Now: How am I to fly this bird?

[Roadburner426]

If I may interject in this thread. I think a lot of good things have been said, but I wanted to add this last bit. You could not fly the P-47D in the condition that A2A has it in the simulator except for limited circumstances. In it's configuration in the simulator it is 100% the way it was in WWII, and would not meet the FAA regulations for aircraft other than daytime VFR. This is why you see WWII fights and such at airshows that are out fitted with an entirely different gauge cluster than the original. Some of the ones I have seen the only original gauges were the engine gauges, and the speed gauge. Other than that they have GPS mounts, ILS gauges, etc. Stuff to make them navigatable.

That being said. I still enjoy flying my P-47 over long distances. I usually sit down, and make a drawn out/involved flight plan. Then fly it up the east coast from where I am stationed now, to various places either that I have lived or wanted to visit. Yes the map is cheating, but it is a good way to check deviation from course. I highly recommend that you buy a flight calculator (E6B). It is a very accurate piece of gear, and is what you are missing from your navigation experience. It will help you calculate your wind drift from course (something that A2A automatically does for you on the B-17 by the addition of a dashed arrow on the map), fuel burn, and course correction.

To back up what has been said about the P-51, and it's "advanced" navigation equipment. The 2 aircraft were designed with totally different ideas in mind. The P-47 to my knowledge was not initially designed as a bomber escort. They tried fitting them to this roll, and with the additional fuel tanks they were far to heavy to be effective fighters. The P-51 was designed from the ground up to be a bomber escort. Hence the long range, and advanced navigation equipment. Designers at North American learned from the failed attempts at the past, and managed to come up with something completely new that fit it's purpose well. NA went on to build more advanced models of the P-51 past the D, and those served with AAF and new at the time USAF well into the Korean war. I was hoping that A2A would Accu-sim their old P-51H model (not a request, I think you guys have your work cut out for you enough. I do want my F-4 now though!! ). That is all I have to say though. I am more than happy if you want to PM me on helping you use the E6B as they have some virtual ones on google that are a million times easier to use than my actual one. Hope you wind up getting more enjoyment out of her.

[CAPFlyer]

Quick amendment to the above - the P-47 as is in the Accusim package actually was (and would still be) approved for Instrument Flight. The FAA only requires you to have onboard the navigation equipment required to perform the intended level of navigation. As such, the P-47 can fly enroute "blind", but it can only accept approaches that do not require it to reference any onboard navigation systems. That basically limits it to ASR (Airport Surveillance Radar) and PAR (Precision Approach Radar) approaches. Otherwise, the aircraft has onboard everything required to fly day or night VFR or IFR operations.

Now, is it PRACTICAL to fly this aircraft in instrument conditions? Absolutely not. But then again, in the sim there's a reset button when you screw up.

[Roadburner426]

My apologies, not a real pilot so I pretty much strictly interperet what I read. Thank you for pointing that out though. I still fly the P-47D in sometimes questionable IFR conditions. Cause I hate having to divert for better weather. I could not imagine flying it in anything less than VFR with the crude nav instruments in real life. As you say that is what the reset button is for. My P-47D has met the dirt on more than one occassion. To me it is the hardest Accu-sim bird to fly thus far.

[CAPFlyer]

No problem. The rules are amazingly "open" as for flying in instrument conditions. The FAA's primary concern in all cases is ensuring the pilot is in full control of the aircraft and knows exactly what that aircraft is doing whether flying VFR or IFR. Navigation is much more amorphous because there are so many ways to achieve accurate navigation, even if at first it doesn't seem like it so they have (historically) tried to be as flexible as possible, unlike in other parts of the world.

Believe me, I would NEVER fly into instrument conditions in a P-47 with it's original equipment unless it was just a short enroute run through the clouds in otherwise VFR conditions (i.e. to get up high and into nicer weather near terrain or something similar). I doubt most current P-47 pilots would disagree with me too. It's not as much that it's not "safe" to do so, but it's more "why"?

[CAPFlyer]

BTW, for anyone interesting in reading what's required for instrument flight in the US with something like a P-47 or other private aircraft, you can see it here -

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... .3&idno=14

This is 14 CFR 91.203, it does not apply to the B377 when operating as a "for hire" (commercial) aircraft as it has to comply with the Transport Category requirements which are much more stringent.

[Sayuuk]

Hi again,

just wanted to let you know that after the doubts I had initially I do now plan do get the P47.

I think I already have enough planes that I can fly IFR, so maybe this is just the change I need... =P



Short question: Do we have any information on a rough estimate for the release of the P51??
If so, I might wait for that... but if it doesn't come soon I'll buy the Thunderbolt now (and the Mustang later )


Thanks for all your replies,

Stefan

[Roadburner426]

If you watch the official October 2010 update video they show the P-51D Accu-sim in game. Albeit it is not running in the video, and the wings look untextured/unbump mapped.. So my guess is since they are using the Spitfire to develope the Accu-sim portion of the Merlin engine that the P-51 is some ways off. I think you have plenty of time to get your moneys worth out of the Thunderbolt. I know I love the bird. Plus just something about the way the radial engines sound. Certaintly the P-51 will be king of the hill once it is released though.

[Sayuuk]

If you watch the official October 2010 update video they show the P-51D Accu-sim in game. Albeit it is not running in the video, and the wings look untextured/unbump mapped.. So my guess is since they are using the Spitfire to develope the Accu-sim portion of the Merlin engine that the P-51 is some ways off. I think you have plenty of time to get your moneys worth out of the Thunderbolt. I know I love the bird. Plus just something about the way the radial engines sound. Certaintly the P-51 will be king of the hill once it is released though.

Oh I love the engine sound =)

The best sounding engine I've heard so far in FSX!


Just did my first few short flights, I love it =)

[Roadburner426]

Glad to hear you are enjoying it. I may have to join in one of these days on the multiplayer file sessions. Keep the shiny side up!

[Sayuuk]

Glad to hear you are enjoying it. I may have to join in one of these days on the multiplayer file sessions. Keep the shiny side up!

Sure, you may join anytime you want!

Stefan

[MustanGrande]

Just throwing my 2 cents in here. I'll occasionally use Plan G to plot my course, using VFR. I'll plan my flight landmark to landmark, via dead reckoning. For example, I'll take off from the airport and fly for 2 hours on a given heading, where I know there's a lake or a large river, or a mountain, or some other distinct landmark that gives me a hard "fix" for the start of my next leg. Rinse and repeat. This is how I typically navigate in the B17.

[gtmattz]

Just throwing my 2 cents in here. I'll occasionally use Plan G to plot my course, using VFR. I'll plan my flight landmark to landmark, via dead reckoning. For example, I'll take off from the airport and fly for 2 hours on a given heading, where I know there's a lake or a large river, or a mountain, or some other distinct landmark that gives me a hard "fix" for the start of my next leg. Rinse and repeat. This is how I typically navigate in the B17.

This is the method in which I have been flying as well. To be honest the majority of the time has been in the J-3, as I am still trying to get a handle on the razorback and have only made a couple long-distance journeys. For some reason which I cannot define, I really enjoy the 'seat-of-the-pants' feeling of navigating in this manner.

[MustanGrande]

Just throwing my 2 cents in here. I'll occasionally use Plan G to plot my course, using VFR. I'll plan my flight landmark to landmark, via dead reckoning. For example, I'll take off from the airport and fly for 2 hours on a given heading, where I know there's a lake or a large river, or a mountain, or some other distinct landmark that gives me a hard "fix" for the start of my next leg. Rinse and repeat. This is how I typically navigate in the B17.

This is the method in which I have been flying as well. To be honest the majority of the time has been in the J-3, as I am still trying to get a handle on the razorback and have only made a couple long-distance journeys. For some reason which I cannot define, I really enjoy the 'seat-of-the-pants' feeling of navigating in this manner.

It's the challenge, I think. Anyone can navigate via the magenta line, or let ATC tell them where to turn and when. Plotting your own course makes successfully navigating that course all the more satisfying.

[VulcanB2]

Even back in WW2 they did flight planning. The pilots would know courses to fly, timings, etc.. - they weren't flying entirely without any clue before they jumped in.

I second the E-6B!!!!! A MUST FOR FLYING ANYTHING! It even transformed my flying of commercial airliners, even though strictly speaking it isn't required when the aircraft is fully functional. It made me open my eyes to how I navigated in even those aircraft.

Navigation in the B377 isn't the same without it. I can fly across the Atlantic now and pretty much hit landfall exactly where I intend, WHEN I intend. The feeling is incredible.

The thing to remember is that you're flying VFR still, but using DEAD RECKONING and PILOTAGE as the navigation method (the most fundamental navigation types - and the hardest). When planning a flight, be sure to include way points that are distinctive and easily recognizable from the air (e.g. coastlines, rivers, etc..). This will aid you with positioning, and from your actual vs. plotted position and timings, you can compute winds, and correct for the next leg.

If you are good, you should be able to fly with an accuracy greater than 99%.

Timing and position checks are important to nail to maximize accuracy. Be sure to also understand the compass, and magnetic variance. There is a nice chart on the USGS website showing the worldwide mag. var for 2005. FSX uses this in the sim (the map is allegedly out of whack but I couldn't see it when I checked).

There are several of us with E-6B on the forum, so if you get stuck with navigation, ask!

I've got a navigation worksheet that I use to keep track of flight progress which aids hugely as well. If you want a copy let me know - I might finally type it up!

EDIT: I did it anyway.

http://www.ant-tec.com/NavLog.zip (20,088 bytes)

List of abbreviations:

ETA = Estimated Time of Arrival (e.g. 1430 zulu)
ETE = Estimated Time En-Route (e.g. 22 mins)
ATA = Actual Time of Arrival (e.g. 1432 zulu)
ATE = Actual Time En-Route (e.g. 24 mins)

Note that if you are going to use a real clock that FSX time drifts relative to real time, and so your calculations will be out eventually. If you use the FS clock, things seem to go OK.

I suggest you just trying flying straight lines for a start, get used to how things work, before going cross-country (or cross-continent!). I just fly Heathrow (EGLL) to Schipol (EHAM) in a straight line, aiming to overfly the airport (this gives you a good feel for your accuracy - you should end up overflying the main terminal area if you get it right - it can be done!!!!).

A few things to note (and the E-6B can make this easier though I don't find it necessary):

* Pre-plan your route!
* Check the winds, and fly at a level most favorable for your direction of flight. Usually the route average is used if it is a long flight.
* Pre-compute your timings (ETE/ETA).
* Check your fuel, and allow for climbs if you are performance limited. Be sure to factor in the winds in your fuel planning.
* Perform regular en-route fuel checks. If using external tanks, be sure to watch your engine settings and timings like a hawk! Only time will tell you when you need to switch tanks, lest your engine quit. You must know the engine fuel consumptions at various settings. These are in the manual.

I prefer to fly loxodromic courses (following "rhumb lines") but this is sub-optimal, and no good for max range flights across water for example, but is easier to fly and doesn't require constant heading adjustments. I wrote a small program to compute courses and plot it on a map. It takes a lat/lon of each point, and computes the true course between points. When setting off, you need correct your magnetic compass heading so that you are flying the true heading. You then need to monitor your progress, and over time, adjust for magnetic variance, and ensure you are still on course. Using cross-reference with the ground, check you are still on track and haven't drifted too far with the wind. There is a procedure for computing corrections using the E-6B.

After that, the usual "aviate, navigate, communicate" rulez.

When you reach your destination after flying using this method, it is a great feeling, and you'll never want to fly another modern airliner again!

Best regards,
Robin.