I really suggest ya´ll head to A2A site

[Prowler1111]

´Cause this (http://www.a2asimulations.com/AF_F4U.html) popped up!

Best regards
Prowler

[deimos256]

wow'

[MenendezDiego]

Downloading now!

[hews500d]

Cool!!! I'm glad I put some $$ back last week just for this one :woot:

Darrell

[EgoR64]

:wavey:

LOL - Just finished, Just in time before it got too busy !!

Cheers indeed !! :ernae::ernae::ernae:

[6297J]

I'm going to be a coward and wait for others to buy and report as I'm not totally convinced by those screenshots.
Anyone know who the staff are at 'Aircraft Factory'?

[stovall]

Holy Moly, and I was saving my funds for the Aerosoft PBY. You know I just may have to have this beauty to protect Strawberry Five
on those search mission. Besides Pappy would wish it so.

[Kiwikat]

I'm going to be a coward and wait for others to buy and report as I'm not totally convinced by those screenshots.

Yup same here. Looks a lot like the realflight hellcat, which looks great, but the flight model has a lot left to be desired. In fact, so much I rarely fly it.

I'll be waiting for reports back on the flight model. Comparisons to the realair spitfire, A2A P47, and CH FW190 would be nice :)

[noddy]

Looks very impressive.

[Lewis-A2A]

“We have identified three different customers in our flight simulation community who are all are equally passionate about aircraft but for different reasons. One customer is looking for a very good product but price is critical to them, and this is what Aircraft Factory delivers. The next customer demands that their aircraft be created by the book, and this is our long time Wings of POWER / SILVER customer. The final customer is the one who wants an aircraft that is created with extreme depth into all of the internal systems and engine management, and this is what our Accu-Sim line delivers. However, all of these customers share one thing in common; they all love to fly beautiful aircraft. We’re all excited about the Aircraft Factory F4U Corsair and all of the existing products in development,”
said Lewis Bloomfield of A2A Simulations Inc.

A2A are the staff :engel016:. We now have 3 product types to help cater for everyone.

[MenendezDiego]

I'm pretty happy with the purchase :)

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm206/MenendezDiego2008/corsair.jpg

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm206/MenendezDiego2008/corsair2.jpg

One thing I dont like, in the external view, as you can see from the above photo, if viewed from the side most of the aircraft is on the right of the screen. Anyone know how to fix this? I imagine it's simply a view fix.

Regards, Diego

[MCDesigns]

Sweet, this is a no brainer for me, love the Corsair.!! D/Ling now!!!!!

[Kiwikat]

For those who have got it, how does it fly? :wavey:

[MenendezDiego]

She can be a challenge from what I've done so far. Trim is your friend :)

[ryanbatc]

If I go to the A2A site

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shockwaveproductions.com%2F&ei=mkXuSezNFaPEMrGMmAQ&usg=AFQjCNGfcIS4_2_Xxhpj2KrFJvjJa4ZuJw
from google I get some spam site saying "this site has been blocked" etc etc

[Lewis-A2A]

http://www.a2asimulations.com

[Mithrin]

Sweet stuff!

[MCDesigns]

just did a test flight, great texturing, the VC texturing is comparable to A2A pits. Very easy on the frames, can easily see having a squadron of these in the air with no issues.

Agree on the trim comment, she is a little bit of a handful, but I have only done a couple of takeoffs and landings, will play some more tonight.

My only concern is the prop animation, it is the basic FSX animation, not smooth and changing direction, really takes away from the immersion for me, all in all a great little plane though.

Here I was waiting on doing WWll PTO scenery, DOH!!! LOL.

[gajit]

I'm going to be a coward and wait for others to buy and report as I'm not totally convinced by those screenshots.
Anyone know who the staff are at 'Aircraft Factory'?

Im just downloading it and have the same fears about the external screenshots - i hope im wrong!!

[gajit]

Phew - im pleased to say that the external screenshots just do not do this product justice. Im still savouring it sat on the ground and have not iven got in and not got in the cockpit yet after 3 mins!!

Its much better than the realflight Hellcat in my opinion.

[krazycolin]

We, here at Milviz, are very proud of the release of the Milviz/A2A F4u-1A/C/D. We'd like to thank all of those involved including our team of modelers (K and C), our gauge people (S and C) and our FM dude... (T).

Though not all elements made it into the final product, in the end, it's still a team effort and we're glad and proud to have been a part of it.

Once again, thanks for your hard work! And look for more work from us, Milviz, the suppliers of the best looking models on the market today!

As well, we hope all further releases under the Aircraft Factory label are as well produced and as well received as their inaugural contribution.

KC

[BOOM]

Ohhh,Fantastic!!!Off to download!!!:ernae:

[glennc]

It is a BLAST to fly - but don't stall it, especially clean. It eliminated this ensign.

Glenn

[EgoR64]

:wavey:

LOL !! had to do it !!

Hmmm, She a Keeper !! The Collections of WWII Craft is comin along nicely !!

CVS by Bruce F.


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm30/EgoR64/f4u2.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm30/EgoR64/f4u4.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm30/EgoR64/f4u6.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm30/EgoR64/f4u3.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm30/EgoR64/f4u8.jpg

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm30/EgoR64/f4u9.jpg

[deathfromafar]

She can be a challenge from what I've done so far. Trim is your friend :)

If the Elevator Control Forces are high(less response in the sim)above 280-300 Kts and the Aileron Forces being light throughout most of the envelope would be about right.

[GT182]

For those who have got it, how does it fly? :wavey:


I had the privilage to help beta test it and all I can say is... it's maaavalous. :d Once you get it trimmed out, it's sweet to fly. Lands like a lady too. But two things... read the manual and follow the check lists. ;)

[Akatsuki]

I hope there will be a paintkit... only 3 liveries is not much. Overall it's a great plane, but above all it's a Corsair so i could not resist... i'm glad i did not! :jump:

[GT182]

I'm sure a paint kit will be out soon. There are 3 paints I'd like to see.... Sky Boss and Marines Dream. Only because they are based close by and I see them at MAAM's WWII Weekend. The third is Pappy Boyington's Corsair.

[Panther_99FS]

Ah the agony of still not having a system!!

Looks like you folks are having fun though :)

[Barvan40]

Sorry to hear you are still on the sidelines Panther. This thing is fun, and priced right!

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u162/Barvan40/AF_F4U_Corsair_001.jpg

[DennyA]

AAAAAAaargh! After the Vulcan and Hellcat, I wasn't going to buy any more planes until that payware Connie came out.

Now I'm about to go spend money again. ;)

[StickMan]

Thank's for the heads up, just downloaded, looks like a good aircraft.

[BOOM]

She's a beautiful Old Warbird!! the cockpit controls are really smooth!!It's fantastic all the way around!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/fsx2009-04-2121-50-08-12.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/fsx2009-04-2121-45-24-26.jpg

[MenendezDiego]

Great plane, lands very smoothly!

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm206/MenendezDiego2008/Corsair3-1.jpg

[gajit]

I love it but it would have been nice to see the Pilots arms and legs move - not just his head . The lack of animation is very noticable in that cockpit.

[6297J]

We, here at Milviz, are very proud of the release of the Milviz/A2A F4u-1A/C/D. We'd like to thank all of those involved including our team of modelers (K and C), our gauge people (S and C) and our FM dude... (T).

Though not all elements made it into the final product, in the end, it's still a team effort and we're glad and proud to have been a part of it.

Once again, thanks for your hard work! And look for more work from us, Milviz, the suppliers of the best looking models on the market today!

As well, we hope all further releases under the Aircraft Factory label are as well produced and as well received as their inaugural contribution.

KC

So, not A2A staff then.

[SolarEagle]

Maybe I was expecting too much based on the comments here, but this is certainly a budget aircraft. I was very impressed by the Hellcat textures and bump maps which were almost photoreal but the textures on this one are not to my liking at all, and look a bit cartoony. The engine sounds are not to my liking either, not only the recordings but also the way 30" MP sounds closer to idle to than a cruise setting. The flight model has a pleasing feel as far as flight goes, though when the engine sounds are so far off from the power setting it spoils my enjoyment. Over all the purchase was not for me, but not everybody is so demanding!

[gajit]

Maybe I was expecting too much based on the comments here, but this is certainly a budget aircraft. I was very impressed by the Hellcat textures and bump maps which were almost photoreal but the textures on this one are not to my liking at all, and look a bit cartoony. The engine sounds are not to my liking either, not only the recordings but also the way 30" MP sounds closer to idle to than a cruise setting. The flight model has a pleasing feel as far as flight goes, though when the engine sounds are so far off from the power setting it spoils my enjoyment. Over all the purchase was not for me, but not everybody is so demanding!

I know what you mean about the textures and that is a good description - I have a feeling that those fantastic repaint artists that grace themselves on these forums will make this one look right - Its a lot better in sim that in the screenshots.

At least this product allows me to have the selfshadowing on without my FPS dropping to single figures "like wot" the Hellcat does!!

[ICDP]

Maybe I was expecting too much based on the comments here, but this is certainly a budget aircraft. I was very impressed by the Hellcat textures and bump maps which were almost photoreal but the textures on this one are not to my liking at all, and look a bit cartoony. The engine sounds are not to my liking either, not only the recordings but also the way 30" MP sounds closer to idle to than a cruise setting. The flight model has a pleasing feel as far as flight goes, though when the engine sounds are so far off from the power setting it spoils my enjoyment. Over all the purchase was not for me, but not everybody is so demanding!

I have found that the FS warbird simmer is a lot less demanding on how an aircraft looks and flies than a combat sim enthusiast. I think the problem lies in the fact that in FS if it looks decent for screenshots then the average FS simmer is more than happy. So many FS warbird addons over the years have had utterly attrocious FMs. Yet still FS simmers think they are amazing. If aircraft performance is out by the same massive amount in a combat sim then the combat sim enthusiast will not be a happy simmer and they will let the developer know it! So I think you are correct when you state "not everybody is so demanding!". At least not in FS9/FSX warbird circles.

[ICDP]

So, not A2A staff then.

The Milviz team along with help from the A2A team of 3D modelers, FM programmers and the excellent A2A beta testers put in a lot of work over the past few weeks. There was a lot of work improving the FM to improve the feel of the Corsair, and the 3D model was tweaked to maximise FPS. A big effort from Milviz and A2A and went into ensuring the Aircraft Factory Corsair was more than just a budget release that looked like a Corsair.

All round a great team effort from all invovled.

[gajit]

and went into ensuring the Aircraft Factory Corsair was more than just a budget release that looked like a Corsair.




I should bleeping well hope so LOL - even freeware designers do that!!!!

[MenendezDiego]

Two more shots:
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm206/MenendezDiego2008/fsx2009-04-2202-20-00-70.jpg

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm206/MenendezDiego2008/fsx2009-04-2202-24-34-69.jpg

Regards, Diego

[Lewis-A2A]

Hey guys glad you are enjoying it.

Solar Eagle as we have posted we recongnise three types of customer and feel you fit into the Accu-sim area which is the opposite end of Aircraft Factory,.......


....The good news is Scott already has a date set with a corsair to get the needed hands on time for recordings etc which will give us the needed materials to produce an accu-sim pack to bring the Corsair up to and hopefully far beyond your expectations :engel016:,...

[Lewis-A2A]

Hey guys glad you are enjoying it.

Solar Eagle as we have posted we recongnise three types of customer and have brought three product lines out to cater for as many as possible. I feel you fit into the Accu-sim area which is the opposite end of Aircraft Factory,.......


....The good news is Scott already has a date set with a corsair to get the needed hands on time for recordings etc which will give us the needed materials to produce an accu-sim pack to bring the Corsair up to and hopefully far beyond your expectations :engel016:

[SirBenn21]

Is it just me or are there no sounds for all the switches and knobs in the cockpit?
I've mucked around in the cockpit to see where everything is and noticed the no sound thing.

Ben

[rwmarth]

Looks fantastic!

[gajit]

Is it just me or are there no sounds for all the switches and knobs in the cockpit?
I've mucked around in the cockpit to see where everything is and noticed the no sound thing.

Ben

Looks like we will have to pay extra for all that in the accusim version :jump:

[some1]

Is it just me or are there no sounds for all the switches and knobs in the cockpit?
I've mucked around in the cockpit to see where everything is and noticed the no sound thing.

Ben

From all A2A products, sounds for all switches and knobs are currently only in the P47 Razorback with Accusim. That's not standard FSX feature.

[SpaceWeevil]

I have found that the FS warbird simmer is a lot less demanding on how an aircraft looks and flies than a combat sim enthusiast. I think the problem lies in the fact that in FS if it looks decent for screenshots then the average FS simmer is more than happy. So many FS warbird addons over the years have had utterly attrocious FMs. Yet still FS simmers think they are amazing. If aircraft performance is out by the same massive amount in a combat sim then the combat sim enthusiast will not be a happy simmer and they will let the developer know it! So I think you are correct when you state "not everybody is so demanding!". At least not in FS9/FSX warbird circles.

People here are very unforgiving about sloppy visuals so I don't agree with the first bit. You're dead right that a lot of FS warbird FMs have been poor, but is it generally accepted that CFS flight models are better? It's a genuine question as I've never been near CFS; I would have thought that the 'combat' part would demand something a bit simpler to make any sort of game out of it but I'm happy to be corrected.

[glennc]

My feeling is that the Corsair is approximately equal to the WOP2 series. Which isn't bad at all.

As far the the textures being "cartoony", I have no doubt the usual paint shops will fix that. Besides, I really like the Marine version.

As far as the flight model, I was also a Test Pilot. I've spent more than a few hours in it. Of course, I've never flown anything like that for real, but too me it is very "believeable". My view of warbird flying in FSX is that I am flying a museum or airshow airplane, not a combat version.

That's what was behind my earlier comment to the stall characteristics. The word from a real Corsair pilot about stalls as "don't".

Glenn

[ICDP]

I should bleeping well hope so LOL - even freeware designers do that!!!!

Very true, if it's payware it should be more than just a decent 3D model. Unfortunately not all payware meets that criteria. Many many payware releases have nothing but a very good 3D model and pit while the rest is utterly forgettable.

This is just my opinion and nothing to do with A2A.

[ICDP]

People here are very unforgiving about sloppy visuals so I don't agree with the first bit. You're dead right that a lot of FS warbird FMs have been poor, but is it generally accepted that CFS flight models are better? It's a genuine question as I've never been near CFS; I would have thought that the 'combat' part would demand something a bit simpler to make any sort of game out of it but I'm happy to be corrected.

Sorry SpaceWeevil, I should have specified I was not referring to the CFS FMs specifically, just combat simmers attitudes in general. They will not forgive a very poor FM as readily as a FS9/FSX simmer will as there is no combat in FS.

[6297J]

I'll pass but I'm still very excited about that Cub which I'm guessing is now next in line?

[Blade124]

The Cub is well on its way at the moment, yes. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
GlennC, thank you for the comments on the FM. We created this FM ourselves from scratch in preparation for Accu-Sim. Now that the weather is warming up, we will soon get inside a flyable Corsair and also re-visit the P51.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Scott.<o:p></o:p>

[Gregory Paul]

I too did not like the sound that came with it. I find these better.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/index.php?lloc=downloads&loc=downloads&page=info&FileID=4469

[Roger]

I'd like to try Lawdog's sounds but the download doesn't work at the moment.

[dswo]

Bump mapping?

[vstudios]

Regarding flight models, I guess the FDE guys read from the true numbers, and to simulate an aircrafts flight model without ever flying one is indeed a big task. I hear lots of people say this and that's wrong regarding handling, however - without being so lucky as to flying one is indeed questionable, I guess you too are all reading the true numbers from relative media, is your findings a guestimate, or have you flown the aircraft in question. This is not a rant or jab at anyones ribs, just an observation.

[Barvan40]

Bump mapping?

Yep...

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u162/Barvan40/AF_F4U_Corsair_002.jpg

[PRB]

Ok, this flight model debate is interesting. A statement was made that combat simmers, in general, are more picky about flight model accuracy than “FS” simmers, who are more interested in “eye candy” and switches that go “click!” when you click on them. If this is really true I would be very surprised. I don’t know if there is any way to verify the accuracy of such a statement. Many simmers fly both combat and civil type sims. I’ve seen some pretty nasty “food fights” in the combat sim forums over FM accuracy, and to make an equally general statement, it’s been my observation that the more accurate the combat sim flight model is, the more irritated the combat simmers get, because you can’t just yank and bank any WW-II fighter around the sky with reckless abandon and not experience accelerated stalls and serious loss of energy.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Which leads to another question. If FS simmers don’t care as much about flight models as combat simmers, does it follow that FS flight models are less accurate than those of combat sims? There’s no way I will believe that one. I know too many flight model people around here who spend a lot of time getting the flight models of their WW-II FS sim planes right. I’m not quite ready to conclude that they don’t know what they’re doing, as compared to their combat sim FM maker counterparts.
<o:p></o:p>
I have both the RealFlight Hellcat, and now this new F4U Corsair. I can’t tell if the flight model is wrong on either one of them. One who has flown them probably could, but I can’t. I do like both planes, inside and out.

[SpaceWeevil]

Regarding flight models, I guess the FDE guys read from the true numbers, and to simulate an aircrafts flight model without ever flying one is indeed a big task. I hear lots of people say this and that's wrong regarding handling, however - without being so lucky as to flying one is indeed questionable, I guess you too are all reading the true numbers from relative media, is your findings a guestimate, or have you flown the aircraft in question. This is not a rant or jab at anyones ribs, just an observation.

I didn't mean to disrespect the people who write flight dynamics for us. However good we think we are, however well we handle Accusim, most of us would crash & burn on our first trip in a real Spitfire, F6F, P47, P51, FW190 or whatever. All we can really say is that it does, or doesn't, perform according to what we've read somwhere. A lot of FDs have come pretty close, bearing in mind that no two aircraft from a wartime production line ever flew exactly the same. By the time you add knocks & scrapes, dirt & dust, the condition of the finish, the differences between pilots and even the weather - well, who really knows?

[ICDP]

Ok, this flight model debate is interesting. A statement was made that combat simmers, in general, are more picky about flight model accuracy than “FS” simmers, who are more interested in “eye candy” and switches that go “click!” when you click on them. If this is really true I would be very surprised. I don’t know if there is any way to verify the accuracy of such a statement. Many simmers fly both combat and civil type sims. I’ve seen some pretty nasty “food fights” in the combat sim forums over FM accuracy, and to make an equally general statement, it’s been my observation that the more accurate the combat sim flight model is, the more irritated the combat simmers get, because you can’t just yank and bank any WW-II fighter around the sky with reckless abandon and not experience accelerated stalls and serious loss of energy.
<o:p></o:p>
Which leads to another question. If FS simmers don’t care as much about flight models as combat simmers, does it follow that FS flight models are less accurate than those of combat sims? There’s no way I will believe that one. I know too many flight model people around here who spend a lot of time getting the flight models of their WW-II FS sim planes right. I’m not quite ready to conclude that they don’t know what they’re doing, as compared to their combat sim FM maker counterparts.
<o:p></o:p>
I have both the RealFlight Hellcat, and now this new F4U Corsair. I can’t tell if the flight model is wrong on either one of them. One who has flown them probably could, but I can’t. I do like both planes, inside and out.


It was me who made that statement about combat simmers being more picky. If a combat sim aircraft FM is off by a large amount you can be assured there will be complaints. For example if an aircraft in a combat sim is too fast/agile etc you can bet your bottom dollar that someone who flies against it online (or against the AI) will complain. If the same aircraft was too slow or not agile enough then the fans of that aircraft would be doing the complaining. The reason is simple, combat sims are designed to simulate the aircraft in a combat environment. Therefore the performance and agility of the aircraft will be matched against each other in a competitive environment and if they don't match historical accuracy close enough it will be noticed.

The same is not true in FS9/FSX. I will not go into details as to the aircraft but so many warbird addons are very well received simply because they look good. I have bought some absolute turkeys in FSX that looked great but flew like crap and they have been raved about by the FS community.

[Odie]

Just wanted to say that I installed the big gull-winged bird this afternoon and took her up for a flight.

Model looks good visually and is easy on my machines FPS...very smooth flying out of KBAD. Price was not hard on the ole pocketbook !

Looking forward to some repaints from our talented SOH members! Two thumbs-up on this one.:ernae:

[PRB]

It was me who made that statement about combat simmers being more picky. If a combat sim aircraft FM is off by a large amount you can be assured there will be complaints. For example if an aircraft in a combat sim is too fast/agile etc you can bet your bottom dollar that someone who flies against it online (or against the AI) will complain. If the same aircraft was too slow or not agile enough then the fans of that aircraft would be doing the complaining. The reason is simple, combat sims are designed to simulate the aircraft in a combat environment. Therefore the performance and agility of the aircraft will be matched against each other in a competitive environment and if they don't match historical accuracy close enough it will be noticed.






The same is not true in FS9/FSX. I will not go into details as to the aircraft but so many warbird addons are very well received simply because they look good. I have bought some absolute turkeys in FSX that looked great but flew like crap and they have been raved about by the FS community.


I’ve no doubt the complaints are louder from the combat sim community, when it comes to “inaccurate FMs”. I've seen them! I just wonder how informed those complaints really are (dang, I’m in deep trouble now, I just know it!) Complaints in the civilian FS sim community are likely to be less about the “at the edge of the flight envelope” performance characteristics, and more about the usual FS simmer stuff, i.e., clickable buttons, external views, and performance in the landing pattern, etc. I guess my bottom line question is this: are flight models for WW-II planes in FS civilian sims more or less accurate than their counterparts in the combat sim world? And my point is that there is probably no “broad brush” answer. As always, it depends on the individual model.

[Tako_Kichi]

And my point is that there is probably no “broad brush” answer. As always, it depends on the individual model.
I think you just hit the nail on the head! There are some good aircraft out there and some real lemons.

[SolarEagle]

....The good news is Scott already has a date set with a corsair to get the needed hands on time for recordings etc which will give us the needed materials to produce an accu-sim pack to bring the Corsair up to and hopefully far beyond your expectations :engel016:,...

That would be awesome. :applause:

BTW my comment about the sounds not matching the 30" power setting was directed at the sound set rather than the flight model, the later of which is quite good. As soon as I was airborn I knew this had an A2A produced flight model just by how it feels, which is smooth and balanced. A2A flight models are my personal favorite along with those by Rob Young of RealAir.

[lucas81]

MS FS series does not have a good SDK describing an .air file which is responsible for the flight model along with an aircraft.cfg file. Although I believe that the FS offers a lot for the FM builder, it also require lots of patience and knowledge "outside of the box". I have built two flight models (RWD-8 and RWD-14) and it was fairy easy with Sparks' Air Wrench software. However achieving a good spin characteristics is very, very difficult and because I am not flight engineer I was not able to mess with the airfoil data. My planes can be flown "by the numbers", but for me this is flying for getting few screenies and to watch the countryside.

I fly FS aircrafts because of the advanced systems which some of them have (Accusim planes and tubeliners) and for the sim's graphics of course. If I want to have a joy from pure flying, I prefer combat sim (not the MS CFS btw) which allows me to compete against other players in the multiplayer mode. So I agree with IDCP on this point. I am also not so demanding about the 3D detail. I prefer less detailed, but well textured (both quality and uv mapping) plane.
Anyways, FS series is so huge and offers so many possibilities that almost everyone can find some interesting aspect for himself.

Lucas

[yago9]

Decent price for an outstanding model..Was a good purchase (from simmarket ) .Thank you MIlVIZ !

[krazycolin]

Decent price for an outstanding model..Was a good purchase (from simmarket ) .Thank you MIlVIZ !


Just to be clear... you shouldn't be thanking us. Thank A2A and their team for outstanding efforts putting our model into the air...

KC

[yago9]

Just to be clear... you shouldn't be thanking us. Thank A2A and their team for outstanding efforts putting our model into the air...

KC


Sure,sry, but what impressed me the most as oustanding ,was the modelling.
I followed the development of this project on your website that,s why I thanked you first..If you still refering to as " your model " let me thank you again for it.! :applause:

[Lewis-A2A]

Yes the orginal source went through multiple changes and optimisation from our own famous ROB to add the final polish. This was a real team effort from both sides and a great launch craft for our new line of good solid aircraft at an affordable price.

[Henry]

downloading it now!:applause:
as far as fd's go there are a few people out there
who do great Fd's for warbirds with information
available.
anyway thanks guys
ill check it out
H

[Quixoticish]

Is there any news on a paint kit being released for this yet? I know they aren't technically accurate models to use but I'm keen to get cracking on some FAA repaints.

[Gregory Paul]

Here is a nice video on on to take off in the F4U.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0BYq3yevs&feature=related
And part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-PwTTQz6Zw&feature=related

[gajit]

I’ve no doubt the complaints are louder from the combat sim community, when it comes to “inaccurate FMs”. I've seen them! I just wonder how informed those complaints really are (dang, I’m in deep trouble now, I just know it!) Complaints in the civilian FS sim community are likely to be less about the “at the edge of the flight envelope” performance characteristics, and more about the usual FS simmer stuff, i.e., clickable buttons, external views, and performance in the landing pattern, etc. I guess my bottom line question is this: are flight models for WW-II planes in FS civilian sims more or less accurate than their counterparts in the combat sim world? And my point is that there is probably no “broad brush” answer. As always, it depends on the individual model.

Well said :applause::applause::applause:

[krazycolin]

And on the individual user as well... some of whom know what they are doing and others who don't (but usually assume that they do).

Only a real pilot of the particular plane will be able to truly assess the FM of any FS or CFS plane's attributes and or, lack thereof.

KC

[Mathias]

And on the individual user as well... some of whom know what they are doing and others who don't (but usually assume that they do).

Only a real pilot of the particular plane will be able to truly assess the FM of any FS or CFS plane's attributes and or, lack thereof.

KC


A PPL doesn't necessarly make you an expert on flight dynamics.
A driving license doesn't make you an expert on cars either.
The most scientific approach on the matter comes from AvHistory in my opinion.
They calculate the airframe through industry/military standard math models which are pretty good these days below Mach and what effectively excludes opinion and legend flight modelling.

[krazycolin]

A PPL doesn't necessarly make you an expert on flight dynamics.
A driving license doesn't make you an expert on cars either.
The most scientific approach on the matter comes from AvHistory in my opinion.
They calculate the airframe through industry/military standard math models which are pretty good these days below Mach and what effectively excludes opinion and legend flight modelling.

It may not make you an expert, but it will certainly tell you how it flies/drives. and that's a whole heck of a lot better than someone who's never even driven tell me (us, you and them) that it flies well or badly.

I will agree with the last part of the statement but only partially. It's all very nice to concentrate on the science of how things will/should/do fly but, in the end, we all make choices about how we feel it should fly.

As an example, we have another FDE file for the Corsair if anyone should want it and it may well be harder to fly or not. This one was done by Fliger747. If anyone wants it, let me know and I will send it to them.

[Mathias]

I will agree with the last part of the statement but only partially. It's all very nice to concentrate on the science of how things will/should/do fly but, in the end, we all make choices about how we feel it should fly.



...what brings you back to the opinion and legend flight modelling.

[Henry]

As an example, we have another FDE file for the Corsair if anyone should want it and it may well be harder to fly or not. This one was done by Fliger747. If anyone wants it, let me know and I will send it to them.
now he is one person who does do a great job
i have worked with him many times
it may be harder to fly, he is a pilot
i am not so do i need things as real as they get
personally no, i hate crashing all the time
but gentlemen this thread is not about fd's
and who or what are the best.
i see no one has really stated anything about
the flight dynamics of this bird
Its a good plane
i enjoy it and have fun with it
Cheers
H

[gajit]

Only a real pilot of the particular plane will be able to truly assess the FM of any FS or CFS plane's attributes and or, lack thereof.

KC

Wise words. But if a FM allows an aircraft to exceed its published rate of climb, max cruise etc etc etc then we are bound to question the general "feel" of a product.

[hews500d]

It may not make you an expert, but it will certainly tell you how it flies/drives. and that's a whole heck of a lot better than someone who's never even driven tell me (us, you and them) that it flies well or badly.

I will agree with the last part of the statement but only partially. It's all very nice to concentrate on the science of how things will/should/do fly but, in the end, we all make choices about how we feel it should fly.

As an example, we have another FDE file for the Corsair if anyone should want it and it may well be harder to fly or not. This one was done by Fliger747. If anyone wants it, let me know and I will send it to them.


I'd like the new FDE file if possible just to compare it with the A2A version. There's nothing wrong with the A2A FDE at all. I haven't done any real testing yet with the Corsair to see how well the numbers match up with the flight manual I have, but I'd like to compare the two and pick the one closer to the actual performance of the real plane. I've only done 1 takeoff and landing so far (pressed for time) and she tracked right down the centerline with 5 degrees right rudder trim and 5 degrees right wing down aileron trim, which is what the manual recommends.

Feel free to PM me and I'll get my email addy to you.

Darrell

[krazycolin]

Wise words. But if a FM allows an aircraft to exceed its published rate of climb, max cruise etc etc etc then we are bound to question the general "feel" of a product.

the numbers in the "published" data are, sadly, usually wrong. the reason for this is that it's a specification and a generalization and based on one or two birds. it's more than likely, that, as a plane goes into production and the pipeline gets smoother, the plane itself gets better, faster, flies higher, etc.

Note that this is only my opinion. But, I believe, it has merit.

And it is only an opinion....

[gajit]

the numbers in the "published" data are, sadly, usually wrong. the reason for this is that it's a specification and a generalization and based on one or two birds. it's more than likely, that, as a plane goes into production and the pipeline gets smoother, the plane itself gets better, faster, flies higher, etc.

Note that this is only my opinion. But, I believe, it has merit.

And it is only an opinion....

Well - of course - it depends on the source of the data- I was kindofthinking real flight manuals - not my boys book of planes!!! LOL

[SirBenn21]

:cool::angryfir::tgun2::a1089::violent:

:sleep::sleep::sleep:

[JIMJAM]

I was at KCUB, Owens downtown Columbia SC and saw a F4u go down after engine trouble shortly after takeoff. The pilot, Joe Tobul,a veteran was killed.His son and two grandsons also flying in warbirds were in formation and watched him go in making it all the more worse. He dumped it into a wooded area to avoid houses. Ive seen 6 crashes but the sound of that engine cutting loose during climbout haunts me to this day.

http://www.vacwarbirds.org/oldnewsletters/0212unscramble.pdf
1/3 of the page down.

I had seen him do numerous airshows mostly at KSSC Shaw AFB in his Corsair and the sound of it doing full power flybys was incredible. One of the most beautiful planes IMO ever made.

[hews500d]

I was at KCUB, Owens downtown Columbia SC and saw a F4u go down after engine trouble shortly after takeoff. The pilot, Joe Tobul,a veteran was killed.His son and two grandsons also flying in warbirds were in formation and watched him go in making it all the more worse. He dumped it into a wooded area to avoid houses. Ive seen 6 crashes but the sound of that engine cutting loose during climbout haunts me to this day.

http://www.vacwarbirds.org/oldnewsletters/0212unscramble.pdf
1/3 of the page down.

I had seen him do numerous airshows mostly at KSSC Shaw AFB in his Corsair and the sound of it doing full power flybys was incredible. One of the most beautiful planes IMO ever made.

I was fortunate enough to see him with "Korean War Hero" at my hometown airport in 1999. Like you, I can still hear the sound of those fly-bys. Definitely a great loss to the warbird community.

Darrell

[krazycolin]

Well - of course - it depends on the source of the data- I was kindofthinking real flight manuals - not my boys book of planes!!! LOL

Actually, i was talking about the flight manual. they aren't exactly a valid item of reference for most of the performance data and sometimes, that data is even... dare i say it? not quite... er.. realistic. anyway.

nuff said on this one...

[hews500d]

Has anyone made a successful carrier landing on the Enterprise yet? I made a couple quick approaches (which probably is the source of my problem LOL) but it didn't seem like the tailhook was working. I know it was down but I "think" I may have been missing the landing zone. It kinda whacked me out since I haven't had any trouble putting the Avenger down on the same carrier.

Darrell

[GypsyBaron]

Has anyone made a successful carrier landing on the Enterprise yet? I made a couple quick approaches (which probably is the source of my problem LOL) but it didn't seem like the tailhook was working. I know it was down but I "think" I may have been missing the landing zone. It kinda whacked me out since I haven't had any trouble putting the Avenger down on the same carrier.

Darrell

Yes, I've made several traps on CV-6...as well as MANY
missed approaches :)

I've also taken off from that deck as far forward as the
aft end of the island...perhaps a planes length further
forward than that, actually. I dropped it in the drink
once or twice when I was unable to keep rolling straight
down the deck and went off the port side :)

Paul

[hews500d]

Great job! At least I know it's working :) It wasn't pretty, I rolled off the bow of the carrier and into the drink on both attempts at trying to get stopped !

Darrell

[fliger747]

In my fiddling with this alpha for Colin, I did about 200 carrier landings on the CV6, bounce it in too hard or miss the landing zone you would hit the barrier, if there was one. Main thing for any WWII carrier aircraft, pay attention to (1) the wind over the deck (2) load, including fuel (3) airspeed managment.

Glad to see some classic Carrier Birds that have arrived and more that are coming down the pike!!!!! T.

[gajit]

Actually, i was talking about the flight manual. they aren't exactly a valid item of reference for most of the performance data and sometimes, that data is even... dare i say it? not quite... er.. realistic. anyway.

nuff said on this one...

Ok - but now I will never beleive a flight manual again. If I die I will haunt you!! LOL

Edit : I have always wanted to visit Canada - like the idea of living there one day.

[tigisfat]

Actually, i was talking about the flight manual. they aren't exactly a valid item of reference for most of the performance data and sometimes, that data is even... dare i say it? not quite... er.. realistic. anyway.

nuff said on this one...

Thank you!! noone in the flight sim world understands this though.

[krazycolin]

Thank you!! noone in the flight sim world understands this though.


Ok - but now I will never believe a flight manual again. If I die I will haunt you!! LOL

Edit : I have always wanted to visit Canada - like the idea of living there one day.

If it is written, it must be true, is a common enough error in all times. And this is evident in "Performance Data" as it is elsewhere. Going "by the book" is not good enough. You need/should always to talk to at least one, if not more actual flyers of that particular plane... (again, only my opinion)

It's hard when the manual is your only valid reference. But, as always, there's a fine line between building something that's for fun and building something that has to perform... On both sides, people get it wrong (F/A-18 Hornet ) and people get it right (F-15). (again, my opinion)

Visiting Canada is fine. Living... well.. first off, though our medical system and our "socialist" method of living is, I believe, far more... er.. fair than most countries, it's FRIGGIN COLD here in the winter (-30 celsius)... So, even I don't WANT to live here, there's just no where better (at this time, for me... ) (don't get upset.. this is MY opinion having lived in about 20 different countries over my lifetime)....

ANYWAY!

KC

[IanP]

According to "the book", a C152 with 1 POB and a full fuel load will climb at 1000fpm, full power, 65KIAS.

Of all the people who have flown them, here, has anyone ever seen one break 600fpm? I ain't, and I flew a horde of the little blighters! ;)

The AOM or equivalent was written by a combination between people with a shiny new test aircraft and their sales team. It was done before the "options" and "modifications" were done, then tweaked a little, basically. The only numbers I've ever believed in official documentation for an aircraft I've flown are the weight and balance, because they're specifically for the aircraft whose identity is on the front of the book and, at least according to the CAA, should be checked and updated every time the aircraft is down for heavy maintenance.

[Henry]

I remember reading some
useful Data on a Mossie test somewhere
cannot find it at the moment
but colour and shine of the paint
had a big change on top speed
Thats in no flight manual that i have
and i have a copy of most,
everything is subjective
also i would think is the area you are flying in
H

[IanP]

The area you are flying in, particularly, has a massive effect. "Hot and High" performance is one of the big discussion points whenever people talk about military aircraft in particular. Helicopters that were designed for use in Europe don't cope at all well in Afghanistan. An aircraft that can take off from a small unprepared strip in Germany or the US needs a mile of runway to operate at the top of the Andes.

Piston engined aircraft suffer far more from the effects of heat and altitude than turbine engined ones, but both produce less power the higher and/or hotter the place they are operating from. Even a hot day in a temperate climate can make a significant difference to the performance of an older or less powerful aircraft.

[fliger747]

Aircraft test data has gotten much better as we nudge past the year 2000. For the 747-400 I fly, it is quite good indeed, a matter of importance as the takeoff and fuel burn data we compute must be very good indeed!

During the 40's test data was not particulary reliable. Remember it was mosty aquired by a very busy test pilot reading cockpit instruments and scribbling on his knee board. The several layers of innacuracy possible in that chain of events are significant.

One of the better references in America's Hundred Thousand", which usually has both manufacturer and service test data. The divergences can be dramatic! Temperature and altimeter (pressure altitude) differences even make a big difference in very modern and high performance aircraft! I would not agree that turbine aircraft less vunerable to altitude and temperture effects after some 25 years of driving them around. They just typically start with a bit more power to weight ratio.

At least in FS we can approximate standard condition for flight test by setting the weather to "Clear Skies" weather theme.

Cheers: t.

[IanP]

I would not agree that turbine aircraft less vunerable to altitude and temperture effects after some 25 years of driving them around. They just typically start with a bit more power to weight ratio.

I've never flown a turbine aircraft, so will bow before you on that one.

All I understand is that if you ask a C206 and C208 to depart the same runway at sea level, the chances are they'll both get out and use similar amounts of runway. If you tried the same in the Rockies or even the Alps, the Caravan would still be getting out when the Stationair was welded to the ground with a similar load. That came from what I was told by a guy who flew both types, not first hand experience.

[SolarEagle]

I've heard normally aspirated engines gain about 1% power from every 10 degree(F) drop in temp, while forced induction engines gain about 2%.

I'd say that's true as my supercharged car certainly seems to gain a solid 40hp on a 0 degree winter day compared to a 70 degree summer day. I'm familiar with how an additional 40hp feels on my car because going from my stock boost of 7lb up to 11lb along with intake and exhaust upgrades gives me about 40hp and 50ft-lb.

[fliger747]

The Cessna caravan uses a flat rated engine, in otherwords, it artificially restricts the output up to a certain altitude where the max available power meets the design output limit for the aircraft, and then decreases thereafter with altitude. Very similar to a supercharged engine limited to a certain MP, which can be provided to some critical altiude.

In aircraft super/turbocharged engines, an intercooler is quite important in being able to use full rated "Dry" MP without geting into the detonation range.

Cheers; T.

[Blade124]

Hey Solar Eagle,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
You are feeling the same thing in your car that a plane feels in the air. The main difference with flying is it’s a matter of safety, as you may have to clear some trees or a hill at the end of a runway.
<o:p></o:p>
I am not sure if you have our Accu-Sim Boeing 377, but it has torque meters that measure the actual twisting force from each engine. As you can see in your car, the PSI (manifold pressure) does not equal power. So with torque meters, you dial in all your engine settings as you normally would (mixture, prop, manifold pressure), which gets you in the ball park. You then fine tune each engine with the torque meters to insure you are dialing in the exact power in every situation.
<o:p></o:p>
Also, on a very cold morning, you will notice it’s much easier to over-torque the engines than on a hot day. If you are on hot tarmac, it’s compounded even worse.
<o:p></o:p>
I enjoyed building automobile engines when I was a teenager. My favorite engine back then was the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Pontiac</st1:City></st1:place> 455. It produced about 370 horsepower but it was a very long stroke, so its power curve was almost flat. That thing felt like it could climb up the side of a building in a 2 ton vehicle. I would have been obsessed with a torque-meter if I had one, it sounds like you would too. The nice thing when we make an Accu-Sim aircraft, we built an engine diagnostics panel that measures various internal factors, and includes a torque meter that we use all the time.
<o:p></o:p>
Scott.

[SolarEagle]

Thanks for the post Scott. While I know how horsepower and lb-ft of torque interrelate through RPM I was never able to figure out how to translate PSI of torque from the torquemeter into ft-lb or horsepower, so I never really understood what I was looking at on the torquemeter. Is there anything you can share about that?

Just for fun I plotted a torque curve on the Allison 1710 since that's the only aero engine I have horsepower curves on and I was surprised it actually slants entirely down. With 32" Manifold pressure it shows 1955 ft-lb @ 1800 RPM and 1675 ft-lb @ 2950 RPM.

[fliger747]

A lot of factors enter into the relationship between MP, Torque, RPM and THRUST delivered in aero engines. An interesting example of an internal improvment in the R2800 "C" series engines had to do with the lubrication system. Several hundred extra useable HP were "found" through reducing drastically the amount of oil being sloshed around in the crankcase! It was then possible to increase the max RPM from 2700 to 2800 withoug getting into a serious internal friction loss situation.

[Blade124]

Solar Eagle,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Since torque is a relationship of force and distance, and PSI is pressure, there isn’t a universal conversion for this, however, the PSI indicators in the Boeing 377 are measuring pressure based on the twisting force of each motor. So in the cockpit you are seeing an exact measure of the twisting force in PSI which is what you want to dial in the exact power setting. What we did is create the R4360 engine then tune the torque meters based on readings taken under specific power settings and carb air temp.
<o:p></o:p>
As for that Allison, I actually think these readings are quite nice:
1955 ft-lb @ 1800 RPM and 1675 ft-lb @ 2950 RPM.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Assuming its peak torque occurs at 1800RPM, then at 2950RPM its well over 80% efficiency. If you plot the horsepower curve, it should look quite nice all the way up. This is a testament to the engineering that went into these old warbirds, especially when you consider this engine was built before computer optimization.
<o:p></o:p>
I remember my grandfather used to make cider with this old engine, that just had a single piston traveling so slowly. I was so young I can’t remember much about it except for that ‘pop pop pop’ sound it used to make. It’s amazing how you think the technology is based on the same basic principal – suck, squeeze, bang, blow.
<o:p></o:p>
Scott.

[SolarEagle]

:ernae:

[fliger747]

The Witte One Lung Diesel was a common feature in many rural areas before electrification (post war!!). They were also found in many oil fields in the Midwest to run the well pumps. Such low speed engines are still found in many fishing boats. I had a Lister Diesel for many years for electricity but it was a high speed engine running at 1800 RPM to produce 60 cycle power. Not nearly the cool Pocka, Pocka, Pocka....

[SolarEagle]

I just read this bit in my amazing new book "Vee's for Victory: The Story of the Allison V-1710", which is a much cooler book than America's Hundred Thousand. :kilroy:



The Allison’s went to work on farms and factories around the country, often pumping water or doing other mundane tasks. As of the late 1980’s, one of the hydroplane teams tells of stopping at a freeway rest stop in Nebraska and in the quiet of the prairie hearing the distinct note of a V-1710. Taking the next exit, and following the sound they found a farmer using a V-1710 for pumping water. He had two more still in their crates as spares. A deal was struck, and the hydroplane team picked up the three engines on their way home. The farmer then switched to diesel power.