Northrop F-15A / RF-61C Reporter

[DC1973]

A few folks suggested that I post this project news here, after a recent post of mine elsewhere on the forum;

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/108099-Northrop-F-15A-RF-61C-Reporter

My first project, scheduled for release first quarter 2018 if all goes well :) I'll be updating the thread regularly as I go along. This aircraft is being built in FSDS 3.5.1 and will be released with models for both FSX and Prepar3D compatibility. I'm also using Virtual Reality ( Oculus Rift ) so will be bearing users of VR in mind as I create the virtual cockpit.

( Picture courtesy of Roger-Wilco-66 )

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=55484&stc=1

[TuFun]

Cool, saw the drawings on this one with a canopy no doubt!

Even an RC model!!!

http://www.carlb-rcplanes.com/Pics/P1020191.JPG

[scotth6]

Nice looking plane. Great job!

[Sundog]

Wow, this has been a great year for planes being added to FSX. Next year is looking bright as well as I never expected to see a Reporter! Thanks for letting us know and nice work so far. :)

[magoo]

This is most interesting.

While the original P-61 could best be described as purposefully nasty in appearance, a few deft alterations created a most visually attractive aircraft, the F-15/RF-16.

The screenshots look most inspirational.

[warchild]

It's definately the P-61 through and through. While waiting for N2056 and Delta558 to finish their primary projects and jump on the SOH P-61, I've been working alongside DC1973 to model and FDE thats perfectly fit for it.. Now admittedly, I started with the FDE from the SOH P-61B, but it was only a starting point.. This plane is seven thousand pounds lighter. and has two big old pratt and whitney turbo supercharged engines producing 2800 HP each, on either side of its crew nacelle. Flat out, with full Military power, the plane will do 440 mph.
So, theres a lot of work to be done on my side as well, but so far, its been a beautiful journey..
Pam

[warchild]

This is most interesting.

While the original P-61 could best be described as purposefully nasty in appearance, a few deft alterations created a most visually attractive aircraft, the F-15/RF-16.

The screenshots look most inspirational.

Welll, i couldnt agree with you more on the F-15.. Its a gorgeous plane.. But i might poke ya gently about the P-61 being "Nasty in appearance ;) . Would love too share something with you all if you dont mind.. Maybe even if people do.. This comes too us from the memoirs of the RO on Jing Bow Joy Ride: A turretless P-61B operating out of Chengdu China.. I think it will settle the arguments of which was the baddest fighter of WWII..

"We took off determined to bomb the bridge, but one hour out of Laohokow we happened to be following a railroad track, one of my navigation checkpoints, when along came a train. Trains were a high priority target, ranking right behind a plane destroyed in the air. A locomotive was not easy to kill, being made out of heavy boilerplate, machined steel and cast iron. The Chinese P-40s with only 30-caliber machine guns couldn't inflict serious damage on a locomotive. Our fighters had 50-caliber guns and could do better, but still had trouble confirming a locomotive as destroyed. But we had 20-mm cannons with armor-piercing rounds. All in a moment, the Yellow River Bridge was forgotten and we were nosed down in a long, low-level strafing run.

Ab opened fire while we were still at maximum range and held the triggers down continuously until the last split second, zooming abruptly up and away from the target. When I looked back, the locomotive was still moving, but it had broken completely in two. The middle of the engine was down on the tracks, making many sparks. The cowcatcher was pitched up in the air and the engineers' cab was pitched down. There was a mountain of steam that obscured things when the engine bumped to a stop. (Lt. James R. Smith. )

[warchild]

Cool, saw the drawings on this one with a canopy no doubt!

Even an RC model!!!

http://www.carlb-rcplanes.com/Pics/P1020191.JPG

Gods thats a beautiful model TuFun.. Thanks for Posting it.. :)

[roger-wilco-66]

Wow, that definitely makes the point, Pam :-)

Great to see the Reporter is coming into being! And it's in good hands!


[edit]

Wow. That's a huge rc model. Reminds me of an OV-10 Bronco I once had.


Cheers,
Mark

[Bjoern]

Wiki mentions civilian usage of the aircraft, but does not specify any exact roles. Photomapping? Executive transport? Firefighting?




It's definately the P-61 through and through. While waiting for N2056 and Delta558 to finish their primary projects and jump on the SOH P-61, I've been working alongside DC1973 to model and FDE thats perfectly fit for it.. Now admittedly, I started with the FDE from the SOH P-61B, but it was only a starting point.. This plane is seven thousand pounds lighter. and has two big old pratt and whitney turbo supercharged engines producing 2800 HP each, on either side of its crew nacelle. Flat out, with full Military power, the plane will do 440 mph.
So, theres a lot of work to be done on my side as well, but so far, its been a beautiful journey..

The Wiki page on the F-15 copied the specifications from the P-61B and only changed the top speed. So if you want to do a bit of community service, prevent any poor SOBs from falling for false numbers. :biggrin-new:

700+ kph for a piston is right down my alley.

[TuFun]

In its firefighting role...

http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/HI/HI-7/87-1.jpg

[TuFun]

Gods thats a beautiful model TuFun.. Thanks for Posting it.. :)

Flight video...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwyXJb--sno



Checkout his other huge models.

http://www.carlb-rcplanes.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe7cPLJxagY (http://www.carlb-rcplanes.com/)

[tankerguy72]

In its firefighting role...

http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/HI/HI-7/87-1.jpg

Now we're talking!!

[warchild]

Wiki mentions civilian usage of the aircraft, but does not specify any exact roles. Photomapping? Executive transport? Firefighting?





The Wiki page on the F-15 copied the specifications from the P-61B and only changed the top speed. So if you want to do a bit of community service, prevent any poor SOBs from falling for false numbers. :biggrin-new:

700+ kph for a piston is right down my alley.

The F-15 firebomber above, belonged to ( I Think ) brazil ( but may have been a mexican company ) for a while, and I believe they used it for aerial survey.. NOAA also used them in conjunction with P-61Bs and C's as tornado chasers during operation thunderstorm.. Beyond those examples, I have no knowledge of civilian use.

[TuFun]

Did some digging...


In April, 1955, the F-15 was declared surplus along with a "spare parts" F-61C (s/n 43-8357). The F-15 was sold, along with the parts P-61, to Steward-Davis Incorporated of Gardena, California, and given the civilian registration N5093V. Unable to sell it, the P-61C was scrapped in 1957. Steward-Davis made several modifications to the Reporter to make it suitable for aerial survey work, including switching to a canopy taken from a T-33, and to propellers taken from an older P-61. The plan was sold in September, 1956 to Compania Mexicana Aerofoto S. A. of Mexico City and assigned the Mexican registration XB-FUJ. In Mexico the Reporter was used for aerial survey work, the very role for which it was originally designed. It was bought by Aero Enterprises Inc. of Willets, California and returned to the USA in January 1964 carrying the civilian registration number N9768Z. The fuselage tank and turbosupercharger intercoolers were removed; and the plane was fitted with a 1,600-gallon chemical tank for fire-fighting. It was purchased by Cal-Nat of Fresno, California at the end of 1964, which operated it as a firefighting aircraft for the next 3 1/2 years. In March 1968 the F-15 was purchased by TBM, Inc., an aerial firefighting company located in Tulare, California (the name of the company standing for the TBM Avenger, the company's primary equipment), who performed additional modifications on the aircraft to improve its performance, including experimenting with several types of propellers before deciding on Curtiss Electric type 34 propellers taken from a late model Lockheed Constellation.



On 6 September, 1968, Ralph Ponte, one of three civilian pilots to hold a rating for the F-15, was flying a series of routine Phoscheck drops on a fire raging near Hollister, California. In an effort to reduce his return time Ponte opted to reload at a small airfield nearer the fire. The runway was shorter than the one in Fresno, and despite reducing his load, hot air from the nearby fire reduced the surrounding air pressure and rendered the aircraft overweight. Even at full power the Reporter had not rotated after clearing the 3500 foot marker, and Ponte quickly decided to abort his takeoff. Every effort was made to control the hurtling craft, but the Reporter careened off the runway and through a vegetable patch, before striking an embankment which tore off the landing gear. The aircraft then slid sideways, broke up and caught fire. Ponte scrambled through the shattered canopy unhurt, while a firefighting TBM Avenger dropped its load of Phoscheck on the plane's two engines, possibly saving Ponte's life. The F-15, though intact, was deemed too badly damaged to rebuild, and was soon scrapped, bringing an end to the career of one of Northrop's most successful designs.

I was wondering why the canopy looked different due to a T-33 canopy. Sad to see the other bird scrapped.


Source: http://napoleon130.tripod.com/p61blackwidow/id51.html

[warchild]

Wiki mentions civilian usage of the aircraft, but does not specify any exact roles. Photomapping? Executive transport? Firefighting?





The Wiki page on the F-15 copied the specifications from the P-61B and only changed the top speed. So if you want to do a bit of community service, prevent any poor SOBs from falling for false numbers. :biggrin-new:

700+ kph for a piston is right down my alley.

I Wouldnt say they copied the P-61B specs. That would be partially incorrect, BUT, the RF-61 had a most unique and unconventional design history..
You see, Johnny Myers ( The P-61 chief test pilot ) Made a pitch to the airforce ( directly ) for a fast long range twin engine fighter with four machine guns in the nose. That design was for the P-61E. The P-61E was a P-61B with the hump on the back and the Radar position in the tail removed, and was the basic design you see in the pictures here in this thread. The army/airforce, then decided that wth the war ended, they didnt need a long range bomber escort, But did have a need for a photo reconnaissance vehicle. Northrop responded to this need with a P-61C which like the B before it, had the hump and turret removed its nose modified to hold I think eleven different types of cameras and its forward frame reinforced to handle the weight of the cameras. This became the original F-15 Reporter.
Confused yet?? I was..
So, remember that poor little P-61E Escort fighter ( ok, Not so little )?? The airforce did need a bomber escort, but chose to go with the F-82 Twin Mustang, for reasons no one to this day can fully fathom. the P-61E had its guns removed to be replaced by the standard F-15 array of cameras and reinforcements. It became the only truly streamlined version og the RF-61 to exist as the P&W 2800-65 engines didnt use the annular mounted supercharger inlet scoop like the F-15s that were made from P-61C's..

Regarding weight speed and power.
The P-61B/P-61E used the Pratt and Whitney R-2800-65 Engine producing 2250 HP and had a top speed of 360 MPH with military power and 410 mph with war emergency power.
The P-61C/F-15 reporter utilized the Pratt and Whitney R-2800-73 engine producing 2800 HP which provided a top speed of 440 MPH using Military power..

Weight is contested to this day. Dry weight is quoted as being either 21,000 pounds or 22,000 pounds. Max weight, depending on the source varies between 34000 pounds to 37000 pounds.. DC1973s FDE is based on the lower weights..

Anyway.. Now that ive confused everyone, its back to my drawings and calculators.. :)
Pam

[warchild]

Did some digging...


In April, 1955, the F-15 was declared surplus along with a "spare parts" F-61C (s/n 43-8357). The F-15 was sold, along with the parts P-61, to Steward-Davis Incorporated of Gardena, California, and given the civilian registration N5093V. Unable to sell it, the P-61C was scrapped in 1957. Steward-Davis made several modifications to the Reporter to make it suitable for aerial survey work, including switching to a canopy taken from a T-33, and to propellers taken from an older P-61. The plan was sold in September, 1956 to Compania Mexicana Aerofoto S. A. of Mexico City and assigned the Mexican registration XB-FUJ. In Mexico the Reporter was used for aerial survey work, the very role for which it was originally designed. It was bought by Aero Enterprises Inc. of Willets, California and returned to the USA in January 1964 carrying the civilian registration number N9768Z. The fuselage tank and turbosupercharger intercoolers were removed; and the plane was fitted with a 1,600-gallon chemical tank for fire-fighting. It was purchased by Cal-Nat of Fresno, California at the end of 1964, which operated it as a firefighting aircraft for the next 3 1/2 years. In March 1968 the F-15 was purchased by TBM, Inc., an aerial firefighting company located in Tulare, California (the name of the company standing for the TBM Avenger, the company's primary equipment), who performed additional modifications on the aircraft to improve its performance, including experimenting with several types of propellers before deciding on Curtiss Electric type 34 propellers taken from a late model Lockheed Constellation.



On 6 September, 1968, Ralph Ponte, one of three civilian pilots to hold a rating for the F-15, was flying a series of routine Phoscheck drops on a fire raging near Hollister, California. In an effort to reduce his return time Ponte opted to reload at a small airfield nearer the fire. The runway was shorter than the one in Fresno, and despite reducing his load, hot air from the nearby fire reduced the surrounding air pressure and rendered the aircraft overweight. Even at full power the Reporter had not rotated after clearing the 3500 foot marker, and Ponte quickly decided to abort his takeoff. Every effort was made to control the hurtling craft, but the Reporter careened off the runway and through a vegetable patch, before striking an embankment which tore off the landing gear. The aircraft then slid sideways, broke up and caught fire. Ponte scrambled through the shattered canopy unhurt, while a firefighting TBM Avenger dropped its load of Phoscheck on the plane's two engines, possibly saving Ponte's life. The F-15, though intact, was deemed too badly damaged to rebuild, and was soon scrapped, bringing an end to the career of one of Northrop's most successful designs.

I was wondering why the canopy looked different due to a T-33 canopy. Sad to see the other bird scrapped.


Source: http://napoleon130.tripod.com/p61blackwidow/id51.html




Thanks for that TuFun.. I had a feeling i was remembering things sideways. Appreciate the correction.. :)
Pam

[Bjoern]

Thanks for the insightful posts, Ted and Pam!

[jankees]

Oh, so cool, a F-15!
Here's one I'm looking forward to:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=55517&stc=1

[warchild]

Oh, so cool, a F-15!
Here's one I'm looking forward to:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=55517&stc=1


I've been looking at that one too.. It's one of the few real examples of nose art in existence and definitely worthy of inclusion. It makes me sad that the airforce unceremoniously scraps so many planes without thought or conscience, but even more so with the P-61s and F-15s. I'll make the flight model as exacting as possible so that everyone else can enjoy as close to an actual flight as possible. Its the least i can do in memory of the crews that flew these planes, and the company that made it..

[DC1973]

Just a quick update here, with the early stages of the cockpit in place. All place-holder textures at the moment but all looking nice, especially with those reflective canopy textures in P3D v4. Lots of cleaning up to do but working my way steadily from the front of the airplane to the back, sorting issues as I go.

In answer to one of the questions above, the airplane will come in multiple liveries including bare-metal finishes - the more the merrier! :adoration:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=55600&stc=1

[DC1973]

A quick screenie - just finished updating the Reporter's Pratt & Whitney R2800 twin radial engine, which will now be the turbo-supercharged version. Some better textures will be applied in the finished airplane, which will have removable engine covers and animated cowl flaps to allow the detail to be seen. Just some wires and cabling to add and she's done :)

[Sundog]

That looks great. It will look even better in as a pair. :)

[DC1973]

I've been busy this week conquering a few animation issues in FSDS 3.5.1, namely those governing undercarriage compression. It took me four days to master the process and eliminate axis errors, and about ten minutes to actually apply what I'd learned and get everything working the way it should. I needed to get the work done so that testing could begin on the FDE, due to the need for contact points to be applied.

Having got that little lot out of the way, I've spent several days applying the texture maps ready for the Reporter's first proper paint job. Bare metal will be used, and I've been looking closely at the default airplanes in FSX / P3D to understand how best to go about it. I also finished off the final touches on the engine, although I still need to close a few polygons up and tweak a few finer points.

Progress is going well though, and I hope to have some screenies soon of that bare metal in place :)

Texture mapping

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=55997&stc=1

Engine pretty much finished

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=55998&stc=1

[DC1973]

Well, not too shabby for a first attempt :)

No bump maps or anything yet, just a basic crack at a bare metal finish. Certainly looks more like a proper airplane now.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56014&stc=1

[roger-wilco-66]

Way to go, Dean! That looks great!


Cheers,
Mark

[DC1973]

Does anyone know what causes this? The fuselage has a dividing line running from the nose to the tail that's just visible, as if light reflection is different for the two sides. I tested the model itself by applying the left side texture to the right hand side and reversing the X-axis and the line vanishes, so surface normals on the model are not to blame.

I'll be slitting the fuselage texture maps anyway, but I'm not sure this bug will go away - any ideas folks?

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56201&stc=1

[Daveroo]

dont have an answer for that,but im really looking forward to this plane,im wondering since that one company made the tacpac thing work in FSX/P3D.would someone be able to make a recce plane have cameras that would work?..meaning,you fly it as a recce plane,hit the cameras,and get screenshots of what below?..or in the side view,,cant remember the technical word
.

[Tako_Kichi]

I think you are building in FSDS which I have never used but in the GMAX/3DS MAX world that normally happens when you've mirrored a fuselage half to make the opposite side and then not welded the vertices along the joint line.

Try selecting all the vertices along the joint line and then weld them with a radius of something like .010" (or however it's done in FSDS). That usually fixes the issue for me.

[harrybasset]

dont have an answer for that,but im really looking forward to this plane,im wondering since that one company made the tacpac thing work in FSX/P3D.would someone be able to make a recce plane have cameras that would work?..meaning,you fly it as a recce plane,hit the cameras,and get screenshots of what below?..or in the side view,,cant remember the technical word
.

I seem to recall the original Aeroplane Heaven Grumman Panther included a photo recce version. It had a camera viewfinder function showing what the vertical camera was seeing. I don't think it showed what the oblique cameras picked up though. I may be wrong as it was a few years ago that I had the original freeware Panther.

[DC1973]

I think you are building in FSDS which I have never used but in the GMAX/3DS MAX world that normally happens when you've mirrored a fuselage half to make the opposite side and then not welded the vertices along the joint line.

Try selecting all the vertices along the joint line and then weld them with a radius of something like .010" (or however it's done in FSDS). That usually fixes the issue for me.

The fuselage was created from a single cylinder, but I'll check the vertices anyway in case there's something there that I've missed. The booms also suffer from a similar, fainter line. I'll be texturing the tops and bottoms by splitting them into separate parts, so hopefully that might fix the issue.

@Daveroo I don't have any plans at the moment for active cameras, but the airplane will have functioning cowl flaps and removable engine covers to reveal the engines. Maybe something I could add later though as I know how to fit TacPack to aircraft using the SDK :)

[Mach3DS]

Yes, this happens using MCX as well. The vertices are no longer welded. Dave Garwood helped me fix this on the T-33X project. oops TK beat me to it!

[Lonewolfee1]

Looks really nice! Looking forward to it.

[PRB]

Just great stuff DC1973! Looking forward to the final product!

Martin Caidin wrote many books about WWII aircraft and histories of various WW-II planes in the 1970s. In one, don't remember which, he spent some words on the P-61, and quoted some USAF document that said the P-61, not the P-51, and not the F6F, was the "most maneuverable [US] fighter of WW-II". This due to the innovative spoilers and full span flaps, he said. And the two big giant engines. He was, apparently, a little over-exuberant in his praise of the P-61's performance, as he also was of the P-38, it turns out, but I devoured those books when I was a wee lad, and he had a role in my being a "fan", to this day, of those two planes in particular. That and the fact that they look cool. As to the aesthetic appeal of the P-61B/C vs. the bubble top P-61E/F-15, I always thought the plane lost most of it's great looks when they sawed off the top and put a bubble canopy on it. That stepped green-house canopy was cool!

Can't wait to try this one out in the sim!

[DC1973]

Thanks PRB!

I think both airplanes look fantastic in their own way too, and to be building an airframe that has not yet appeared in FSX / P3D is an unusual but very welcome place to be. There can't be many types out there that nobody has ever released for flight sim after all these years.

The vertices on the fuselage are apparently fine ( it was a one-piece cylinder to start with anyway ). However, I noticed that FSDS sees the fuselage as two pieces, and no matter how many times I use the "Join Selected" function, the fuselage remains in two pieces. I've checked to make sure that no polygons are selected or hidden, but clearly something's not joining up correctly. I'll keep digging...

[DC1973]

It was down to my own inexperience folks. I split the fuselage into four sections to test some multiple texture layers, and it proved very informative. The fuselage I had originally was fine but I had assumed that when mapping left and right, you had to use the whole section of map and could not combine that with selective sections of top and bottom mapping. D'oh!

The airplane's glossy, reflective texture set up compounded the problem also, and made it more obvious that the flaws where there when a matt finish and camouflage or similar might have hidden the "join" better. Finally, a large aluminium sheet overlaying the whole each external texture sheet emphasised the problem as the joins were not perfectly aligned. More time required on this for me, but all part of the learning process I suppose. Thanks to all who offered suggestions, onward and upward :)

Top texture applied as a test and the fuselage join line magically disappears. Model shown with engine bay exposed - the engine inside is a low-poly version of my Wasp radial.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56252&stc=1

[DC1973]

More progress now on texturing, after coming to a better understanding of texture maps. Bare metal always looks great and I've a long way to go compared to some of the other recent work-of-art posts here, but things are coming along nicely. Two shots, both in P3D v4, of the Reporter's left wing with bumps and basic bare metal texture - first without dynamic lighting, the other with. Is it me, or does P3D sometimes look better without the dynamic lighting?

[Sundog]

I'm not in P3D yet, but it's coming along nicely.

[Mach3DS]

This is looking beautiful!

[DC1973]

I'm not in P3D yet, but it's coming along nicely.

I'll be releasing an FSX-specific version too.

[DC1973]

This is looking beautiful!

Thanks Rick! If I get anywhere near the quality of your work, I'll be more than happy :applause:

[DC1973]

A minor update for the Reporter: further testing bare metal textures using bumps and rivets. It seems that the best combination is painted panel lines with rivets represented by the bump map. Getting some nice metallic looking effects now as I go forward. Lots of cleaning up going on in terms of stray polygons and smoothing groups, but in using the smoothing groups I have lost smoothing around certain areas like the fuel tanks and engine cowlings - not sure how that's happened but investigating as I go :)

Bump map lines on the left boom are much too deep and wide, an early lesson learned!

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56376&stc=1

[N2056]

Wow Dean, that's really looking good! On the panel lines I use both maps, and I tend to favor being really subtle. The texture size and how parts are mapped also comes into play.

[DC1973]

Wow Dean, that's really looking good! On the panel lines I use both maps, and I tend to favor being really subtle. The texture size and how parts are mapped also comes into play.

Thanks Robert, I'm really enjoying tinkering with these options in texturing as they're really bringing the model to life. I've gone a lot further today as I've had a rare bit of spare time, and really getting some good metal effects now while using alphas as well as the textures themselves. I'm looking forward to perfecting the wing and then texturing the rest of the fuselage in the same way :)

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56386&stc=1

[DC1973]

Much progress over the past two days on the Reporter's textures, thoroughly enjoying it and the almost limitless possibilities available using alphas and specular maps. Probably posting too many images of this development but what the hell... :very_drunk:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56411&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56412&stc=1

[heywooood]

looks kinda like Howard's XF-11...

[strykerpsg]

Much progress over the past two days on the Reporter's textures, thoroughly enjoying it and the almost limitless possibilities available using alphas and specular maps. Probably posting too many images of this development but what the hell... :very_drunk:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56411&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56412&stc=1

Such a beautiful work of art! I cannot wait to try her in P3D!

[DC1973]

Almost there now with the external model. I'm about to start doing the texture maps for the undercarriage ( the current ones are just simple stand-ins ) along with the associated bump maps. I'll get everything in place and finish off some final modelling tasks on the spoilers, which are not accurate on my model yet, as well as adding various fins and antenna detail. Then it's onto the full-detail texturing / bumps and adding a couple of other colour schemes. Work on the VC will start in the New Year if all goes to plan :)

Merry Christmas Holidays everyone!

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56492&stc=1

[Josh Patterson]

I've never noticed to cowlings until now. I thought they were just standard P-61 units, but they're not. It looks like Northrop took some from a B-26 and flipped them over! (I also never noticed the big scoop underneath either. I guess I was just focused on how different the crew pod was!) I wish I could get a hold of Lone Star Model's conversion kit for a Monogram P-61!

[DC1973]

Got a bit more done over the Christmas period, mostly cleaning up smoothing groups, although some still refuse to disappear around the wing control surfaces. I also installed both of the finished Pratt & Whitney Wasp double radials and finalised the alpha for the metallic finish. The removed cowling doesn't expose as much of the engine as I'd like, so I'm thinking about conditionally animating the propeller spinner to be removed when Door 2 is used to remove the cowling - I think limited conditional visibility is possible in P3D v4 but not sure at the moment?

Anyway, coming along nicely and the list of to-do jobs on the exterior is getting steadily smaller... :jump:

[Sundog]

I've never noticed to cowlings until now. I thought they were just standard P-61 units, but they're not. It looks like Northrop took some from a B-26 and flipped them over! (I also never noticed the big scoop underneath either. I guess I was just focused on how different the crew pod was!) I wish I could get a hold of Lone Star Model's conversion kit for a Monogram P-61!

That's because the Reporter was based off of the P-61C, not the A or B model.

[Lonewolfee1]

Really looking nice!!!

[warchild]

That's because the Reporter was based off of the P-61C, not the A or B model.

The prototype P-61E was built from a P-61A (i believe it is) which used the original 2000 HP engines and had the smooth cowling. The P-61B's also had the smooth cowling, but the engines were 2500 HP and as the plane was originally designed as a fighter, i get confused as to why they would use 2000 HP engines instead of the 2500 HP engines. However, the Army's discontinuation of the fighter program is what lead to the development of the RF-61 ( F-15 ) and it became a moot point as they simply switched to using surplus P-61C fuselages and engines to develop those..

http://www.maam.org/p61/images/north-p61e.jpg

https://img.rcgroups.com/http://www.aerofiles.com/north-xf15a.jpg?h=QUg6POvB_KP00gQjgHW31w

[stansdds]

Based on the information I have, the P-61A and B were very similar and both used the same B-series Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines producing 2000 horsepower. The P-61B featured a new radar system, necessitating an 8 inch longer nose, various internal systems improvements, a change in the design of the nose wheel door and the addition of a nose wheel mounted taxi light. Aside from the taxi light, nose wheel door, and longer nose, the P-61A and B looked identical.

The P61C development was authorized near the end of 1943 and was to improve the speed and altitude performance. The P-61C was designed to use the newer C-series R-2800-77 turbo supercharged engines that produced 2800 HP. However, the USAAF had ordered so many of these high horsepower C-series engines that production could not meet demands and this delayed the development of the P-61C. The first production P-61C would not come the assembly line until July of 1945. The engine cowling of the P-61C featured carburetor air intakes on both sides, beginning at the very front of the cowl ring, and a large intake at the bottom of the engine nacelle for the turbo supercharger.

The P-61E project was started in the middle of 1944 and was also to develop the P-61 as a long range day fighter/escort aircraft for the Pacific theater. The removal of the 20mm cannons from the belly, the dorsal turret system, and replacement of the radar equipment with four 50 caliber machine guns greatly reduced the weight of the P-61 and improved its speed, but it was still slower than the newly developed P-82 Twin Mustang. Remember the C-series engine shortage? That is why the P-61E used the same 2000 horsepower R-2800-65 B-series engines as the earlier P-61A/B.

The first XF-15 was built from the XP-61E, so it retained the R-2800-65 engines, but the second XF-15 was built from a P-61C. All 36 of the production F-15A's used the 2800 horsepower R-2800-77 like the P-61C.

I hope that clears up some of the engine confusion.

[DC1973]

Thanks for the details Pam and stansdds! The Reporter did indeed use the P-61C engines in service. Much work done over the holiday period, just a couple of quick snaps of the Reporter after several updates. More to come over the next couple of weeks as I close in on completing the external model and starting on the Virtual Cockpit. Lots of small details filled in such as intake vent grill textures, wheel cover straps, cleaning up polys etc. No bumps on at the moment as I want to make them more subtle before adjusting the final reflection and other material settings. Onward and upward :)

[warchild]

Based on the information I have, the P-61A and B were very similar and both used the same B-series Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines producing 2000 horsepower. The P-61B featured a new radar system, necessitating an 8 inch longer nose, various internal systems improvements, a change in the design of the nose wheel door and the addition of a nose wheel mounted taxi light. Aside from the taxi light, nose wheel door, and longer nose, the P-61A and B looked identical.

The P61C development was authorized near the end of 1943 and was to improve the speed and altitude performance. The P-61C was designed to use the newer C-series R-2800-77 turbo supercharged engines that produced 2800 HP. However, the USAAF had ordered so many of these high horsepower C-series engines that production could not meet demands and this delayed the development of the P-61C. The first production P-61C would not come the assembly line until July of 1945. The engine cowling of the P-61C featured carburetor air intakes on both sides, beginning at the very front of the cowl ring, and a large intake at the bottom of the engine nacelle for the turbo supercharger.

The P-61E project was started in the middle of 1944 and was also to develop the P-61 as a long range day fighter/escort aircraft for the Pacific theater. The removal of the 20mm cannons from the belly, the dorsal turret system, and replacement of the radar equipment with four 50 caliber machine guns greatly reduced the weight of the P-61 and improved its speed, but it was still slower than the newly developed P-82 Twin Mustang. Remember the C-series engine shortage? That is why the P-61E used the same 2000 horsepower R-2800-65 B-series engines as the earlier P-61A/B.

The first XF-15 was built from the XP-61E, so it retained the R-2800-65 engines, but the second XF-15 was built from a P-61C. All 36 of the production F-15A's used the 2800 horsepower R-2800-77 like the P-61C.

I hope that clears up some of the engine confusion.


No, I'm sorry, but that information is in part incorrect.. Forgive me but my books are all out in the conex at this time, so please bear with me as i past the data from the widows web..
http://www.maam.org/p61/p61spec.html


SPECIFICATIONS
for B-model, unless otherwise noted

PRIMARY FUNCTION:
Night Fighter


CONTRACTOR:
Northrop Aircraft Inc. of Hawthorne, California


UNIT COST:
$170,000


CREW:
Pilot, Radar Operator, and Gunner


FIRST FLIGHT:
May 21, 1942 (XP-61)


SERVICE DELIVERY:
May 1944 (P-61A)


FIRST OP MISSION:
July 3, 1944 (Europe)


FIRST KILL:
July 6, 1944 (Pacific)


TOTAL PRODUCED:
706 (all variants)


ENGINES:
Two Pratt & Whitney R-2800-65 Double Wasp 18-Cylinder engines rated at 2,250 hp


WING SPAN:
66 Feet


LENGTH:
49 Feet, 7 Inches


HEIGHT:
14 Feet, 8 Inches


MAX. SPEED:
369 MPH


HEIGHT:
14 Feet, 8 Inches


EMPTY WEIGHT:
20,965 lb


MAX. T.O. WEIGHT
34,200 lb


SERVICE CEILING:
33,100 Feet


MAX. RANGE:
1,350 Miles, (1,900 miles ferry)


RATE OF CLIMB:
2,090 Feet Per Minute


ARMAMENT:
Four 20 mm Hispano M2 cannons, four Browning M2 .50 caliber heavy machine guns,
6,400 lb of bombs or rockets

[stansdds]

The R-2800-65 was capable of a maximum power output of 2,250 HP, but that was with the water/methanol injection system. The maximum power without the water/methanol injection was 2000 horsepower.

The R-2800-77 was capable of a maximum power output of 2,800 HP with water/methanol injection, but limited to 2400 HP without water injection.

Guess I should have been more precise with the output ratings in my first post. My engine data is from FAA documents.

[warchild]

The R-2800-65 was capable of a maximum power output of 2,250 HP, but that was with the water/methanol injection system. The maximum power without the water/methanol injection was 2000 horsepower.

The R-2800-77 was capable of a maximum power output of 2,800 HP with water/methanol injection, but limited to 2400 HP without water injection.

Guess I should have been more precise with the output ratings in my first post. My engine data is from FAA documents.

Pffft.. No.. Your fine.. You guys know me. I'm your friendly neighborhood PITA perfectionist. But your correct as well, although the original R-2800 edouble wasp had a maximum output of 2000 HP.. I forget the name of the gentleman who created the R-2800, but he knew he could get more power out of it, and started working on several follow up versions, including the R-2800-65W. Welll, At the time, P&W encouraged competition among the development teams and the guys across the hall saw what was being done with the R-2800 and well, they got a lil jealous. Ergo, the race was on. Those guys were working on the R-4360 series Or corn cob as we have come to know it.. Every time the R-4360 guys would eek out a bit more power from the corn cob, the R-2800 guys would up the ante by improving the output of the 2800.. It got to the point that once the R-4360 team developed reached their maximum possible output level, the R-2800 guys did them one better and created an engine with over 2850 HP. Of course, they were using so much manifold pressure to accomplish that that it even frightened the engineers. But they won the bet, and we got the most powerful light radial engine ever created.
Some other information to tickle the brain. Before the release of the double wasp, P&W partnered with some companies to form the United Aircraft Corporation. Those companies were: Boeing, Vought, Hamilton Standard, and Standard Steel Propeller; which was connected with Northrop.. It doesnt take much imagination to connect the dots :D

[DC1973]

And lo, there were rivets everywhere!! :biggrin-new:

Probably a little on the large side, but manipulating the bump alphas is toning down the reflective textures nicely. Haven't tinkered much with the specular or fresnel yet but I suspect that each will bring something more to the appearance. The real RF-61C was often a bit rough looking in most pictures I've been able to find, not highly polished, so will probably tone certain panels down further as I work my way through, great fun though!

[DC1973]

I've been hard at work on the RF-61C and am now nearing completion of the external model. The wings are bearing the final metallic finish, just enough shine but not too over the top, and the textures will now be weathered and refined before being duplicated for the rest of the airplane. A custom FDE and wonderful sound package are in place courtesy of geniuses far more capable than me. A few more weeks' work and I'll be moving onto the Virtual Cockpit as the final task.

[Sundog]

Thanks for the update and the preview. It's looking great so far.

[DC1973]

Flight testing for the RF-61C is now underway!!

Much modelling work done over the past week or so. Spoilers added, textures refined, more animations and other enhancements including the use of fresnel on canopy and metal. This shot was taken in the downwind, cowl flaps deployed, one quarter flap and gear down at 130 KIAS. Really starting to look like a proper aeroplane now. I have about a weeks' worth of tidying up before I can start finalising textures / bump and specular maps. Then I can call the exterior complete and move on to the virtual cockpit. On schedule so far! :)

[Josh Patterson]

Flight testing for the RF-61C is now underway!!

Much modelling work done over the past week or so. Spoilers added, textures refined, more animations and other enhancements including the use of fresnel on canopy and metal. This shot was taken in the downwind, cowl flaps deployed, one quarter flap and gear down at 130 KIAS. Really starting to look like a proper aeroplane now. I have about a weeks' worth of tidying up before I can start finalising textures / bump and specular maps. Then I can call the exterior complete and move on to the virtual cockpit. On schedule so far! :)

Awesome! I really like the "We Three" markings at the beginning of this thread. Did they serve both painted an naked? The look of the photo on downwind looks like a proper warbird. Pristine and pampered! I do wish MAAM would fly their P-61 at least once before they paint it just to show off all the work that went on under the paint. Looking forward to this.:applause:

[DC1973]

They served in several schemes, I'll be creating two or three ( We Three, Over Exposed and one other - yet to be decided which one ) but will leave further schemes to the community. The model will come with a layered paint kit included and a true bare metal aircraft for that purpose.

[warchild]

Josh?? Did MAAM complete their P-61?? There is precedent for a bare metal P-61.. General Barnes used it as a personal plane..

[jmfabio]

Josh?? Did MAAM complete their P-61?? There is precedent for a bare metal P-61.. General Barnes used it as a personal plane..

Warchild, after reading this thread and seeing your question I checked the MAAM website and as of 12/20/17 they foresee several years work remaining. They have sent out one engine to be overhauled and said that when funds become available they will send out the other.

But work still progresses.

I will see this bird come June at their WWII Weekend, as our group re-enacts at the event.

I can't wait to see it fly.

Joe

[roger-wilco-66]

If they can get it done for Oshkosh 2019, I'll be there!!

:-)


Cheers,
Mark

[Josh Patterson]

If they can get it done for Oshkosh 2019, I'll be there!!

:-)


Cheers,
Mark

Doubt if it will be that soon. They still have quite a way to go. Both outer wing panels need to be finished. Spoilers, ailerons and flaps need to be done. After that it's the many little things that need to be tidied up at the end which seems to take the longest! Steady progress, but slow. (Mostly funding, but they're also not rushing.) It will fly when it's ready and I'm okay with that! Also looking forward to the P AND XP-82s that are nearing completion! Another one I'm really waiting on is the Lightning T.5 in Mississippi. The FAA paperwork was done for the trip last November and I though it was going up but once again the little things (and one major one) got in the way. A fuel leak necessitating the removal of the #1 engine (which added the updated fuel line connection at the same time) and replacement of the air turbine gearbox with a freshly refurbished unit while the engine was out. Also a microswitch in the left airbrake needed replacing and a faulty flap indicator sourced and replaced.

Any trip you make to Oshkosh get in touch. It would be fun to meet another SOH member in person! (There IS a Meteor coming this year along with Berlin Airlift's C-97 both of which I've never seen in the air and in the case of the Meteor have never seen one in person at all.)

[warchild]

Warchild, after reading this thread and seeing your question I checked the MAAM website and as of 12/20/17 they foresee several years work remaining. They have sent out one engine to be overhauled and said that when funds become available they will send out the other.

But work still progresses.

I will see this bird come June at their WWII Weekend, as our group re-enacts at the event.

I can't wait to see it fly.

Joe

Thanks JMFabio.. too be honest, i was afraid of that. They've been facing a challenge getting finances for it for a long time.

[Josh Patterson]

Thanks JMFabio.. too be honest, i was afraid of that. They've been facing a challenge getting finances for it for a long time.

One has to remember the condition of the plane when they started also. They had a very long road to get from that to where they are now. (And I think it's 100% volunteer driven so kudos for all who gave up their time and helped with it!) It will be nice to see it in the air when it does happen though!

[roger-wilco-66]

[...]

Any trip you make to Oshkosh get in touch. It would be fun to meet another SOH member in person! (There IS a Meteor coming this year along with Berlin Airlift's C-97 both of which I've never seen in the air and in the case of the Meteor have never seen one in person at all.)

I've been there in 2016, meeting Tom Stovall again and Rami, which was great. I'll never forget these mornings in the Warbird Alley.
And I managed to get a ride in the B-17 Aluminum Overcast. I'd love to attend every year, but that would be quite expensive, coming where I'm from. I probably live in the wrong country regarding all my interests.


Cheers,
Mark

[warchild]

One has to remember the condition of the plane when they started also. They had a very long road to get from that to where they are now. (And I think it's 100% volunteer driven so kudos for all who gave up their time and helped with it!) It will be nice to see it in the air when it does happen though!

I know.. I've been following them fervently since they started the project.. Just always had hopes i'd be able to see it at least once..

[DC1973]

External model pretty much complete now, crew added and final tidying up done around fuel tanks and undercarriage. Will start on textures now, as well as bump detail, weathering and specular while having a break from the modelling side of things. Just the VC and visibility XML to go after that :)


http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57560&stc=1

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57561&stc=1

[Bjoern]

I'm discussing the subject of flight crew apparel with Dean on FSDev and need a bit of input from the warbird nerds.
In short: I think an officer's cap is a bit out of place in a flighter-like aircraft, especially if the type is used post-war. An early helmet for the aircraft commander would be more useful.
Were there any guidelines regarding flight crew clothing post-war?

[warchild]

I'm discussing the subject of flight crew apparel with Dean on FSDev and need a bit of input from the warbird nerds.
In short: I think an officer's cap is a bit out of place in a flighter-like aircraft, especially if the type is used post-war. An early helmet for the aircraft commander would be more useful.
Were there any guidelines regarding flight crew clothing post-war?

Excellent point Bjoern.. It illustrates magnificently, the exact gestalt of this aircraft. It was a plane out of time. Designed to fight the part of WWII that never happened by Johnny Meyers, The RF-61 was modified from the four cannon nose to the version we are so familiar with now for post war aerial mapping and reconnaissance. BUT! The Lockheeed shooting star was right there along side of it. It didnt matter if the RF-61 was one of the best aircraft designed for WWII. WWII was over and the age of the propeller driven fighters was all but over.. It was born and old man in a young world. I'm not sure if at first jet pilots wore helmets. Those may not have been introduced till 1949 or 1950 or so. This plane was made for the air force, but pretty much spent its entire life ( after mapping Korea ) in service to NACA and NOAA. It didnt fit anywhere else. It was too expensive to maintain as a fighter, and too expensive for anything that wasnt top priority ( chasing tornado's wasnt seen as anything productive and misunderstood even by the people at NOAA ). Along side its big brother; the P-61, the RF-61 was relegated to the NACA and NASA for testing new technologies..
Zoom in. The crews wore baseball hats..
https://img.rcgroups.com/http://www.aerofiles.com/north-xf15a.jpg?h=QUg6POvB_KP00gQjgHW31w

We decided to give the pilot the iconic 50 mission crush hat. This was not based on anything historical, but rather an insight gleened from the above given reality of the era in which these planes operated. There were a lot of ex WWII bomber pilots now in the civilian sector. Some started their own businesses ( i.e. Tales of the gold monkey style ), and many went back to woprk, for the airforce, nasa, and other agencies. The 50 mission hat was ubiquitous, along with the iconic type 4 flight jacket. These 'civilian" pilots werent issued airforce gear. They werent combatants. They didnt need a helmet. They were just joe's trying to make a living while still holding on to what self respect and dignity they had.. The were yesterday's news, and tomorrows myth. Yeah, you can be pretty sure that some of these pilots wopre the 50 mission crush hat. Its what they were comfortable with, and no one ws going to question them for it out of respect for what they had done just a couple years before.. But for the most part, the wore baseball caps..
https://amhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/img/media/782_l.jpg

[warchild]

Just found this.. Early plexiglass sucked SO bad for visibility.. Cant see anything inside those cockpits..

https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/us/usaaf/cjaf15a.jpg

[jankees]

Plastic models?

[warchild]

Ya Know?? Thats an excellent question.. If i zoom in i can see a lot of little dents and variances in the panel lines where they arent perfect, and that emblem on the tail i've seen maybe once before and have no clue what its from.. I'm wanting to say its real, but perhaps someone with better eyes than mine could look it over..

[stansdds]

Just found this.. Early plexiglass sucked SO bad for visibility.. Cant see anything inside those cockpits..

https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/us/usaaf/cjaf15a.jpg


Plastic models?

Confirmed that these are plastic models.

https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/us/usaaf/cjaf15.htm

[Sundog]

Apparently that modeler didn't know the future floor wax trick (Dip the canopies in future floor wax to make them look like shiny glass, but they may have changed the formulation recently, so we modelers may have to find another technique).

[Bjoern]

Thanks, Pam. I coincidentially found a picture of a F-15A crew by asking Google (probably the only one out there).

http://i44.tinypic.com/73o412.jpg

High altitude gear, I presume (look at the boots).


Anyway, if modeling the figures is not a problem, I am in favor of having a crew in standard service - or at least suitably protective for high altitude recce - attire and one in post-war private, research whatever clothing.

Switching between the two is the least of problems because of "title=" tag based visibility code. I'd happily supply that.


However, it's ultimately Deano's call.

[DC1973]

Thanks for the input everyone, it's hugely helpful. It does seem that we can do almost anything we want given the varied roles the F-15 found itself in post-war. My thinking is that an 8th PRS scheme aircraft would have the crew in full high-altitude gear, while everything else can be in the current set-up of officer's cap front seat, NCO garb in the rear. Although I like the casual nature of the baseball caps, this was a military aircraft primarily so I want to stick to military-attired crew.

I'm not sure if visibility tags would allow us to switch caps, but I could simply have another model in place with the correct crew for the 8th PRS, and another with current crew for all other types. It adds very little to the overall size of the project but adds a great deal of realism :)

Current state of the textures - working on all standard markings and panel variations / weathering.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57690&stc=1

[stansdds]

Thanks for the input everyone, it's hugely helpful. It does seem that we can do almost anything we want given the varied roles the F-15 found itself in post-war. My thinking is that an 8th PRS scheme aircraft would have the crew in full high-altitude gear, while everything else can be in the current set-up of officer's cap front seat, NCO garb in the rear. Although I like the casual nature of the baseball caps, this was a military aircraft primarily so I want to stick to military-attired crew.

I'm not sure if visibility tags would allow us to switch caps, but I could simply have another model in place with the correct crew for the 8th PRS, and another with current crew for all other types. It adds very little to the overall size of the project but adds a great deal of realism :)

Current state of the textures - working on all standard markings and panel variations / weathering.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57690&stc=1


Textures are looking really good!

[Bjoern]

I'm not sure if visibility tags would allow us to switch caps, but I could simply have another model in place with the correct crew for the 8th PRS, and another with current crew for all other types. It adds very little to the overall size of the project but adds a great deal of realism :)

As I've said, it's easy.


<PartInfo>
<Name>Crew_Military</Name>
<Visibility>
<Parameter>
<Code>
(A:TITLE, string) 'CIVILIAN' sstr 1 &lt;
if{ 1 } els{ 0 }
</Code>
</Parameter>
</Visibility>
</PartInfo>


<PartInfo>
<Name>Crew_Civilian</Name>
<Visibility>
<Parameter>
<Code>
(A:TITLE, string) 'CIVILIAN' sstr 0 &gt;
if{ 1 } els{ 0 }
</Code>
</Parameter>
</Visibility>
</PartInfo>


Do a military and civilian crew and keep them both inside the cockpit. Doesn't matter if it looks stupid in FSDS or MCX, it's the sim that counts.
The military crew gets the upper visibility tag, the civilian crew the lower.
Now if you have a military paint, you don't have to do anything since the military crew is standard. If you want Texy McTexface and Billy Bob, add "CIVILIAN" to the paint's "title=" line in the aircraft.cfg et voilà, your civvie crew will display.

If necessary, the visibility code can be amended with weight information, so that the crew will only display if the appropriate payload station has a weight assigned. It's also possible to add such a weight-based tag to every crewmember to make flights without backseaters possible.

[DC1973]

Thanks Bjoern! I do recall the visibility script but XML coding will be the final mountain to climb when the model's ready, so I haven't studied it much yet. I'll hopefully be making the left spinner invisible based on a click or exit command along with the engine cover also. It would be brilliant to have selectable crews depending on airplane type so I'll endeavour to use your generously supplied script to make that work. FSDS is a bit cranky in adding new XML tags so I think that's where my main issue will be - Roy has said that it requires new definitions to be added very carefully else FSDS simply won't read them.

Thanks again all for the assistance, the Reporter's looking better every day! :)

[Bjoern]

Isn't the "hide the cowling" script already working? Or didn't you try it out yet?

[DC1973]

Isn't the "hide the cowling" script already working? Or didn't you try it out yet?

I did apply the tag but FSDS requires me to put the definition in a particular place in the animations list for it to be recognised and attached to the model. I'll be doing this shortly once the exterior textures are finished and then moving on to the VC. I'll let you know if it all works, fingers crossed now I know the peculiarities of how FSDS likes things to be listed there shouldn't be any issues :)

[Bjoern]

I did apply the tag but FSDS requires me to put the definition in a particular place in the animations list for it to be recognised and attached to the model. I'll be doing this shortly once the exterior textures are finished and then moving on to the VC. I'll let you know if it all works, fingers crossed now I know the peculiarities of how FSDS likes things to be listed there shouldn't be any issues :)

Mind that I can only help with the code itself. FSDS is a book with seven seals and a minotaur guardian in a cretan labyrinth for me.

[DC1973]

Phew! Textures done for 8th Photo Recon Squadron, the famous "8-ball" markings. Also added all standard decals. The exterior is now complete, apart from some tiny tweaks and the addition of crew with oxygen masks for high altitude flights. I'll be starting on the VC next week all being well, after finishing one further texture set ( maybe two if I have time ).

Enjoy the piccies! :)

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57981&stc=1

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57982&stc=1

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57983&stc=1

[DC1973]

Extra civilian texture set, this one from Project Thunderstorm, one of the US Weather Bureau squadrons equipped with both P-61C Black Widows and Reporters.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58335&stc=1

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58336&stc=1

[RKinkor]

Looking awesome! Can't wait to get my hands on these!

[jankees]

mmm, those look beautiful!

[DC1973]

Thanks! :)

[warchild]

A long time ago, Dean first came on here and announced he was going to make a P-61. Robert hadnt started his rebuild of the P-61B yet and I was like, OK!,, Lets do this.. So I invited Dean to join us on our then brand spankin new discord server with Jade Island and the gang. I also invitd Tom and Mark and so we set about looking at how to go about this.. Then Robert announced he was rebuilding the P-61B and I leaped for joy and had a pow wow with the guys and we realized that a lot of people had asked for th F-15 reporter.. To me, this was too good to be true. Roberts P-61B and Deans F-15 reporter.. I cant begin to tell you how happy this makes me. Then, Dean says " I'm going to make it in FSDS, too which i said,,, oooK!. I'll be damned if over the months he hasnt calmed all my fears and hesitations. The RF-61 Reporter is turning out to be a damned fine aircraft, and I am proud to be able to share this little demonstration video with you all. I'm still relerning how to make videos too, so, bear with me.. Love you all..
Pam


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxd7UCjoP2s&amp;feature=youtu.be

[Lonewolfee1]

Man this looks beautiful!!! Cant' wait to fly it.

[DC1973]

Aww, thanks Pam, that's a great video! :) Thanks so much for all your work on the FDE, and to Mark and Robert for all the help while I've been building the model ( and learning as I go ).

FSDS is very long in the tooth but I'm finding that it ( and GMax also ) are just right for the level of detail aircraft that I want to build - detailed enough to be interesting, simple enough not to require 6 months of manual reading just to start an engine. Work is well underway on the VC, and I'm looking at launching in April. Also, I've been working on an extra add-on for it because it would be daft to have done all this and not have a P-61C Black Widow too, right folks? :)

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58761&stc=1 http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58762&stc=1 http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58763&stc=1

[roger-wilco-66]

Cheers Dean! That cockpit looks really promising (also that ominous center section)!
I can confirm that the Reporter is a blast to fly. Pam did a great job on the FDE!
It shows nicely in Pam's video above. Check out those pull ups!

Best,
Mark

[warchild]

That center section was a navigation table on top. Below, there was a rudimentary set of instruments, a column, and pedals as since the plane was designed to fly upwards of 1300 miles with wing tanks, The pilot and navigator would take turns sleeping while the other flew the plane.. :)

[jmfabio]

Also, I've been working on an extra add-on for it because it would be daft to have done all this and not have a P-61C Black Widow too, right folks?


:wiggle: That would be fantastic!! What would be even more fantastic? A P-61 AI model!

All is looking very good. Keep up the great work.

Joe

[warchild]

Know what would be even better?? Too form a Virtual 428th NFS squadron, and find a way to put tac pack on these planes so they could be flown in combat.. Of course, the turret would have to be animated.. :)

[heywooood]

Know what would be even better?? Too form a Virtual 428th NFS squadron, and find a way to put tac pack on these planes so they could be flown in combat.. Of course, the turret would have to be animated.. :)

Apparently when the turret was functional it caused severe buffeting as it displaced airflow over the tail when it was rotated - this led to it either being fixed in the forward firing position or removed in the field..fyi

[warchild]

Apparently when the turret was functional it caused severe buffeting as it displaced airflow over the tail when it was rotated - this led to it either being fixed in the forward firing position or removed in the field..fyi

::chuckles:: Oh, I know.. Northrop worked for years trying to correct that buffeting. The tried at minimum five seperate designs including on which looked like it had an upside down wok on it. But i figure, this is FSX. We can do things in it that ask the question: What if? even with the turret in forward position, it was still one of the most nimble aircraft in the war. Five FW-190s learned the hard way that you didnt mess with a widow.. What no one could get around was how big it was, and since it was so big, it just had to fly big and clumsily like a bomber, but that was as far from the truth as it could get.. What kept it from becoming a superlative fighter, was not only its late entry into th war, but cost. It was expensive to operate and maintain. However, this is fsx. We dont have operational costs to contend with :)..

[DC1973]

Know what would be even better?? Too form a Virtual 428th NFS squadron, and find a way to put tac pack on these planes so they could be flown in combat.. Of course, the turret would have to be animated.. :)

It's relatively easy to add TacPack to an airplane in FSX / P3D, especially when you're only talking cannons. And animating the turret is child's play. The only limiting factor for me would be the extra time but we'll see :)

[warchild]

p-61c carried cannons, machine guns, rockets, bombs and gas, though not all at the same time of course :)..

[jankees]

oh great, a P-61 too! I'd better start collecting images for inspiration...

[warchild]

oh great, a P-61 too! I'd better start collecting images for inspiration...

:biggrin-new:

[warchild]

It's not long now...

https://i.imgur.com/iPu0wVB.jpg

[Roger]

This is all great news!:applause:

[DC1973]

oh great, a P-61 too! I'd better start collecting images for inspiration...

I'd better do a damned fine job of it then! :biggrin-new:

The P-61C sadly didn't do much as it entered the war so late, only I think serving briefly on one squadron plus the NACA test unit and Project Thunderstorm. I do have reference material for a bare metal P-61C that served as the XP-61D test airframe which will look nice. It's very lucky that I've ended up with two types that have never appeared in FSX / P3D before, which is pretty rare these days, but also a bit of a shame that neither type carried many colour schemes in their short service lives.

Robert's P-61B for Sim Outhouse is on its way though and that beauty has about a zillion colour schemes just waiting to go!

[DC1973]

Super quick update - VC well on the way, very much enjoying working on this. FSDS 3.5.1 certainly has its animation quirks but thanks to Roy Holmes' advice animations are now all working well.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58860&stc=1

[thefrog]

The VC’s looking very promising

[Josh Patterson]

Looks like a much better place to put my virtual butt than the Abacus P-61! FANTASTIC! :glee:

[Anthin]

Boy.Is this ever shaping up to be a real beauty.
Looks great.

Anthin.:jump:

[DC1973]

More work done. Tough to get everything in one shot but hard at work on details and texturing, and general tidying up. All major surfaces and bezels now added, instruments will use either the default DC3 ( FSX ) or the C-69 Constellation ( P3D ). Just about ready to start adding all switches and animating them. Still on target for an April release, as long as nothing terrible occurs! The P-61C should follow a short while after that.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58967&stc=1

[Bjoern]

If you can, try to make all associated controls or switches operational, even if they don't interact with any actual system. This will make it easier for third parties to beef up the systems, if desired.


And don't stick to fixed release dates too much. There's always stuff to get in the way.

[DC1973]

If you can, try to make all associated controls or switches operational, even if they don't interact with any actual system. This will make it easier for third parties to beef up the systems, if desired.


And don't stick to fixed release dates too much. There's always stuff to get in the way.

Great idea Bjoern, I'll do that with the switches.

I'm a thriller and sci-fi author by day, so deadlines are what keep me honest - and in a job :encouragement:

[DC1973]

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58990&stc=1

Metal porn, exterior complete :jump:

[Seahawk72s]

Beautiful...!
Not sure where you have the time being so prolific a writer.
Thanks for that work as well...:encouragement:

[PRB]

This airplane is beginning to "grow on me". I've always said I didn't like the look of the bubble-top P-61s, but this thread may change my attitude. As it were. Beautiful work. Love the VC!

[Bjoern]

Metal porn, exterior complete :jump:

Looks much better than the earlier WIP shots.

[DC1973]

Thanks folks!

I write the books in the daytime, and by night craft the airplane. I used to fly for real as a PPL but my colour blindness restricts what I can do. Fortunately, virtual reality finally became a thing about the same time and I've been hooked ever since on flight sim! Loving every minute of seeing the world of fighter pilots etc from a true perspective, while being able to sip coffee at the same time. Building the planes that I wanted to "fly" but didn't yet exist was, for me, the natural next step :)

[warchild]

Jesus Dean. Even I'm havin heart palpitations over that last screenie and i'm your darned partner ::LOL:::..

[jankees]

Ah, another colorblind one! Same here, but never mind, in virual flying it doesn’t matter that much. That last shot is great, I’m sharpening my coloring pencils...

[Roger]

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58990&stc=1

Metal porn, exterior complete :jump:

Wow!!!!:engel016:

[Josh Patterson]

Wow!!!!:engel016:Looking fabulous!

[DC1973]

Thanks everyone, really appreciate the kind words. I'm working hard to make this airplane as good as I possibly can.


Jesus Dean. Even I'm havin heart palpitations over that last screenie and i'm your darned partner ::LOL:::..

Aww, just for you then Pam: test flights this afternoon near China Lake, CA, checking for any texture or modelling errors in bright sunshine with HDR lighting on :)

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58996&stc=1

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=58997&stc=1

[thunderstreak]

Wow! Looks awesome! :jump:

[PeteHam]

Wow! Looks awesome! :jump:


Yep, it sure does :applause: :applause:

Looking forward to trying this out :jump:

Pete.

[WarHorse47]

Bada BUMP... :bump:

[DC1973]

Bada BUMP...

I'll see your BUMP and raise you an UPDATE!

Sorry for not posting more recently, I've been hard at work polishing things off with the Reporter and getting rid of graphical niggles. It will be released as a BETA very soon and is being tested as we speak. Some images of the aircraft taken this morning are below - I've coded for pilots to disappear when the battery is off and other little additions since learning a bit about XML :)

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59445&stc=1

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59446&stc=1

[Josh Patterson]

A picture of Robert Stack with your all caps UPDATE!! would've been epic, but these pics will do! Looks fantastic!:encouragement: I just picked up the In Action book (in full color nowadays!) for the P-61 which includes the C model I never knew about and the Reporter. The way the rear steps retracted on the F-15 was pretty nifty with a crew member only needing to step on a plunger once on top of the plane. Looking forward to taking her around the patch!

[WarHorse47]

It just keeps getting better.. Thanks for the update. It's nice to see how these progress. :encouragement:

[Lonewolfee1]

SaWeet!!! Can't wait to have it in the hangar!

[Mach3DS]

@DC1973,

are you using a Spec file texture as well? how about a Fresnel?

[Seahawk72s]

Was entry by an external ladder or up through the nose wheel well between the seats..?

[Josh Patterson]

Was entry by an external ladder or up through the nose wheel well between the seats..? There was an external ladder that opened on the left side of the aft fuselage. Last man up stepped on a plunger on top of the fuselage and it closed! It may have also kept the boarding ladder in the nose wheel well.

[warchild]

external ladder built into the port aft section of the tail..

[DC1973]

@DC1973,

are you using a Spec file texture as well? how about a Fresnel?

Yup, a specular on the main fuselage metal, a Fresnel and then slight "pitting" of the metal via the alpha channel for the bump maps to give the metal some depth. I used the same Fresnel but reversed it for the canopy texture, so the glass reflects more evenly without going all blue when beneath a cloudless sky.

[DC1973]

Was entry by an external ladder or up through the nose wheel well between the seats..?

Pam's right - a rear boarding ladder was fitted on the aft port fuselage. I haven't modelled this however at the moment.

[fliger747]

Love the period (short) when the props started looking like early jets which soon evolved. Also anything powered by an R2800!

[warchild]

For my part. I added the internal 500 gallon fuel tank: adjusted the fuel flow for cruising range of 1900 miles @ 360 mph ( cruising speed ) with max ferry range @ 4300 miles with external tanks ( to specs ): Adjusted the viewpoint and CG: Softened the brakes so you dont fly through the windscreen when you step on them: Changed the propellers out for standard propellers instead of the big paddle propellers used on the P-61B&C: Adjusted the thrust to give us 400mph @ Sea level which should give us the requisite 440mph @ 27000 feet: and tested the planes ability to land @ 80mph for short field work. admittedly, it's a hair raising experience landing that slow, but it does it..
Left to do?? I have to get the rpms down from 2900 to 2700. Test and adjust to make sure the aircraft is developing 1hp for every 6.6 pounds of weight. Those will keep me busy for a little while..
missing information: Take off distance, landing distance.
Since this thing is developing so much power so quickly ( about like using a draft horse to pull a laptop out of a ditch ), the takeoff roll is much shorter than the P-61.
Pratt&Whitney report this plane as using their R2800-73 engines. These are 2800HP engines initially used on the P-61C and the first engine produced by Pratt&Whitney to produce 1HP per Cubic Inch. I'm doing my best to ensure we get thee correct performance for that engine.. Anyway. I'll keep you updated..
Pam

[fliger747]

Graham Whites "R2800" lists the -73 as a 2100 hp takeoff and mil power, with the 2100 available up to 28,500', an impressive performance! It however does not mention use of water injection which would be necessary for the 2800 hp. It does list a landing speed of 93 mph. The -77 engine only differed in the ignition system used.

It does note 440 mph at 30,000 ft. As this would be "dry" power it doesn't have the built in WEP time limit imposed by FS. Impressive for such a large plane!

[warchild]

You may have some confused information there. The Original F15A prototype was based on a P-61A that was chopped down and converted to a two seater F-15. It had originally been slated to be built as a fighter ( The P-61E ) but was cancelled with the end of WWII, and reincarnated as the F-15A prototype which sported a 2000 HP Pratt and Whitney R-2800. Only one was built. The remainder of the RF-61s were P-61C conversions using the 2800 HP engine.
There was a technologie difference fom the R2800-63W to the R2800-73, and I desperately need to find the web site with the history of the engines designer and design progression, because what i'm about to say is simply extraordinary leaving the burden of proof in my court.

The R2800-73 didnt use WEP, BUT! Well, The fuel for the model 73 was 115 octane with a lot of lead. This helped cool the cylinder heads, but wasnt enough to win the in house competition against the R3600 team ( the corn cob ). Yeah, thats right, the 2800 HP R2800 was the result of a competition between the two design tams, only the R2800 chief designer was bloody crazy. Still at one horse power per cubic inch ( a record the R3600 team never achieved ) even he knew when he had reached the limits of the technology. Besides the 115 octane fuel, there was an ethanol mixture, but it wasnt fired directly into the cylinder. It was fed in with the fuel. The mechanism they used to accomplish this metering is diagrammed in the PDF located here. https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/pratt-whitney-maintenance-manual-double-wasp-r-2800-ca-engines.37875/

Here's the biggest issue. The only people with anything even close to canon information on these engines, seems to be Pratt and Whiney themselves. Even the changeover from numeral nomenclatures to the C and CA nomenclatures appears to confuse people and there is a great deal of understandably innocent misinformation out there. Why Mr. White lists the 73 as a 2100 HP engine, i do not know. Several sites, including revolvy ( https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Pratt%20%26%20Whitney%20R-2800-10&item_type=topic ) list the 73 as being the subtype which developed 2800 hp using water injection and a General Electric CH-5-A3 turbocharger. What is possible is that Mr White misread the data, as the model 83 produced 2100HP. and the distance between a 7 and an 8 when making a deadline, is very short. It is very possible he made a typo, and didnt realize it, then continued to use the data for the model 83 without knowing he'd made a mistake.. Still, more sites cite the model 73 as being not only 2800- HP but the engine used in the F-15A than not.. ( https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Northrop+F-15+Reporter&item_type=topic )

[fliger747]

Whites 950 page book seems to be the definitive work on the R2800, not only do they have specs for every model, there is a chapter on every aircraft that used this engine, including the P61-F15A series.

As far as I can tell "No Production, aircraft installed R2800 reached 2800 hp without water meth injection". Methanol cannot be used in aircraft engine fuel for various reasons, even "gasohol" or "Heet" for fuel anti icing. It's a problem for aircraft such as my Super Cub that have an Auto Gas STC, making sure that the gas has no alcohol in it.

Meeting the speed performance figures with the lower HP is not an issue in FS, but will result in a slightly lower acceleration and climb rate.

My guess as to why it did not have Water injection? Appropriate regulation of the turbo charger which would have to do a lot of thinking in an era when machines did not think much. Development of such systems could be very troublesome and time consuming. Time was a luxury during the war.

: )

Quote from one of your sources:



Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-C Double Wasp (https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Pratt+%26+Whitney+R-2800-C+Double+Wasp&item_type=topic) 18-cyl. air-cooled radial piston engines, 2,100 hp (1,600 kW) each

[warchild]

Oh no, please forgive me. I was incorrect if i mentioned methanol.. It was very early in the morning you see. No, the engine used water/ethanol but rather than injecting it into the cylinder directly, it was fed in as metered fuel. Thats why its so important that i find that website that was there when we worked on the P-61 and has since disappeared. It goes into how they did it..

Heh.. I'm sitting here with Squadron Signal's P-61 Black Widow open to page 76 where it shows the F-15A-1 Tail number 559303, and at the same time i have all these other windows opened up all over the place.. The caption for the F-15A-1 reads " The production F-15A-1 Aircraft differed from the XF-15 by utilizing the same engines and cowls as the P-61C." And the image indeed shows P-61C Nacelles attached to this F-15A-1.

If we go to http://www.aviation-history.com/northrop/p61.html and scroll down too the P-61C section, it states:

P-61C
The P-61C was essentially the same airframe, but with more powerful turbosupercharged R-2800-73 (http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/pr-2800.htm) radials offering a max WEP of 2,800 hp (2,088 kW). It was heavier than the A or B models and was said to be less maneuverable. Exterior differences of the XP-61C were a large air scoop under each engine and paddle-bladed A.O. Smith propellers to take advantage of the increased power.

As too how the engine developed power without direct water injection into the cylinder I believe the answer is in the lower right corner of the below image showing unmetered fuel ( Avgas ) and metered fuel ( water/ethanol ) going through the same control unit.
https://i.imgur.com/3hUoplP.png

I think your correct about the supercharger, but i'm no expert. The main bearings played a very large part in power production and engine temperature as well. Again though thats part of that missing web page i cant find.. I do know that when the germans acquired an R2800 that P&W had a heart attack. The bearings were a top secret alloy compound and they were terrified the germans would find out.

Regarding Whites, It may very well be the definitive publication on the R-2800 But even God made a mistake once. However, there is one more detail that we may not be considering and White may have. After the war, as surplus planes and engines entered the civilian sector FAA regulations demanded that the military grade superchargers be removed. I dont know why. I always thought it was terribly unfair. With the F-15s, that would mean an entire change out if i'm correct which is where the 2100HP version may have been introduced. I dont know. I'm guessing here..
Pam.

(Edit) Correction on the fuel: The RF-61 FAA Type Certification lists the fuel used as being 130 Octane.

[warchild]

Graham Whites "R2800" $83.00 new?? Dude. I cant afford that..

[fliger747]

The way the water methanol injection worked was to meter it through the carburetor. Injecting it into the cyl would not work. The methanol was there to keep the water from freezing, it was not really as a fuel component. The water introduced into the intake manifold vaporized and considerably cooled the mixture, allowing a greater mixture density, making the supercharging more efficient, allowing more fuel and air on each intake stroke. The water also cooled the internal flame temperature slightly, allowing a leaner and more stocimetric mixture, yielding greater power than with the too rich mixtures normally used at high power settings. The water also increased the mass flow through the engine and carried a lot of waste heat out through the "tailpipe". After all heat transfer via cooling fins, out the tailpipe and through the oil coolers was really the limiting factor for potential engine power.

The P61A had an R2800 -10 which was also used in the Hellcat and was fitted with WEP as a -10W in the F6F. Some A and B series aircraft did have water injection (10 W engine), with 24-36 gallons on board, good for 15-20 mins of use.

The -73 and -77 engines were also used in the P47N and with water injection were capable of limited 2800 hp at 72" MP, but had the same 2100 HP at 54" for Mil Power. (Hundred Thou pg 281). So far no definite indication that the Reporter had Water injection, and some indication it did not, but if I do find it I will pass it along.

: )

[warchild]

That would be greatly appreciated Tom.. Thank you..

For the purposes of the initial release however, I'm leaving them at 2800 HP. The biggest reasons for this is plain and simple fun factor Copmbined with an exceedingly short ( and apparently ever shortening ) list of available data to draw from. I also didnt have any tools when i first started this project. What i did know from the various books in my collection as well as various other sources, was that the P-61C developed 2800 HP, and the f-15A was based on the P-61C using the same wings and engines.. I can easily model WEP into a second FDE and offer it as an option for those who want reality. The end result remains the same with a 360 mph cruise speed and a top speed of 440 mph. The F-15A was an amazing plane no matter hopw you looked at it. Fast, Sleek and more nimble than her somewhat heavier progenitor, the P-61C. It's only fault was being created at the wrong time in history.

[Desert Rat]

Thats why its so important that i find that website that was there when we worked on the P-61 and has since disappeared. It goes into how they did it..

Have you tried putting the web address into the wayback machine?

https://archive.org/web/

[fliger747]

America's Hundred Thousand and also "Northrop's Night Hunter" have some data on the various models of the P-61, but seem to fall off the planet when it comes to specifics about the Reporter.

No info is no info, so currently any case can be made. The water injected C models could carry up to 531 lbs of water/meth plus whatever the associated equipment weighed. That's a lot of weight! It is possible that a recon aircraft might be better off without the weight, being able to go higher and faster and further? I don't know. Heinemann who designed the A4 and many other famous aircraft had a philosophy for that project of "Simplicate and add lightness". An extra pound of basic weight required stronger structure, bigger engines, more fuel, which kept spiraling. His assertion was that an extra pound resulted in ten.

Only 500 -77 engines were built in total, all by Chevy.

Did they toss out all the weight they could and rely on cleaning up the airframe for the 440 mph or are they relying on the water injection to achieve that speed only in a sprint? Unlike the real world, once we set the HP and thrust, we trim the drag to get the proper speeds.

Sure it will be a fun flier!!

[fliger747]

An interesting sidelight: The main crank bearings were Lead/silver and Iridium, with about 4% Iridium. The Germans who did examine engines from shot down aircraft couldn't understand why the bearings were "contaminated" with iridium.

[warchild]

:) Exactly
The thing that frightened P&W though wasnt that the germans would find the Iridium, but rather do a full metalurgical analysis and get the formula. At the time, those bearings were top secret.

Still working on finding the original P-61 thread. If it exists, its buried deep.. :(

[warchild]

Have you tried putting the web address into the wayback machine?

https://archive.org/web/

Welll, thats just it. I dont have the web address, and i cant even remember the name of the chief engineer who's history i followed to find the site.. I know the link in buried somewhere in the original P-61 project thread, but buried could very well be an understatement with as much information as we put into that thread. It's over a thousand pages if i'm correct.

[Seahawk72s]

Hi Pam,
Not sure if this is the thread you are looking for but it is extensive.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/40497-SOH-P-61-project

[warchild]

Seahawk! Your amazing.. Thats the one all right..now to find that URL

[warchild]

Thanks to Seahawk, I've found this once again. This time, I saved it and it'll be getting backed up to Bluray disc.. Why is this document so important?? For me its because it isnt just about numbers and data. It lets you smell feel and taste the very soul of these engines, and the crazy man who made them.
In the end, it turns out there was very little these engines couldnt do below 3800HP and 150In/Hg MP.. Yeah, you read that right.. But see, That was Frank Walkers unique way of heckling the R4360 team.. Every time they made a milestone, Frank would take his little 2800, and beat them.. What we got out of it in the end, was one of the most amazing, dependable and ubiquitous engines in the world.. Its a delightful read, and provides an insight into these engines you would never expect.. Enjoy..

http://www.enginehistory.org/Biography/FrankWalkerWeb1.pdf

"
WATER INJECTION

In early 1943, word came down from the front office that a means must be found to

get additional power from existing engines without redesigning either the engine or

airplane it was in. While Pratt & Whitney was working around the clock to complete

the 3000HP R-4360, it was still years away and could not be fitted into existing

aircraft.

The shortest path to more power is always more manifold pressure. Since the P-47

had a turbo-supercharger which could produce surplus manifold pressure, it seemed
a good candidate for more power. The rub was that with the additional compression

of the inlet air came heating of the inlet charge which resulted in power-limiting
detonation. With the 130 PN fuel than available, Pratt & Whitney was already

getting all the power that was possible with the R-2800. Someone in the front office
suggested that water injection be tried. Perry Pratt was the Project Engineer.
Frank acquired a stock R-2800 “B” engine, serial number 5275, directly from the
production line. The only modification to the engine was a longer hollow bolt to
accommodate a second banjo fitting that supplied water to the fuel inlet of the
supercharger. Frank performed all of the initial water injection calibration by
manually adjusting the throttle, supercharger, propeller, and water injection settings.
Once the behavior of the water-injected engine was understood, Frank presented
data to the carburetor group which, under the direction Dick Coar, designed and
developed a water injection regulator and the associated carburetor modifications.
Frank got 2150 HP the first night. This was up from the 2000 hp the engine normally
produced and was the sole result of being able to use a leaner mixture at take-off
power. Until then, the engine had to be run very rich at take-off power to prevent
detonation, actually using fuel to cool the engine. It was running so rich in fact, that it
was producing less than ideal power. In later experiments, manifold pressure was
increased to simulate the output of the turbo-supercharger, and horsepower
increased dramatically.
Ultimately, the maximum power achieved on the “B” series was 2800 HP at 2700
RPM. Maximum power ever achieved on the “C” series was 3800 HP at 2800 RPM.
The maximum manifold pressure ever recorded was a staggering 150 inches of
mercury (inHg)! This was up from dramatically from the 49-inHg maximum manifold
pressure originally allowed in the R-2800 “A” series of engines.
Water injection worked by reducing cylinder inlet temperature, thereby delaying the
onset of detonation. As the water evaporated in the induction passages of the
engine, it providing a prodigious amount of cooling to the fuel charge due to the
latent heat of vaporization of the water. Cylinder inlet temperatures went from about
350qF to about 100qF. This increased the detonation margin to the point that up to

150 inHg of manifold pressure could be used. When water injection was in use, the
engine was markedly smoother, and the interior of the combustion chambers stayed
extremely clean with no carbon or varnish build-up on the piston crowns, valves, or
ring packs. Frank remembers that “There was no hard carbon whatsoever. You
could clean the top of a piston down to bare metal by wiping it with a cloth”.
German engineers tried water injection (Wassereinspritzung) on their gasoline
engines, but with limited success. Germans, who were very good at building high-
precision pumps, had perfected direct fuel injection for their large aircraft engines.
German engineers injected water directly into the cylinders as well. Since the water

did not have time to evaporate and cool the induction air, the large cylinder inlet

temperature reduction was not achieved. Frank learned of this while reviewing a

report on a captured German aircraft engine. "


"
RACING THE BIG GUYS

Early in 1942, work began at Pratt & Whitney on the R-4360, a secret monster

engine that was destined to have nearly twice the power of the stock “B” series R-

2800s that were by then in production. Pratt & Whitney used the time-honored

experimental development methodology of “Run ‘em, bust ‘em, fix ‘um” where

prototype engines were rapidly cobbled together and gotten into a test program to

find the weak points. Such was true of the R-4360. The team suffered their share of

false starts and blown engines as they made slow progress at making the engine

increasingly powerful.

The Pratt & Whitney R-4360

By the time the R-4360 team was getting 2800 HP out of the prototypes, Frank was

well into water injection development with the R-2800 “C” series engines. Unknown
to the R-4360 guys, Frank was regularly running his R-2800 at 2800 HP for 100

hours at the time. The reader must realize that each new power milestone in R-4360

development was ending with a damaged engine as each of the many parts found

its respective limit. Frank could not resist rubbing in the failures.

When the R-4360 team surpassed 2800 HP, Frank brought them over to his test cell

and extracted 2800 HP from his “little” R-2800. A month later, when the R-4360 first
produced 3000 HP, Frank summarily bettered their result at 3200 HP. Ultimately.

Frank drove the R-2800 to a whopping 3800 HP. The R-4360 team eventually

surpassed that mark, and went on to 4000 HP. Frank was tempted to try for 4000

HP on the R-2800, but finally decided against it. He did not have a good feeling
about pushing the engine past 3800 HP "

My Kind of crazy.. I love it..

Pam

[warchild]

You see, numbers are only a starting point. You can make an airplane using nothing but numbers taken from some computer generated data sheet with all the personality of a limp noodle, and well, thats what youll get; a limp noodle. Repairmen use numbers to fix things, not create things. Engineers ask: What if? and Why Not? Numbers dont provide answers. putting things together and blowing them up provides answers, and sometimes they're answers, numbers will never give you: Iridium on a ball bearing.
You want to experience a plane that when you get into your virtual cockpit, you can feel smell and taste it.. You dont want numbers. You want to step into the shoes og Jack Northrop, Kelly Johnson, Johnny Meyers, Willy Messerschmidt, all of them: see what they saw, feel what they felt, Experience things in the way that only a very fortunate few have experienced, and fall in love with the skys all over again, with each flight you make..
Numbers alone wont give you that. you have to get inside the lives and heads of the people who made them. Learn how they possibly saw things and learn what drove them day to day.. It wasnt money, and it wasnt numbers..

[fliger747]

The racing people do use some of this "tech" to boost the power in their machines. But back in the thirties, when the major breakthroughs were made to allow the evolution of power plants that powered WWII aircraft, the bearing technology, harmonic balancing, sodium cooled valves and on and on, small but important details to plug every leak in the reliability of the engine formed the basis. Always bumping against the strength of materials.

Major initial development of the Double Wasp (R2800) was actually conducted by P&W with a single row test engine, the X80 to prove the concept and work out the initial problems.

Almost all piston aircraft engines use a dual ignition and two spark plugs per cylinder. This is not normally used in automotive applications. Aside from the "backup", with the large cylinders of the big aircraft engines, dual progression of the flame front is necessary to avoid detonation which would not occur with the smaller automotive cylinders.

Another aviation pioneer was Leroy Grumman, a legitimate thinker and test pilot in his own right. He flew a captured FW190 and was reported to say "this is the plane we should have built, referring to the F6F. The result was the superlative F8F Bearcat.

Looking forward to the Reporter!

T

[WarHorse47]

Once again one or two weeks go by and you start to wonder just whatever happened to this project..

Sometimes its really hard to tell from all the side comments if a project is nearing completion or not.

So, how about an update?? :very_drunk: :bump:

[PhantomTweak]

This is not normally used in automotive applications.
Normally, no, but my ex had a 80-something Nissan 4WD pickup that had a dual spark plug system. 4 cylinders, 8 plugs, a huge (for this size engine) distributer cap, 8 separate wires, the whole nine. It was a royal PITA to time, and ensuring the right wire went to the right plug, AND was routed correctly was a nightmare. The plugs fouled all the time, too, but that was the way she drove. Honestly, the 75 Impala with a nice V-8 I bought her (before we split up) was more fun to work on. I was SO glad she rolled it down the canal bank we lived on during a heavy rain one day. That colichi clay is slicker than greased ice, when it's good-n-wet.
Totaled the truck, and she hadn't payed her insurance (hehehehe...).

Have fun all
Pat☺

[DC1973]

Once again one or two weeks go by and you start to wonder just whatever happened to this project..

Sometimes its really hard to tell from all the side comments if a project is nearing completion or not.

So, how about an update?? :very_drunk: :bump:

Hi,

Sorry for the lack of posts. I'm afraid that the Reporter will now not be completed or released.

Just kidding. It's out next week. I haven't had much to say as I've been writing the manual and the team have been producing some lovely additions such as a fuel truck and some effects ( Roger-Wilco-66 ), tweaking the FDE ( Warchild ) and I've been tweaking polygons here and there before the BETA release here at SoH. We're looking forward to seeing what everyone thinks of the RF-61C and I'll create a new post with download links as soon as it's ready :)

Cheers,
Dean

[thefrog]

Wooo. I had a mini cardiac arrest when I read your first line! Really looking forward to it.

[WarHorse47]

Thanks for the update, Dean.

I get a little worried when things go silent after a lot of great screenshots and dialogue on the forums.

Much appreciated. :encouragement:

[dharris]

PLEASE dc1973, no more false starts, blood pressure spiked! Thought I lived this long for nothing with that comment! Glad she is finally coming out, so worth the wait. Thank you

[Sundog]

Thanks for the update Dean, I'm definitely looking forward to flying it.

Regards, Ken.

[DC1973]

Just so you can all see she's still alive and kicking - sorry for the heart attacks, I couldn't help myself :a1310:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59907&stc=1 http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59908&stc=1

[roger-wilco-66]

I would say it is on short final :-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6qytjwo7d04s09o/f15-smoke.jpg?dl=1

[Seahawk72s]

"roger-wilco-66 I would say it is on short final :-)"

That's a great looking screen shot...:applause:

[dharris]

The screenshots are incredible. Great work by all and well worth the wait, except for the near fatal heart attack! Good one!

[Josh Patterson]

You know, after seeing this image, I have to wonder what a version of the B-25 would have been like with 2800s stuck on it (or what the XB-28 could have been like or why you never see an A-26 in this position). The P-61/F-15 really was something pretty special!
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59907&stc=1

[Sundog]

You know, after seeing this image, I have to wonder what a version of the B-25 would have been like with 2800s stuck on it....

It would have looked like this. (https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/02/na-98x-super-strafer/)

[Josh Patterson]

It would have looked like this. (https://oldmachinepress.com/2012/09/02/na-98x-super-strafer/) Nice! Thanks for the link. Too bad the basic B-25 wing structure wasn't up to the strain that the larger ailerons and extra power put on it. Ritchie literally flew the wings off of it! I wonder how much extra speed could have been squeezed out of it if the turret had been deleted? As it was it was almost 100mph faster than a standard B-25!

[warchild]

Nice! Thanks for the link. Too bad the basic B-25 wing structure wasn't up to the strain that the larger ailerons and extra power put on it. Ritchie literally flew the wings off of it! I wonder how much extra speed could have been squeezed out of it if the turret had been deleted? As it was it was almost 100mph faster than a standard B-25!

Well, the difference is that the B-25 could carry several tons in payload The P-61 could only carry four 500 pound bombs or rocket pods or whatever.. And yt, both the p-61 and the f-15A were seven inches wider than the b-25 and only the F-15A came close to its wreight as the P-61 weights over seven thousand pounds more. The B-25 was kept light to satisfy its role as a bomber. The designer of the P-61 knew the luftwaffe used 20 and 30 mm cannon in its planes so it was purposely designed to survive whatever was thrown at it. Both planes ( B-25, P-61 ) were superlative ground support aircraft and its real hard to say which is the spititual grandfather of the A-10 warthog or even spooky shadow and spectre for that matter.

The A-26 you mentioned was a completely different animal. Originally designed to compete against the P-61. It lost, and became histories first and best attack bomber used throughout WWII, Korea, The congo, and vietnam. The P-61 didnt live that long, and meither did the B-25. Missiles and bullhockey and Jets killed them quick, but nothing could replace the A/B-26 until someone created Shadow.
Shadow was a re-purposed C-119 created to fill the interim replacement for the A-26 while they figured out a way to make a C-130 into a proper gunship. The second replacement for the A-26 became a little plane we sold/gave to the AFVN called the dragonfly, because a gunship couldnt do everything the A-26 could do. The little A-37 Dragonfly turned out to be an excellent replacement for the A-26 as iit really didnt care how fast you flew it, or how high, or how overloaded with munitions it was. It flew, no matter what you did. Kind of like a vietnamese families vesposo. It was an incredible plane too, but you see, they all start with the B-25 Marauder, the P-61 and the A-26. :)

https://l7.alamy.com/zooms/f80a9ad0f48d4d51b43d672cbb39cc18/family-vespa-scooter-chinatown-bangkok-by1825.jpg

[PRB]

O.T.

I was watching a U-Tube video of Kemit Weeks visiting his A-26 restoration project. One of the guys restoring said that in the Pacific they didn't like the A-26. They preferred the old B-25 due, apparently, to the fact that the engine placement on the A-26 made for poor visibility in those directions, compared to the B-25. I guess speed isn't everything! Sort of like the P-40 pilots who wanted nothing to do with those fancy pants P-51s!

Can't wait to fly this big twin!

[warchild]

ok, going to drop these here while their fresh in my head. Youll need them anyway..

Takeoff:
2700 rpm
63 In/Hg MP

Climbout:
2450 RPM
63 in/HG MP

Cruise:
2450 RPM
30 in/Hg MP

Approach:
2000 RPM
30 in/Hg MP

Landing:
2000 RPM
20 in/Hg MP till short final.

Youll need to set up an axis or a switch to control rpm if you havent already done so.
Max RPM will never exceed 2700 RPM unless you chnge something like prop MOI's.
Max MP will not exceed 63 IN/Hg, and therein lies the problem i'm going to be working on while you enjoy our beta offering.. ( Fixed )

:)
Pam

[warchild]

O.T.

I was watching a U-Tube video of Kemit Weeks visiting his A-26 restoration project. One of the guys restoring said that in the Pacific they didn't like the A-26. They preferred the old B-25 due, apparently, to the fact that the engine placement on the A-26 made for poor visibility in those directions, compared to the B-25. I guess speed isn't everything! Sort of like the P-40 pilots who wanted nothing to do with those fancy pants P-51s!

Can't wait to fly this big twin!

Youll have a very similar visability issue with this as the A-26, except this one is a wee bit better because of the bubble canopy. I'm trying to walk a fine line between Johnny Meyers design Philosophy's ( a 19 year old should be able to safely fligh it and bring it home ) and the performance as it really might have been. Full throttle is not needed for takeoff. all full throttle will do is make you work real hard and real fast to get it in the air before you reach the other end of the runway.

[DC1973]

So, for everyone waiting for the Reporter, the BETA is here;

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?catid=37


Enjoy :jump:

[eddie]

Thank you, but the upload isn't showing yet.

[DC1973]

Thank you, but the upload isn't showing yet.

I can see it okay, maybe refresh the screen? I don't know if uploads are checked by admin or something first though.

[Roger]

Ahhhh the advantages of being staff:playful:. You just need to wait until Rami has okayed the file, then it will show.

[eddie]

Ahhhh the advantages of being staff:playful:. You just need to wait until Rami has okayed the file, then it will show.

Rub it in Roger, rub it in,lol

[warchild]

:::ROFLMAO:: Heyy.. Even I dont have a copy yet ::LOL::... They tell me patience is a virtue, but!..

[eddie]

:::ROFLMAO:: Heyy.. Even I dont have a copy yet ::LOL::... They tell me patience is a virtue, but!..

Yes warchild, patience is a pain in the butt when you would just love to get your hands on this beautiful model!! :playful:

[Roger]

:engel016:

https://images2.imgbox.com/cd/39/BhomSMDP_o.jpg (http://imgbox.com/BhomSMDP)

https://images2.imgbox.com/e7/ab/HsN4ZU3M_o.jpg (http://imgbox.com/HsN4ZU3M)

[eddie]

Thanks again, its finally up for download!! Doubt it will take long to fly from Point A to Point B in this thing!! LOL

[Josh Patterson]

One thing I wonder about the F-15 (and P-61) is why Northrop decided to have the struts on the outside of the main gear so that it looks "backwards"? I wonder if that caused ground crews any grief while changing wheels/tires or if there was enough room under it that it didn't matter?

[Flyboy208]

Awesome work Dean and Pam ! This aircraft flies so well. Just did my initial test flight with it and I love it ! Mike :applause:

[warchild]

OK guys.. we made a mistake..
I'm happy that you all are enjoying our humble offering, but your not flying the whole bannana. Your manifold pressure never rises above 54 in/Hg and the WEP doesnt do anything.
This hotfix corrects that. MP should go to 63 in/Hg on mil power and 73 in/HG on WEP. This lets you achieve the full speed this aircraft is capable of. Top speed of the aircraft should rise to 450 MPH at 25000 feet in level flight. The plane should fly by the book and i guarantee your experience will be better over all..
Please download this file and replace your current FDE with it.. This is a mandatory fix.
As this is the Beta stage of development, I will be continuing to work on and improve the flight characteristics till we have them absolutely correct. I welcome any and all feedback as it really does help me see things i may have missed so that i can improve them and correct them..
I look forward to your replies..
Pam

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=4&id=23606

[PeteHam]

Many thanks to all who contributed to this fantastic wee beastie :applause: :applause:

It's pure American muscle and an absolute joy to fly. :jump: :jump:

Pete.

[warchild]

OK, before people start getting confused and angry because the plane isnt behaving as hoped I want to add this so that you all can understand and not become discouraged.

For the record:

YOU CANNOT FLY THIS PLANE LIKE ANY OTHER PLANE YOU HAVE FLOWN!

This aircraft requires that you fly it literally, by the numbers. You cannot simply increase or decrease the throttle. You MUST adjust the rpm and manifold pressure throughout each phase of your flight. That said, I am placing the correct combinations of settings below for takeoff, climbout, cruise and approach, below. You can also find these settings in Northrops P-61B Pilots Manual, though the performance of the engines in the P-61C and RF-61 are somewhat higher at the top end..
You will need to configure a joystick axis or keyboard button to control RPM. Manifold pressure is controlled through the throttle.
Enjoy.
Pam


Takeoff:
2700 rpm
63 In/Hg MP

Climbout:
2450 RPM
63 in/HG MP

Cruise:
2450 RPM
(Correction )45 in/Hg MP

Approach:
2000 RPM
30 in/Hg MP

Landing:
2000 RPM
20 in/Hg MP till short final.

[warchild]

OH, Also, before i forget again.
I've added in the two outboard fuel tanks that the plane could carry. Each fuel tank carries 150 gallons of 130 octane fuel, and maybe its the extra lead in the gas, but the plane can be a little wobbly right after takeoff.. The four external tanks, combined with the internal tank give thi aircraft a max range of 4300 miles.
IF you do not plan on ever flying that far, you can comment out the entries for the external tanks in the aircraft config. It will also help the lateral stability of the craft. Enjoy!
Pam

[warchild]

Awesome work Dean and Pam ! This aircraft flies so well. Just did my initial test flight with it and I love it ! Mike :applause:

Thanks Mike.. It means a lot to read that. With the hotfix uploaded and the settings for MP and RPM recorded, the flight experience will only get better.
Fliger pointed out some deficiencies in the release fde and i tested the hotfix against AFSD . The new FDE is very very close, and i'll be working on tightening it up even moreso. I hope this plane brings you and everyone hundreds and thousands of hours of flying enjoyment. :)..
Pam

[warchild]

One thing I wonder about the F-15 (and P-61) is why Northrop decided to have the struts on the outside of the main gear so that it looks "backwards"? I wonder if that caused ground crews any grief while changing wheels/tires or if there was enough room under it that it didn't matter?

I'll be honest.. For someone who knows more about P-61s than almost anyone else, I can only guess that it was a design choice to allow the wheel to reside as close to the center of the wing as possible, creating a better over all balance of the planes physics.. But thats just a guess.. The originl designer of the P-61 was a Czech immigrant with a hell of a lot of insight into war and combat already having lived during the spanish civil war and the buildup of Nazi forces. All that insight went into the design of the P-61's.

I tend to go with the idea that locating the wheel higher in the wing supplemented the balance, because frankly, by design, these were the easiest and most stable aircraft created during WWII. It was frustrating as hell when i started the P-61B because I REALLY wanted to give you folks a challenge. I wanted this to be as real as it gets, and I would have made it extremely difficult right??

Johnny Meyers said "no, not going to happen". Johnny was the chief test pilot on the P-61 and every time he took the plane up, he would storm into Northrops design area and start grilling the designers over what he thought had to be changed. It helped make the P-61 one of the best designed aircraft in WWII, not to mention one of the most expensive. If there were someone in the cockpit to adjust dials and gauges, the P-61 could be flown, quite literally, by a hydro-cephalic monkey, or any common 18 year old kid, and it would bring him home safe and sound even after taking a few 20mm rounds. It had no real stall characteristics, no bad behavior, nothing. It was a real choir boy in behavior, with four cannon and four machine guns.. Guess even choir boys can have an attitude..

But yeah, thats why I think the wheels are inside the struts.. It's all about balance..

OH, and yeah. There was plenty of room under the wings for the ground crew. This plane wasnt big, It bordered on HUGE.. ( and it could out maneuver a p-38 and a hellkitty )

http://historynet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/1st-Saipan-2.jpg


Addendum edit: After studying the physical plane a bit more I feel a bit silly.. Shame on me.. The wheels sat entirely inside the nacelle. Placing the strusts on the outside however, allows for a wider stance and greater stability during landing: a quality that would get tested on a hundred rough hewn strips throughout the world..

[roger-wilco-66]

Great stuff, Pam :-) I guess you could write a book about it !!

Cheers,
Mark

[PhantomTweak]

For a plane that big, and I will presume heavy, compared to those other two, being more maneuverable is a heck of an achievement! Truly an impressive example of quality engineering.

Just out of curiosity, is that plane parked at Moffet Field, maybe before it even was Moffet? The hangar in the background looks kinda familiar...

Thanks SO much! It is a real joy to fly this bird. The size of a bomber, flies like a fighter.
Friggen amazing!
Pat☺

[warchild]

Wellll, now that you mention it, that does look like Hangar one a bit and i dont recall there being mountains in either new jersey or Ohio, but no. thats not moffett. Moffett as built between 1931 and 1932. That P-61B didnt exist untill 1944. A little research comes up with the pic being taken on Saipan, which would explain all the army combat uniforms and equipment ( not to mention full uniforms as Saipan as a main base where the brass likes spit shine and pressed pleats) instead of a forward airfield where boxers and topless was as close as it got most days.

[DC1973]

Great catch Pam! :)

We have a few minor tweaks to perform on the Reporter but so far, so good. This is my first ever airplane build for flight sim, where I was both building and learning on the job so to speak, so I'm expecting there to be a few niggles. Share 'em here and we'll clean 'em up before the plane is released to the wider community.

I really hope everyone enjoys the Reporter. I'll be building the P-61C fuselage ready for release as a second package once the Reporter is in the clear. Rejoice! :wiggle:

[warchild]

excellent.. check in on discord.. Mark has some ideas and observations :)

[Seahawk72s]

Made a few light changes, operation and location, in the aircraft.cfg.
As an FYI their is a belly strobe that seems to be embedded in the model, not controllable by any switch.(?)
I also added a beacon and recognition switch to the vc.
(I'm sure improvements will be suggested and made)


[lights]

//Types: 1=beacon, 2=strobe, 3=navigation, 4=cockpit, 5=landing, 6=taxi, 7=recognition, 8=wing, 9=logo, 10=cabin

light.0 = 3, -19.60, 33.00, 3.45, fx_navgre
light.1 = 3, -19.85, -32.90, 3.46, fx_navred
light.2 = 1, -24.863, 0, -2.900,fx_shockwave_beaconh // fx_lightObsRedSteady
light.3 = 4, -8.109, 0, 1.645, fx_vclightGreH
light.4 = 4, -16.92, 0, 3.78, fx_vclightGreH
light.5 = 5, -20.80, -23.30, 1.50, fx_Shockwave_landing_light // Shockwave light
light.6 = 5, -20.80, 23.30, 1.50, fx_Shockwave_landing_light // Shockwave light
light.7 =6, -7.20, -0.30, -2.85, fx_shockwave_landing_light_747_lw, // Taxi Light

light.8 = 7, -33.500, 9.50, -1.030, fx_navred // bottom red fuselage recognition
light.9 = 7, -34.500, 9.50, -0.970, fx_navwhi // bottom amber fuselage recognition
light.10 = 7, -35.500, 9.50, -0.970, fx_navgre // bottom green fuselage recognition

light.11 =2, -19.60, 33.00, 3.45, fx_strobeh , //Wing tip
light.12 =2, -19.85, -32.90, 3.46, fx_strobeh , //Wing tip

[stansdds]

For a first effort, it's pretty good! There is lots of potential here.

A few observations using FSX/Accel boxed edition.

Frame rates and overall computer performance are excellent.

Issues:
Propeller rotation is backwards.
Generator gauges are blurred out and non-functional.
Cowl flaps indicator gauge is not working.
Left engine is linked to right engine gauges, right engine is linked to the left engine gauges.
Strobe light on belly is constantly "on", no way to turn it off.

I'm also getting a crash to desktop with the generic "Failed to read from file" message during takeoff. I'm not sure what's going on with that.

By the way, strobe lights did not come into aviation use until the late 1970's. Red rotating or flashing beacons were introduced in the 1950's.

[DC1973]

For a first effort, it's pretty good! There is lots of potential here.

A few observations using FSX/Accel boxed edition.

Frame rates and overall computer performance are excellent.

Issues:
Propeller rotation is backwards.
Generator gauges are blurred out and non-functional.
Cowl flaps indicator gauge is not working.
Left engine is linked to right engine gauges, right engine is linked to the left engine gauges.
Strobe light on belly is constantly "on", no way to turn it off.

I'm also getting a crash to desktop with the generic "Failed to read from file" message during takeoff. I'm not sure what's going on with that.

By the way, strobe lights did not come into aviation use until the late 1970's. Red rotating or flashing beacons were introduced in the 1950's.

Thanks stansdds! :)

The cowl and generator gauges are fixed bmps - I haven't gotten as far as coding for such things yet. That might come in a later update in the future though.
The engines ( and props ) are a real anomaly but we have a fix for it, should be sorted soon. I'll also remove the strobe - oddly I don't remember including one when modelling the airplane but will check it out.

I'm not sure about the crash to desktop however, and I haven't encountered one before with the Reporter. If anyone else gets it, please do report it on the new Reporter RELEASED thread here on the discussion board.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/110323-(-RELEASED-)-Northrop-RF-61C-Reporter-BETA

[Roger]

As Dean asked now that there is a realease thread ( http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/110323-(-RELEASED-)-Northrop-RF-61C-Reporter-BETA ) please post further comments there.

Thanks,

Roger