add-on for more reasons than I can say here.

I hope I’ve answered you questions to your satisfaction. If you have any more questions, please ask them here, and, if I can, I’ll answer them as soon as possible.

Mitchell

[snave]

Thanks for the reply Skycat, I was hoping it would be suitable for the sort of flying I like to do. It looks amazing, and I'd really like it in my hanger so to speak. I very much doubt that it will be there for long periods at a time though, I have a feeling I'd fly it quite a lot I don't have a problem flying and landing the Spit, not anymore anyway. I can use the Spit for sightseeing quite easily around the 180-200mph (156-173nm) mark, cruising. If the P47 can do the same without ill effects, then I'll definitely get it this month

To add to what Mitchell says, if sightseeing is your bag, but with a healthy dose of realistic flight operation, then don't rule out the B-17 Accusim which will do all that you mention AND has the option of an autopilot AND a co-pilot to take some of the load off, if desired.

Ironically, owning both the B-17 and the P-47 I find the Boeing LESS complex to operate for `leisure` flights, as you have an interactive crew to remind you of the checklist items you have forgotten because I'm busy gawking out the window...

[Tigerclaw]

Mitchell,

Thanks for the reply. I already have the A2A Cub with Accusim, that's one of the reasons I was looking into this P47. I really like the realism and can't wait for the Spitfire to be Accusimmed (is that a word?). While I was waiting, I started checking out your other products, and was totally blown away with the P47 and the B-17 videos. There's no way on this earth I'm ready to get into the cockpit of a B-17 (that answers Snaves post ), so that turned me towards the P47.

I understand what you say about not getting the full enjoyment while flying low, and pretty slow. But in time with more experience I can always take her up high, open her up, and chuck her around a bit. Afterall, one does not jump off of a 50cc moped, and straight onto a 1000cc motorcycle and open it up full throttle. Well not if you want to survive anyway.

I haven't read the Piper Cub manual, I must admit. But I will go and read it. My favourite cub is the Tundra wheeled version (with a dirty red paint). I've done quite a bit of bush flying in it, landing in the most unlikely places. I've only broken 2 props, and the engine has never let me down once. I just wanted something a little faster, so turned to the BirdDog in the end.

It's a shame I may have trouble with the low speed in the P47, but until I get a new CPU+mobo my FSX is not so good at refreshing the scenery. It's only a core 2 duo 1.87Ghz. My RAM is low too, but it's the max for my mobo, only 2 Gig. The video card is okay I think, Geforce GT 240 with 1Ghz DDR3 memory. I can just about get away with 250mph in the spit at low altitude, keeping the scenery updated. If I go faster, it isn't long before it gets blurry. Even to the extent where I can no longer see the runways on small fields I know I have to upgrade my PC, but there are so many great products out there, what with you and ORBX, I keep running out of money I've taken on board what you say about scenery and flying higher. I'll test that in the spitfire and see how it goes.

I like the take offs and landings too, that's why I mostly do short hops from one field to another. In the cub I try to not go further than 20nm before I land again. I realise that this isn't what the spitfire and P47 were designed for, but until I can land these planes properly, that's how I practice. I take off, keep the altitude around pattern altitude, and then land at a different airport. Of course, I look at the scenery while I fly by. We seem similar in that we both don't like autopilots. If the plane is trimmed properly, I find I don't need one anyway. I've trimmed my Spitfire @ 4000ft and went to make a cup of tea. When I got back it was slightly above 4000, but still flying straight and level. There wasn't any wind mind, I don't think it would've done that if it was windy.

I'm glad I won't break the engine at the speeds and altitudes I mentioned. I think I can look after the engine with regards to prop pitch, rpm, manifold pressure , and temps. I was just worried the P47 wouldn't fly like that without blowing up.

Yes you've answered my questions, and I will be buying the P47 with Accusim later this month. Thank you for your help. Now I have a manual to go and read.

Tony

[Andysim]

I got some rudder pedals (saitek) the other day and they help alot especialy with taildraggers, I can fly the Spitfire and the B-17 just fine but I have trouble seeing the runway with the P-47 because of the large engine. I have Track IR so I can look a little bit down each side of the aircraft but its still limited alot.

I apply a small amount of rudder left or right and alittle opposit ailerons so Im crabbing my way down but i would like to know the proper way.

[Mitchell - A2A]

Andysim,

Check out the sticky: “P-47 Flying Tips” - “Landing the P-47”, also Dudley Henriques’ “Flying Tips”. Between these two, your questions should be answered. Should you need further explanation and still have any questions, post them and we’ll get an answer to you.

Mitchell