PDA

View Full Version : Conspicuous by Their Absence



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ivan
December 11th, 2009, 16:31
Hello Folks,

Which aircraft do you all think should have been in CFS but aren't? This is a slightly different twist on the question "What would you like to see?"

Personally, I find the Halifax and Stirling under represented. I know there is at least one of each, but am surprised there are not more. The Japanese Type 5 fighter and F4U-4 Corsair are also under represented IMO.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 11th, 2009, 20:29
I do agree with Halifax and Stirling, but I will surprise you with my own discovery; the AVRO Lancaster!

Turns out that all versions being used in CFS are FS98 vintage a/c, even those we used from RAF662. The latter were «upgraded» to CFS standards, but are still basically old revamped a/c.

Ivan
December 12th, 2009, 05:47
Hi Hubbabubba,

I thought there were quite a few good Lancasters out there which is why I didn't list that aircraft. I have also found a Stirling and a Halifax, but both are really POOR models. I don't think FS98 origins are all that bad because we still build aircraft using FS98 tools.

The -4 Corsair is the REAL surprise to me. Pretty soon, I'll be building one of those. I am just debating on putting my current Corsair on diet first. It is too fat.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 14th, 2009, 14:32
Hi Hubbabubba,

I thought there were quite a few good Lancasters out there which is why I didn't list that aircraft. I have also found a Stirling and a Halifax, but both are really POOR models. I don't think FS98 origins are all that bad because we still build aircraft using FS98 tools.

The -4 Corsair is the REAL surprise to me. Pretty soon, I'll be building one of those. I am just debating on putting my current Corsair on diet first. It is too fat.

- Ivan.

I do remember some Alain de l'Homme Corsairs that were good looking. I do agree that Stirling and Halifax are not as well represented as the Lancaster, but I'm convinced that the latter would benefit of a CFS overhaul, and would certainly be a more popular pick for MP games.

Ivan
December 14th, 2009, 18:44
Alain L'Homme's Corsairs are very good, but they are post-War F4U-5s. The recognition feature is the gerbil-like cheek pouches which I believe are oil coolers. The Dash-4 is quite a nicer looking plane and was probably the ultimate development of the plane.

My original Corsair was done just to prove a point. I didn't much worry about where the wing bend was and used drawings that I later found out were not very good. I have since fixed the wing bend and found a much better set of dimensional drawings done by Paul Matt. I have looked at Corsairs in photographs and at the actual plane for hours and still am amazed at the overall shape of the plane.

Just out of curiosity, where is the Lancaster lacking? What would you do to improve it?

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 14th, 2009, 21:27
Just out of curiosity, where is the Lancaster lacking? What would you do to improve it?


Kill all the bleeds, especially around the tail, the wings roots, engines nacelles and props. Redo the transparency textures, especially the bomber aimer bubble canopy. Make an internal cabin and a virtual cockpit without jitters, place the CoG within the fuselage so TG2 could be aimed without too much visual interference. That's only a start. Don't take me wrong, this is a fine aircraft (the RAF662), but it could be better.

I recently read "Whistling Death - The Test Pilot's Story Of The F4U Corsair" by Boone T. Guyton, one of the main test pilot at Vought Aircraft. No two aircraft were identical as modifications were constantly made on the production line. Workers could tell when an a/c was made simply looking at, and into, them. This was not unique to Vought, but the Corsair would set records for the number of mods they had.

Not all changes were readily visible, but many were. So beware of «rivets' counter»:mixedsmi:.

smilo
December 15th, 2009, 18:19
I would consider conspicuous absence
to mean absent from CFS.
my candidate would be the Do 17.
other than the obscure variant offered as an AI,
I have never seen one offered.

I could go on about the lack of quality medium bombers,
but we have been through that before.
ah, what the heck, B-25, B-26 and of course the A-20.
the lack of a quality A-20 is especially bothersome,
since a picture of one is on the CFS installation menu.

Ivan
December 15th, 2009, 18:34
Hi Smilo,

Yes, Conspicuous by their absence. I never thought about the Do 17 but you are probably right. I also find the absence of a good Ju 87 Stuka rather surprising.

The other stuff seems to be in some process of development among present company:

YOU are working on the A-20
I am working on a B-25
I WILL be working on a B-26 at some point.

There are rather mediocre versions of all of the above that are available though. Of the three US Mediums, the B-26 probably has the best example available for CFS in my opinion.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 15th, 2009, 20:46
The AAC occasionally fly a Ju 87 that has been, if memory serves me, repainted by Paul Dubart.

I do agree that medium bombers are scarce to come and of general poor quality. So are support a/c (trainers, transport, reconnaissance...) and «civilian-turned-military» stop gap aircraft.

smilo
December 16th, 2009, 15:01
the A-20 is currently on hold.
I ran into a couple barriers
and decided to take a break.

I have a pretty nice Stuka
that I would be happy to send.
just let me know.
true, repaint by Pol.

Ivan
December 16th, 2009, 17:38
Hi Hubbabubba, Smilo,

The only decent Stuka I have ever seen for CFS has been a G model with 37mm cannon under the wings and that model wasn't a dive bomber. Smilo, if you believe you have a good one, please email me.

Hubbabubba, can you give examples of the stop-gap aircraft you mentioned? One civilian aircraft I was thinking about building was the Beech Staggerwing. One of those made the rounds in pre-war China.
Regarding your mention of Boone Guyton, I came across that book many years ago. It is an excellent read. Regarding differences in the production Corsairs, Most of those differences are not visible in the CFS scale of modelling. I called my released Corsair a F4U-1A because of the fuel tank arrangement, but except possibly for canopy braces and a slightly different flight model, it could be a F4U-1D. There are also differences in the bomb racks and pylons for drop tanks and mine doesn't have either.

Smilo, what kind of hangup did you hit with the A-20? Anything I can assist with? If so, email me.

- Ivan.

smilo
December 16th, 2009, 18:15
it's on the way,
minus PJs textures.
will send them tomorrow.

Ivan
December 18th, 2009, 19:36
Thanks Smilo. I picked up the pieces you sent. Now I just need to load on my game machine.

- Ivan.

Ivan
December 19th, 2009, 07:00
Hi Smilo,
The Ju 87B Stuka is beautiful. I believe the textures that came with the thing WERE the PJ Dunbar textures. I never did see a yellow nose version.
I don't believe I had seen this particular model before.

The flight model seems a little weird though. Do you happen to know what the procedure is to execute a divebombing attack? I tried using spoilers, but nothing much happened. Also, I can only get 175 mph max speed at 3500 feet. I am going to check out the flight model a bit. I have a pretty good description of the Ju 87 (I don't know if it is a B or D model) in a Luftwaffe aircraft book by Eric Brown.

This is a pretty good addition to the Hangar.
Thanks again.
- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 19th, 2009, 07:42
Hubbabubba, can you give examples of the stop-gap aircraft you mentioned?

Quite frankly, I didn't gave it much thoughts. The Australian Boomerang comes to mind. Many civilian aircraft went to war out of necessity, not necessarily as fighters. The Jungman, the Stinson(s) and all these «grass hoppers» that did such a splendid job as «hacks» and recon.

The reason they haven't been modelled for CFS1 is all too human; they're considered «targets» rather than full-fledged war participants, as they should be.

When, in the movie «Battle of the Bulge», Henry Fonda has the pilot cut his engine to listen to the advancing tigers tanks under, masked by heavy clouds crawling low, you have an aircraft doing more to the ultimate victory than a 500 bombers formation clubbing for the tenth time the same oil refinery.

Not enough credit is given to these «targets».

Ivan
December 19th, 2009, 08:18
Hi Hubbabubba,

I believe we actually have representatives of some of those aircraft. The Boomerang is out there. The little tail dragger Pipers do well enough as a general representative of the Liaison types and can easily be found in the FS98 Golden Age aircraft. There are a few trainers I have come across but never bothered to install. They may not have great flight models, but that isn't all that hard to fix.

I don't think in the Henry Fonda action in the Battle of the Bulge movie that it was the aircraft that was the hero but the pilot. In my opinion, that is true the majority of the time there is a heroic action. The Stuka in the prior discussion is a good example. Most were vulnerable. One flown by a man named Rudel proved that they were not always vulnerable.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 19th, 2009, 08:34
OK Ivan...

I went to check my own Stukas and it appears that I have two versions; one has turning vanes on the two gear legs and was most probably painted by PJ (JG57 markings). The air file let me dive from 3,500 feet to ground at 45-55° and reach ±320 mph. Aircraft container's name is Ju87B_JG57. The POV is about 100 ft over the plane, but it could be me tinkering with it.

The other is a «twin-pack» with two paint job called Ju87B-2 10_LG1. I can easily reach 320 mph in a dive under the same circumstances as above. I do prefer its handling but it has no turning vane. One of the paint job is a yellow nose a/c. I don't think they are PJ works.

Both have bleeds, but the latter has less than the former... but less details too.

Which one do you have?

P.S.- As I'm writing these lines, radio is announcing a load of white stuff about to drop on your front yard.
I'm dreaming of a white Chrismas...
Just like the ones I used to know... (you know the rest):wavey:

hubbabubba
December 19th, 2009, 08:43
If you know of a Boomerang worth downloading, show me the way.

I agree; pilots were the real heroes, but I don't do pilots...:kilroy:

I think that FS98 a/c could be, in general, done better now. Just compare my Taifun with the previous one. Parts limitations, paint with half a palette, AF99 «patch» release... a lot of bettering is possible!

Have to go now:salute: (it does salute with the wrong hand!:kilroy:)

P.S.- Come to think of it; many FS98 a/c were in fact FS95 or FSF5 made with AF5, the forefather of AF99. Precision to the first decimal only. Pegasus Taifun is one.

Ivan
December 23rd, 2009, 11:05
Hi Hubbabubba,

Sorry it took so long to respond. Snow disrupted a lot of things.

The Plane that Smilo sent me was the Ju87B-2 10_LG1. The model is fairly pretty. It does have a fair number of bleeds, but none that do much to disrupt the display.

There IS a FS98 or earlier version of the Boomerang. I don't remember if it was any good, but since it isn't active on my development computer, I must not have liked it much.

Regarding flight models, I believe that a CFS plane should be at least capable of executing its typical mission profile. In the case of the Stuka, that would be something like coming over the target at 15,000 feet and doing a VERTICAL dive onto the target and pulling out at abou 2,500. With the dive brakes (Spoilers) on, it should never exceed 350 mph even while vertical.

My Dauntless can do a pretty fair approximation of its mission profile with a dive that looks to be pretty close to vertical but because of the extra flap lift, it doesn't really go straight down. Probably moves more like 70 degree angle like the real ones did. My issue is that I can't write up how to set up a bombing attact because I haven't been able to consistently set up attacks and be able to hit anything.

- Ivan.

smilo
December 23rd, 2009, 14:13
it has been a while since I used the Stuka,
but as I recall, I had pretty good luck with it.
lets see if I can remember....
flying toward the target, I would use padlock mode,
when the target was between the gear,
(almost at the bottom of the screen)
I would nose forward into the dive
back out of padlock
release at about 2,500 and pull up hard.
I was never able to accomplish
the wing over into the dive
and still maintain target visual orientation.
so much for doing it like in the movies.


the model is the Junkers Ju87B-2 10/LG1
given to me by PJ Dunbar.
it is a reworked Junkers 87/B 'Stuka'
from the Just Flight FSClassics package.

hubbabubba
December 23rd, 2009, 15:33
Ivan,

With my new method of modelling through SCASM, bleeds are a thing of the past (mostly). The jeep and St-Leu church are two example of that. I can also adjust vertices to a refpoint precision. In a scale 7 model, this is 13th of an inch precision!

I do remember the Boomerang you're talking about, but it was not what I would call "CFS1 standard".

I have read Rudel's book «Stuka pilot», but I don't remember him saying it was common practice to go vertical. I know that the Ju 87 had a special bomb release system that would push on the bomb to get it out of the propellers disc on its way down, but vertical dives were seldom practice.

smilo,

If you're stuck on your A-20, I have a cure for the headaches; why not come back to AAC games. You can always return to your baby later, and with a bit of sanity restored.:173go1: I know that it works on me...

We have been missing you a lot, and our recent attendances do reflect that. Call it mutual assistance.

So, aparently, I have PJ's stuka without PJ textures then. I do remember having enabled TG2 for Hank on one of them, probably the one with the vanes.

One thing we will never be able to model is the ability of the Ju 87 to climb up and return to horizontal flying, even if the pilot is unconscious!:isadizzy:

Unless Ivan could pull something out of his magic hat.

Joyeux Noêl à vous deux.

Ivan
December 23rd, 2009, 16:07
Hi Smilo, Hubbabubba,

A little digression first: The SBD-3 Dauntless was the premier ship killer in the Pacific theater. The typical attack was a near vertical dive at about 70 degrees from horizontal with dive brakes deployed. The airspeed could be held down to about 350 mph in this attitude and configuration.

Unfortunately in CFS, I don't know that I can animate the same control surfaces with two controls (Spoiler and Flaps). My choice was to leave the Flaps on the Flap control and use the Spoiler control to raise the upper surface of the wing trailing edge. I don't know that the Dauntless required two controls to configure for a dive, but mine does.

What I also found out from working on the flight model was that the typical flap drag for most CFS aircraft is way too high. The SBD actually has lower drag in the dive configuration than many CFS planes with flaps down. (Perhaps we should sanity check this area for other CFS planes?)

While the SBD wasn't a true vertical diver, according to Captain Eric Brown, the Stuka WAS. "It felt natural going straight down", which means that its drag was even higher. As such, it needs a higher effect spoiler / dive brake than it currently has. I will check out the flight model and see what I can do. Rudel flew on the Eastern front where some of the Ju-87's didn't even have dive brakes (the cannon planes). I figure that a true Sturz Kampf plane needs them though. They are already animated in the model, they just have no effect.

Perhaps something can be done about auto-pullout with the auto pilot? I don't know that I will spend much time experimenting with that.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 23rd, 2009, 18:27
Unfortunately in CFS, I don't know that I can animate the same control surfaces with two controls (Spoiler and Flaps).

SCASM:kilroy:

Go look at Bretoal's Bréguets, the broomstick is following roll and pitch axis. With SCASM, you could build flaps that are specific to flaps commands but are invisible when spoilers command is used. It depends on what you're looking for.

Eric "Winkle" Brown was a class all to himself. Hans Ulrich Rudel was an authority with the Ju 87 and only dived once vertical to deliver a death blow to a Soviet battleship with a heavier-than-normal bomb down one of the funnel. I doubt that Brown experience included a bomb drop as he probably only flew her after war.

I know that P-47 pilots had to bail out after releasing their bombs right into their own props! Was the Dauntless equipped with a special bomb rack like the Junker?

Ivan
December 23rd, 2009, 21:04
Hi Hubbabubba,

Yes, the Dauntless did have a swinging arm to make sure the bomb cleared the prop.

Yes, I know: everything can be done in SCASM.

I have never read Rudel's book. From your description, it sounds like he was an attack pilot but not a dive bomber pilot. A vertical dive is THE standard attack profile.

Just to give you an idea of what a Dauntless attack using my plane would look like:
1 Fly until you are almost directly over the target at perhaps 15,000 feet.
2 Bring throttle to idle
3 Open Dive Brakes. Nose will drop through loss of lift.
4 Open Flaps. Speed will climb gradually to around 350 mph
5 Roll or otherwise line up on the target. (Line up slightly below)
6 Release bomb at about 2000-5000 feet
7 Close Dive Brakes, Roll to clear any pursuers
8 Advance to full throttle
9 Pull Out and Close Flaps
10 Confirm Dive Brakes Closed, Flaps Closed, Throttle Open and Level Flight

I generally can't hit much from a dive bombing run. The biggest issue is step 1.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 23rd, 2009, 22:35
I still do not understand why you need double control over flap-spoilers. Is it the same moving part(s)?

Unless you have a view under you, I can't see how you can drop straight down on a moving target that is zig-zagging from 15,000 ft.

Rudel started as a dive bomber pilot, and a good one at that, but moved to 3.7 cm kanonboot Stuka, killing hundreds of Russian tanks. During his training, he learned to dive-bomb «up to 90 degrees», but, as far as I can remember, only went vertical while attacking the Marat, an old but sturdy battleship at berth, with a specially designed 2,000 lbs bomb.

It is the only time he mentionned going vertical, without dive brakes BTW! He released his bomb under 900 feet and was able to pull out and away from the target skimming the waves at 10-12 feet.

Ivan
December 24th, 2009, 04:07
Hi Hubbabubba,

The flaps also act as part of the dive brakes. When selecting flaps, only the lower control surfaces move and may move at various angles. When selecting dive brakes, upper and lower surfaces both move and I believe they are fully deployed or not at all.

The issue that I have on the dive bombing runs is trying to determine when I am over the target so that I can roll the aircraft and enter a vertical dive directly over the target. If the dive is started NOT over the target, there isn't much time to line up before bomb release and pull out.

The Dauntless wasn't really a vertical diver as the Ju-87 because it wasn't quite as draggy and gained speed too fast in the dive. Neither plane climbs well enough with a bomb load to make a retry feasible. Typically on a patrol, the Dauntless carried a single 500 pounder. On an attack mission, it would carry a single 1000 pounder but could carry a max load of around 1500 pounds.

The Dauntless was agile enough to be a passable fighter and with 2 x .50 caliber MGs had generally more firepower than the Japanese Zero. The Dauntless wasn't a very big plane, but also didn't have folding wings either. The Dauntless had two multiple wing tanks per wing which means that I can't find an appropriate fuel selector or fuel gauge.

A man named Vejtasa managed to embarrass a few Zeros with this plane.

- Ivan.

Ivan
December 24th, 2009, 04:12
BTW, as I mentioned earlier, CFS really doesn't need dive bombers because just about every fighter can behave like one. Pick a plane, take it to altitude, throttle back and deploy flaps. You can dive slower than a Stuka that way.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 24th, 2009, 07:27
I'm starting to understand your concern about flaps generated drag.

So, if I understand correctly, the Dauntless had a split trailing edge that acted as diving brake by holding the upper part up and the lower part down, the lower part being also used as flaps.

The solution would be then to make two lower parts. One for the air brakes, one for the flaps. SCASMing would only intervene to place a conditional jump that renders the flap invisible while spoiler key is being used, and another jump would render the lower air brake invisible when flaps are lowered. I'm not even sure that it can't be done with AA solely.

P.S.- Oops! Just re-read your diving routine. Point #4 calls for flaps after air brakes deployment. How so???

Ivan
December 24th, 2009, 09:47
Hi Hubbabubba,

I believe on the real Dauntless, there is only One control for the dive brakes (upper and lower surfaces). On my CFS plane, there are two controls: Spoilers & Flaps. I am at around 1196 parts out of 1200 allowed for AF99 at the moment. I don't even know that the plane will display right when it has been textured. Certainly there is no more room for additional pieces in AF99.

I am sure you are absolutely right in that the parts can be animated properly in connection with the single spoiler control in SCASM, but there is the additional problem of what happens in flight performance when the flaps are deployed while dive brakes are deployed. CFS will go merrily along and include the additional drag of flaps and..... Then what? I believe the two separate controls is probably the best idea with CFS.

Besides the flap drag, the typical landing gear drag is also way too high with CFS planes. The typical pitch changes are also incorrect for the most part: Most planes will pitch nose down with extending landing gear AND deploying flaps. This isn't true of every plane, but it is the way to guess unless you know better.

The sequence I quoted is really only for MY Dauntless. The spoiler first helps to put the aircraft's nose down and also doesn't make the aircraft balloon upward as would dropping flaps at high speed. Also, relatively speaking, the target really doesn't move very much in the time it takes to make a dive bombing run.

BTW, during this discussion, I have also been looking at details on the Ju 87. Perhaps I need to put this plane on my build list.

- Ivan.

smilo
December 24th, 2009, 11:20
BTW, during this discussion, I have also been looking at details on the Ju 87. Perhaps I need to put this plane on my build list.

- Ivan.

:monkies:
bites tongue til it bleeds
won't let fingers say much, either

hubbabubba
December 24th, 2009, 14:08
So Ivan, my idea was correct. Of course, AF99 parts limitation may stop you from implementing it. You know my answer to that but I don't want to sound like a preacher heckling to make a convert:engel016:.

If we were to change all CFS1 a/c drag and lift figures for flaps and gears, many CFS1 simmers would have to relearn how to land, me first. It would mean longer finals on approaches.

The Junker Ju 87 is an intricate aircraft and I'm not sure that 1200 parts would do it justice. But I know a way...:engel016:

The jeep should be released pretty soon, the only hurdle left being gauges' creators permissions for the panel (dashboard is more appropriate here:icon_lol:). The version that smilo and you have is quite outdated, but changes are in the details. I will probably release it with FS98 air file style.

It was a great experimental project, along with St-Leu church, and I have learned a lot of things that will certainly be of use in the Harvard MkII.

Ivan
December 24th, 2009, 18:13
Get off your butt and finish up the B-25 Mitchell!!!!!
:monkies:


Hi Smilo,
I WILL, I WILL....
:173go1:
- Ivan.

Ivan
December 24th, 2009, 18:16
Hi Smilo,

Sorry for the misquote, but I thot it would be funny to express what I believe you are really thinking but are too courteous to write.

- Ivan.:icon_lol:

smilo
December 24th, 2009, 18:46
thanks Ivan,
I am sitting here laughing out loud!
seriously, I kid you not.
Merry Christmas, to you and yours

smilo
December 25th, 2009, 07:02
Get off your butt and finish up the B-25 Mitchell!!!!!
:monkies:



Hi Smilo,
I WILL, I WILL....
:173go1:
- Ivan.

after sleeping on it,
this is still funny...
although inaccurate.
the truth be known,
I am beginning to understand
what it's like do build a model.
even though, I haven't been doing it for years, like you.
one wants to make it
as perfect as possible.
if for no other reason,
than self satisfaction.
not to mention,
we don't want to give our friends
a crappy product.
after all, our name is on it.
then, there is the distinct possibility
that some a$$h*** will steal it
and call it their own.
add to all this,
the simple fact that we have
lives that interrupt or hobby.
distractions abound and it becomes easy
to set the project aside for another day.
I know of what I speak...
this is a person that rarely finishes anything.
and I mean anything.
my world is full of projects
in various stages of completion.
many are still on the drawing board,
most have never even made it that far.
now for the bloody truth,
I rarely fly CFS anymore.
there was a time when
I would have loved to use the B-25 in multi-player,
but, for now, that time has passed.
so if you want to finish
the B-25, the Dauntless,
or any of your many projects,
do it for your satisfaction.
not my persistent hounding.
please take this with a grain of salt.
I mean no disrespect
I honor your work and you as a friend.
I just though you should know.

hubbabubba
December 25th, 2009, 14:36
Jeez! We have a poet in our midst!
:mixedsmi:

Si tu sais déjà,
Que tu n'en sais guère plus qu'un autre,
Tu en sais déjà,
Bien plus que bien d'autres.

Ivan
December 30th, 2009, 13:30
Hi Hubbabubba,
I believe it is possible to get a decent Ju 87D Stuka for CFS within the limitations of AF99.

The change in drag for greater realism is a harder question. You already know that I try to achieve flight performance that is as close to reality as I can subject to the limitations of research, the CFS engine, and my own knowledge of how to do things. To me, it is an easy answer: Change all the flight models to be as close to reality as possible and if CFS pilots now have to use different techniques and practices, so be it. The idea and attraction of simulators IS trying to get as close to reality as possible.

Hi Smilo,
Thanks for the message. To some extent that covers most of the reasons I build or don't build something. As far as I am concerned, nothing I have ever worked on will ever be completely done. The B-25 specifically needs to have a few holes cut into the aft fuselage to simulate windows that are there. At the moment, I am stuck on certain issues in flight modeling. I HAVE resolved a few things today though.

Later Guys.
- Ivan.

hubbabubba
February 12th, 2010, 06:00
Just found one that should be on someone's drawing board; Heinkel He 115.

Nice and "sexy" reconnaissance - mine layer - torpedo bomber on stiff floaters. Was the scourge of Murmansk's bound convoys.

Only model found is a FS2002 at Flightsim. If only we could embark torpedoes like CFS2.:kilroy:

Ivan
February 12th, 2010, 12:44
http://www.elwood.freeserve.co.uk/aircraft.htm#SECTION012

I believe there is a passable He 115 here. I don't know if torpedos are in the supply chain though.
I exchanged emails with Mr. Elwood a few years ago before I reworked his Lysander. Seems like a nice guy.

Still messing with flight models over here and no real results to show for it yet. BTW, the B-25 Mitchell is sorta stuck. I can't find a good information on the nose gear retraction sequence. Need some good diagrams or a E&M manual. Been too busy shovelling snow to get much accomplished though.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
February 12th, 2010, 21:34
Nice find!

I have visited that page in the past, but overlooked the He 155. I have found some pictures that show an elliptical planform. I will compare with this model.

Some of the other models are also worth a look. Thanks again.

womble55
March 4th, 2010, 06:06
Speaking of Heinkels, what about a Heinkel He177 or would that be impossible due to the inability of CFS to provide a decent amount of smoke and flames from the DB610s.
What about a Manchester instead of a Lancaster or even a Lincoln to go with the multitude of Meteors about.
How is it that nearly everyone has a B25 in the pipeline (me included), my problem with it is that I am well up on my parts count and it needs simplifying.
The Halifax is desperately needed, preferably with merlins and that abismal greenhouse that was also called a turret on top.
Nobody seems to have metioned the stalwarts of the RAF early on in the conflict, namely the Avro Anson, a Mk1 with gently sloping cockpit and the greenhouse on its back. Just to be accurate you could pump the U/C up manually.
The interwar years are also poorly represented with a meagre offering of a Handley Page Heyford, Hawker Hart/Demon, Siskin and Bulldog. What about the flying boats as well. The list could be endless because no sooner than one aircraft is built we know we can do better.
see you soon
Les AKA Womble

Ivan
March 5th, 2010, 02:54
Hello Womble55,

I actually DO have a Heinkel 177 in the works. With my previous techniques, I was running out of resources, but within the last year or so, I have developed some techniques that might work to reduce the resource count. I just tried some different methods on a rebuild of my B-25C and knocked three components off the assembly. The parts count went up by 10 and I might have to add one component back for a better visual though. 27 components and 1193 parts at the moment. I don't have enough left to put in 3D engine cowls or windows....

Post some screen shots. I need to do the same.

The Halifax is one that could use a good build. For such a good bomber it is surprisingly neglected. Some of the others such as the Anson have been built. I believe I have flown a FS98 Bristol Bulldog.

My selection is seldom based on what the CFS community really "needs" but rather on planes that I want to own. Thus, yet another Messerschmitt 109 and a Kawanishi N1K-2J Shiden-KAI are a couple that are on my list though the world hardly needs another 109. Another that is on my list is a P-40B/C. I have started on that, but lost my reference drawings.

You are more prolific that I am. Build more!!!
- Ivan.

Ivan
March 5th, 2010, 10:52
Hi Womble55,
Here are some small screenshots of the He 177 and other stuff mentioned.

Note all the different colours on the He 177. They are all the components used to avoid bleeds.

The ground picture of the B-25C shows one of the issues I am trying to address. The glass should be visible on the top of the nose just as it is on the canopy and nose cone.

The cowling on the Zero is a single component and is the actual use of the technique I described and illustrated earlier with a B-26 Marauder cowl. There are obviously concave areas on this component and yet there still are no bleeds.

- Ivan.

demorier
March 6th, 2010, 17:19
For the period...maybe some balloon barriers might make things interesting....a bit later stuff might include a Hawker Tempest V and some "doodlebugs" to shoot at.

Ivan
March 6th, 2010, 19:27
There already have been some Tempest V's floating around and available for download from various sources. Some are quite good in my opinion. The models don't seem to lack for much though I don't remember if they fly particularly well. The doodlebug intercept is one of the stock missions if I remember right.

- Ivan.

womble55
March 9th, 2010, 05:05
My B25 was doing quite well, especially with the nose glass area, but the part count is way too high and annoyingly I am getting bleeds on one side of the nose. Left side displays perfect but the right side, even though they are mirror images, displays with a part missing. I havent got enough hair to pull out but I will get there.
My He177 has the problem of me not getting the nose looking right, but the dual leg undercarriage looks the biz when retracting.
The majority of my other aircraft need just a few tweeks so maybe if I pull my finger out I will upload a Vickers Vernon, a Shorts Singapore, a Fairey Hendon, a Saro Lerwick.........geeeez I got to pull my finger out a long way.

Ivan
March 10th, 2010, 12:41
Hey Womble55,
Post some screenshots! As for parts count, I am up to 1195 on my version of the B-25, but there really aren't any significant bleeds to speak of either. Only noticeable issue is that the far side propeller blades bleed through the lowered nose gear doors, but since the biggest nose gear door only opens and closes during the extension / retraction sequence, it isn't all that bad.

With this few parts left over, I still need some outter wing intakes on the leading edge and some rear windows which perhaps I need to do with a texture. Or maybe I will rebuild some pieces to scrounge a few extra polygons.

- Ivan.

Ivan
March 20th, 2010, 18:13
Hi Womble55,
I believe I just ran into the same situation you did. After correcting the nose gear doors and rebuilding the nose, the aft end of the port nacelle started going away. The MitchellC project was only at about 1185 parts, so that certainly wasn't it. I found that it got a little better when I removed some duplicated polygons on the inboard section of the upper wings. I had saved one component with the nose rebuild, so I decided to see if replacing a structure with a component to reduce the polygon count would help things: I replaced the tail skid structure (20 polygons) with a tail skid component (12 polygons) and the nacelle reappeared in its entirety. I even had enough polygons left over to put in two rear fuselage windows.

Perhaps it isn't just the polygon count but also the complexity of your model. I know mine got quite involved in building the nose section without significant bleeds.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
March 20th, 2010, 20:45
It can simply be a "dummy jump" at the wrong place, forcing a part into oblivion. AF99 has the bad habit of seasoning the model with such unnecessary code. If the parts gone are from another group, it is probably the case.

Or it can be a jump further than 32767 lines, basically out of reach, but it is most unlikely as, with grouping, that situation seldomly occurs.

I doubt that your model is too big for CFS1, but AF99 stops quite short from those limits. Next time you have such a case of disappearing parts, try removing all the dummy «dummy jumps», just to see...

Ivan
March 21st, 2010, 20:22
Hi Hubbabubba,
I don't disagree that your method might work, but I don't really want to go there just yet. I probably will need to for the next multi engine plane though. Literally it was a matter of losing the last 5-10 polygons off a component. It wasn't very obvious, so it might have happened much earlier than I had noticed. I found that 1185 didn't work, 1160-something did work. Funny thing is that my SBD Dauntless project is around 1197 polygons and still displays well. It isn't textured though which might increase the complexity.

I am guessing that it is an internal data structure / table that is dimensioned a little too small because in addition to manual "glue" there is also automatic glue to add complexity. For that I am guessing.

In any case, this project was to prove that a good multi / twin could be built within AF99 / Aircraft Animator limitations. I will still do the SCASM thing to move the VC and possibly include a copyright as you suggested though.

This morning I did some engine tuning to make the part throttle cruise settings match up with the Specific Engine Flight Chart I found. I also need to go back and take out the steerable nose wheel and possibly add some damping to the landing gear so it doesn't hop on braking. (Or perhaps I should leave that in?) Pictures really don't show the changes, but they were quite extensive.

- Ivan.

womble55
March 24th, 2010, 03:08
Regarding my B25, I built the nose as a component, then using the constituent parts removed bits to make the framework of the glass area. I then filled in the holes as it were with more parts and putting those in a seperate component as 'noseglass'.I did exactly the same for the cockpit framework and glass, the flying model displayed fine. All was tickety-boo til I started to add the little things to finish the model off like doors,aerials, guns, turret framework. So your explanation of the complexity of components seems to be the answer and to prove the theory I copied the B25, renamed it B25_navy, put my original nose on plus a radome and hey presto! no absent panels.

Here are some pikkies of my Vickers Vernon, Shorts Singapore, Saro Lerwick and HP Hinaidi.

Ivan
March 24th, 2010, 21:04
How about the B-25??

womble55
April 7th, 2010, 00:04
How about the B-25??


Ask and it shall be so

Ivan
April 7th, 2010, 13:05
Hi Womble55,
Got a couple questions and suggestions for you:

What is the clear radome-like thing on the nose? I don't remember any model of the B-25 (Navy or not) having that.
Is this an early model or late model B-25?

The early models had the dorsal turret aft and didn't have a gun position in the tail.
The late models starting with (I believe) the J had a tail gun position and the dorsal turret moved to just behind the cockpit. The DF loop (football thingie) was moved to the underside (near centerline) under the cockpit.
I believe only strafers and late models had the package guns on the side of the nose.
Late models would also have the two waist gun positions and I believe they had the ventral turret removed.
The nose gear retraction sequence is unusual. It retracts aft and to starboard. On the port side is a tunnel under the cockpit to enter the nose section.

The nose gear doors on the B-25s are weird The are all hinged on the starboard side and the one section that remains open when the gear is down appears to be a small spring loaded section. I can send you pictures if you like. It took me a LONG time to find detail shots of this area.

If you are building the flight model, the early models are quite a bit faster and lighter. The B model was used by the Tokyo raiders. I believe the C model was the best performing which is why I built it. I also intend to build strafers and eventually a J model when I have a chance. Still working on the C at the moment.

- Ivan.

womble55
April 8th, 2010, 23:56
On Page 25 of William Greens Famous Bombers of the Second World War is a photo of a PBJ-1D or to all intents and purposes a navalised B25D. Very few of them were identical but of the pictures and colour (color) schemes some had mid upper turrets, some had them removed and the mounting ring sheeted over. Some had mid beam positions, some had rear gun positions, some had gun packs and some actually had what they were supposed to have as per the specs. The generalisation of the PBJ-1D is a dead end as far as I am concerned, there are just too many variations. Unless there is a complete set of photos out there, I cant be sure as to what a particular aircraft was fitted with. Drawings and artwork are not accurate sources as far as I know. Please can this hobby get easier as I am pulling out too much hair!

Ivan
April 9th, 2010, 03:05
Hi Womble55,
I guess perhaps I am just trying to be a purist here. The bottom line is that you or anyone else can build darn near anything you feel like. My comments were pretty much centered around the things I found out when I was building my version of the B-25. Mine isn't completely accurate either. I just ran out of parts before I got everything done. There should be some circular windows just behind the trailing edge of the wings, but I don't have enough resources left over to put those in. The nose gear door animation on mine is a very rough approximation of how the real one works. It took me a LONG time to find out what the arrangement was and I have 3 books specifically on the B-25.

BTW, the glass and framing on the nose took me about 5 full rebuilds with different combinations of compoents with the same parts and different glue to work out. I still haven't finished the texturing of the internals in the nose.

- Ivan.

smilo
April 9th, 2010, 06:57
so many models and variants,
so little time.
and then there are the numerous field modifications.
it definitely could make one crazy.

I'd say please yourself

you could always use my method;
wait for years for someone to build what you want,
give up and attempt to do it yourself,
get frustrated and bored,
put the project on the shelf,
move on to something else.

Ivan
April 9th, 2010, 13:51
Hi Smilo,

There is no question building for CFS can get quite boring and frustrating. I still dread the flight testing part of the game. Sitting in front of your computer watching numbers tick over while holding a stop watch is not the most enjoyable way to spend time. Going back to re-test when some little thing gets changed is REALLY a pain. Spending a couple hours to rebuild components to kill an annoying bleed and then finding out at the very end that the idea didn't work is frustrating. Trying to figure out how propellers behave and how to mess with them in a flight sim when you don't know the basic aerodynamic theory behind the equations is way too close to school work. Flipping through NACA reports and Technical pubs to try to understand basic theory is interesting at times. I figure I have at least a half dozen projects of this time going on at any one time if I am not taking a break and doing other hobbies.

Some folks do Sudoku, some folks do crossword puzzles. This is how folks like us spend our time.
We must really be crazy to be doing this. I know Anna Honey thinks I am crazy for doing it.
- Ivan.

hubbabubba
April 9th, 2010, 14:44
Some folks do Sudoku, some folks do crossword puzzles. This is how folks like us spend our time.
We must really be crazy to be doing this.Ivan

Exactly my thinking. This has to be fun. Otherwise, it is not worth the excruciating pain it can induce... sometimes :eek:!!!

But, as a compensation, nothing beats the moment of pure elation when everything "falls in place".:jump::greenbo::redfire:

I don't know how Ivan and womble55 can work on multi-projects all at the same time though. When I'm working on something, nose to the grindstone, I'm so absorbed that I often become lunatic. I forget to eat, to do my house chores, to take my pills, to go to bed at a decent hour. I remember walking on the street to get something at the store, only to realize that I went 2-3 blocks pass the place, thinking about a way to kill a bleed or get an animation to work!

womble55
April 12th, 2010, 04:23
Well said the both of you, I couldn't have put it better myself. When I get to a problem, if I can't work it out, will go onto another project. For instance, many of my aircraft do not display properly, bleeds, and missing displays mostly. I moved onto my Vickers Vernon and Short Singapore and learnt a lot more about the order of things than I had before. As you said when you do solve the problem the joy is unmeasurable.........sad aren't we?
As to the B25, I've read a few more books and now believe that each one was unique!

womble55
April 28th, 2010, 23:44
Further to my bit on B25's and the naval equivalent the PBJ-1, the gunpacks fitted were quite different to the usual items fitted. They were contained in one lump as it were. See accompanied photo for clarification, still these things are sent to try us! Keep up the good work..........only 7 weeks to holiday time

Ivan
April 30th, 2010, 15:09
Hi Womble55,

I am still working on my version of the B-25C also. Basically textures and flight model both need improved.

The really screwy thing in your photograph isn't the gunpack and it isn't even the weird looking radome. The top turret and the waist gun positions should not both exist on the same plane. I can't see what the tail cone looks like, so can't make a call there about whether it indicates a J model or a D and earlier model. The exhausts on the engine indicate a plane later than the D series I believe.

Why did you pick such a strange subject? BTW, if you are getting killed by resource limitations, (I was only getting severely beaten up ;-), you might want to consider doing the nose section as simple textures on a solid background instead of glass and framing. I cheated a bit on my B-25: The rudders are not 3D.

I had to do a pretty severe rework recently because of something found when a friend of my son's came over for a play date. One of the things my son brought up was CFS and when I tried to help them fly my B-25, I noticed that my very clever stealing of parts from the inner wings had left a very serious bleed when the flaps were down. I had looked the plane over pretty well (or so I thought) but had not done that with flaps down.

I added the parts back and lost the tip from the back of the left nacelle. This drove a rebuild of the nose gear doors down from 4 polygons to 2 polygons, so minus 2 polygons and minus 2 glue parts brought the nacelle tip back.

BTW, silly question, but you do have the upgrade to AF99 which allows for 1200 polygons, right?

- Ivan.

womble55
May 4th, 2010, 23:28
Ivan...Ivan...Ivan....
The PBJ-1D was basically a D series but ( a big but here and no jokes about big butts!) it was the first B25 derivative to have tail and waist positions which were later incorperated into the J series. The mid upper turret was also a feature in that some aircraft had them and some had them removed and a cover plate fitted instead. Also some were fitted with the nose glass and some were plated over with same size panelling.
Since writing this article, I have gone back to my library and the RAF Mitchell II was a hybrid B25D with tail and beam guns....it gets worse doesn't it!
I'm afraid its the old chestnut that if you dont have a photo to examine the detail then a cropper you'll become. The only problem is that every photo I come across is different in some way. Jeeeeeez I pick em don't I?
As to your idea of 2D rudders, I think that will provide a badly needed reduction in the parts count.
Cant see the wood for the trees eh!
I think I have the upgrade, every time I have a reload of the hard drive (i find that keeping the program list at a reasonable level in Microsoft ME keeps it stable) I load AF99 and the upgrade in one session. Question:- If the upgrade is installed correctly would each time I call up the parts count give me 800 or 1200 max total?

kettenhund
May 11th, 2010, 05:22
~S~ All,

Picking up a thread that's been in active for nearly 5 years I'd like to propose that the greatest stop-gap of them all was the Junkers F13 airliners of 1919 pressed into service as a ground attack aircraft on the Russian Front in 1943. Can anyone beat this?

Kettenhund.
aka Ken Attwood,
Newquay, Cornwall, UK.

womble55
May 14th, 2010, 01:43
I'm afraid a 24yr old airliner is relatively new compared to the age of the Avro Vulcans and Handley Page Victors of the Falklands War.
I do believe that the Vickers Valentia was used as a bomber during the early part of WW2 in the Middle East, I am not sure of this yet but will soon be corrected, no doubt.
I seem to recall that Hellcats and Corsairs were used as refridgerators. Apparantly when being delivered the ammo was only fitted to one gun per wing and the other ammo bays were filled with Beer bottles/cans. when close to the airfield they would climb high to chill the beer.
Now that reminds me.... spitfires were fitted with drop tanks that contained beer after D-day.
Did a Piper, Taylorcraft or Auster spotter plane shoot down another aircraft late in the war?
But would you believe that the last official combat duties of the Supermarine Spitfire ( not with the battle of britain flight) was to assess the best way to attack piston engined aircraft by the English Electric Lightning and its heat seeking missiles. This was in the sixties!

Ivan
May 14th, 2010, 15:01
Ivan...Ivan...Ivan....
Question:- If the upgrade is installed correctly would each time I call up the parts count give me 800 or 1200 max total?

Hi Womble55,
Pardon my late reply. Life has been very busy in my world.

Re Ivan...Ivan...Ivan: It's really Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov.... ;-)

When the upgrade is in place, the parts count looks something like 1100 of 800 parts or 137% or something like that.

Regarding Mark numbers, I believe the A&B models were the Mitchell Mk.I and the C&D were the Mitchell Mk.II. I will check again to confirm. If I am wrong, I have mislabeled mine. Regarding 2D parts in various places, I don't believe a 2D horizontal stabilizer or 2D fin/rudder would cost much in visual appeal. I chose to do the 2D rudders early when I realized that this was going to be a fairly complex project. I probably should have done the H-Stab as well, but don't like to remove things I have already built.

If you want to send me the project I will be glad to look it over and make suggestions. No, I will not add or change anything. I still have my own incomplete B-25 to mess with. I will warn you though, Anna Honey will be out of town for a bit over a week, so I will be busy as heck for at least that long.

- Ivan.

womble55
May 16th, 2010, 22:37
Sorry Ivan but you are under the mistaken belief that when your wife goes away for a short time that you will be able to work on your projects.
Try and find the list of things to do that she is compiling because a lot of my projects, AF99 or RC are sidelined on such occasions. I can only get a decent time on the PC when she is watching Coronation Street or Eastenders. Hooray for such programs.

Ivan
May 17th, 2010, 17:22
Anna Honey left Saturday Mornng. Other than a grocery list, there isn't a Honey-Do list. She knows better than to leave such a list. She knows I will ignore it. One parent (me) and two elementary school children is enough to keep very busy without any added list. Other than too many things to do to feed, clothe, and transport children, the house is much more peaceful.

- Ivan.

Ivan
May 27th, 2010, 05:43
Anna Honey came back from Beijing Sunday night. She is off to Estonia next week.

Sheesh!
- Ivan.

Ivan
June 4th, 2010, 13:55
Anna Honey left for Estonia last night. Heard from her from Tallinn this afternoon.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
July 5th, 2010, 05:28
How about the Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley guys?

An ugly beast, but it fought from 1939 to 1942, and was still operational on D-Day. A MkV would be a great addition to early war scenarios.

Ivan
July 5th, 2010, 08:35
Womble55 has one.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
July 5th, 2010, 09:24
Womble55 has one.

Thought so but where? I searched Simviation, FlightSim and even tried googling it. Womble55, time to publish, if you catch my drift:kilroy:...

They're is an old saying about dogs looking like their masters and vice versa. If it works with aircraft, then Jay Leno must have a Whitley.:mixedsmi:

Ivan
July 12th, 2010, 07:26
Hello Folks,

Pardon me for changing the subject slightly: Here are some development shots for a plane I am reworking. Yes, I know there are a couple already out there, but I had a couple ideas I wanted to test out. I also didn't think there would be so few parts that were reused from the P-40E.

- Ivan.

Ivan
July 16th, 2010, 04:25
Here are a few more shots from the project. So far, the worst bleed I have found is around the nose gun fairings. Note that they bleed through the carburetor scoop on one shot and that the cowl bleeds through the far side fairing on the other shot. I can live with those. The keel area doesn't exist at the moment.

- Ivan.

Ivan
July 16th, 2010, 04:28
Hey Womble55,

You asked about the statistics from AF99 with the patch installed. Here is a shot of what I get with the old P-40E project.

- Ivan.

smilo
July 16th, 2010, 06:43
Here are a few more shots from the project. So far, the worst bleed I have found is around the nose gun fairings. Note that they bleed through the carburetor scoop on one shot and that the cowl bleeds through the far side fairing on the other shot. I can live with those. The keel area doesn't exist at the moment.

- Ivan.

I don't know how
you can live
with those bleeds.
they are just awful
and their distractions
completely ruin the model.

really?!?!
are you kidding me?
I have looked at the shots
three times and don't see them.
of course, I'm old and blind,
but, in my opinion,
you are nit picking.
they maybe there,
but 99.99% of us
would never know it,
except, that you pointed them out.

reminds me of a conversation
I had with my wife years ago.
I was doing a home project
and was uptight about a few minor flaws.
she basically told me to shut up.
they were not noticeable
until I showed them to her.
of course the difference is
you are doing this for yourself,
not your wife
and it's a hobby,
not a honey do.

by the way,
for what it's worth,
and all kidding aside,
that is a fantastic model.
you workmanship is impeccable. :salute:

Ivan
July 16th, 2010, 13:13
Thanks Smilo,

As the person putting the plane together, you build a part and then attach (Glue) the part to the rest of the model. After that, you flip it around a bit in the simulator to see if your expectations of the results are met. That is when you notice that there is a slight bleed somewhere.

I am sure you have run into this situation yourself. What isn't so obvious is the hours spent in lining up the contour lines and panels to optimise the shape. I figure I have rebuilt the nose in sections about 15 times or so. The last change was to make all the pieces "Sharp" so I could see how well things lined up from the simulator itself.

- Ivan.

smilo
July 17th, 2010, 07:22
Thanks Smilo,

As the person putting the plane together, you build a part and then attach (Glue) the part to the rest of the model. After that, you flip it around a bit in the simulator to see if your expectations of the results are met. That is when you notice that there is a slight bleed somewhere.

I am sure you have run into this situation yourself. What isn't so obvious is the hours spent in lining up the contour lines and panels to optimise the shape. I figure I have rebuilt the nose in sections about 15 times or so. The last change was to make all the pieces "Sharp" so I could see how well things lined up from the simulator itself.

- Ivan.
actually, no, I have not run into the situation.
I have never made it that far into the process.
BUT I must say, judging by the quality of your work,
it is more than obvious that you have spent
countless hours perfecting the model.
would that I had the skills and the patience...
there would be an A-20 for others to play with.

instead, right now, on another machine,
I am flying into a cloud bank
at the west end of the Straits of Juan de Fuca
at 1100 feet, heading 262, 152 knts, real time, real weather
in a Short Sandringham...FS9
BLASPHEMY!!! I know.
want to see a picture?
now, that's what we call high-jacking a thread!
sorry.

hubbabubba
July 17th, 2010, 10:33
I am flying into a cloud bank
at the west end of the Straits of Juan de Fuca
at 1100 feet, heading 262, 152 knts, real time, real weather
in a Short Sandringham...FS9smilo

Watch-out smilo or your Short may get shorter. Trees are huge over there (I've actually seen them with my own eyes while aboard a ferry). You don't want to finish as a tree-top ornament!

Ivan
July 17th, 2010, 20:25
Regarding Hijacking of threads, I don't believe I am staying on topic either. A blow by blow account of building a P-40C has only a marginal relationship to aircraft missing from CFS.

Smilo, I had to look up the aircraft you are flying to find out it is basically a Sunderland. Put some guns in that thing!!!

Here's a status update anyway:
It took about 3-4 hours in all to build a canopy frame for this plane. Putting in the glass panels between the frames took about 3 minutes. There is still a pretty serious bleed of the canopy frame through the front fuselage area, but that should only cost a single component and about 10 extra polygons.... AND yet another reworking of the nose contours.

The P-40C is supposed to have a sheet of armour glass in front of the pilot. I am basically going to ignore that fact for this model.

Good Night, All.
- Ivan.

smilo
July 18th, 2010, 07:18
...Watch-out smilo or your Short may get shorter. Trees are huge over there (I've actually seen them with my own eyes while aboard a ferry). You don't want to finish as a tree-top ornament!

I ended up deciding to hug the coast line
and take a tour around Vancouver Island.
even though I live in the area,
I have never gone down the inland passage.
it was a very nice trip,
although, I had to cut it short.
(no pun intended)
my wife and I met the inlaws
at Jefferson County Airport
for the annual Fly-in.
it was the best turn out I have ever seen there.


Regarding Hijacking of threads, I don't believe I am staying on topic either. A blow by blow account of building a P-40C has only a marginal relationship to aircraft missing from CFS.

Smilo, I had to look up the aircraft you are flying to find out it is basically a Sunderland. Put some guns in that thing!!!

Here's a status update anyway:
It took about 3-4 hours in all to build a canopy frame for this plane. Putting in the glass panels between the frames took about 3 minutes. There is still a pretty serious bleed of the canopy frame through the front fuselage area, but that should only cost a single component and about 10 extra polygons.... AND yet another reworking of the nose contours.

The P-40C is supposed to have a sheet of armour glass in front of the pilot. I am basically going to ignore that fact for this model.

Good Night, All.
- Ivan.
yeah, well, at least when you hijack a thread,
you talk about CFS related subject matter. :salute:

and it's not like this forum is a hot bed of activity,
filled with people that get uptight about such things. :icon_lol:

------------:kilroy:--------------

you are absolutely correct.
the Sandringham was a pre-war passenger version
of the Sunderland.
...and no guns.
I have been getting into flying boats and float planes lately.
...not so much combat.
living in the Pacific Northwest,
there's a hell of a lot of water and islands to explore.
Hubba calls it "lazy flying",
but it sure is fun.
not to mention,
there is an outfit called Kenmore Air
that flies DeHavilland DHC-2 Beavers right over here
from Seattle to Victoria and back every day.
I love the sound of those things.

sorry, I can't resist.
I've got to post a screen shot...

Ivan
July 18th, 2010, 10:39
Hey Smilo,

I remember a group of posts not that long ago regarding Anna Honey's business trips, so perhaps not all the messages were about CFS....

- Ivan.

smilo
July 18th, 2010, 14:17
yup, so there were.
you've got me on that one.
it's a good thing we are among friends, huh?

Ivan
July 18th, 2010, 19:46
Hey Smilo,

I figure this is a pretty generic FS discussion. Now if you will just break out the old CFS1 CD and download a Short Sunderland to do some "Lazy Flying", the CFS planes here won't feel so bad about looking inadequate next to that Sandringham of yours.

Yet another status update:

I added a small component under the canopy frame and changed the glue sequence of the yellow forward fuselage section to be AFTER the canopy frames. Bleed looks to be gone. I spent the last couple hours (after blow drying my daughter's hair) building the keel of this plane. Things started getting complicated around the junction of the fuselage and cowl until I flipped the model around a bit and saw how simple the solution could be.

The plane is still missing a frame on the quarter windows and I am debating on making that section of the fuselage concave as on the real plane, but as you can see, the model is pretty near done. The shape of the carbureter intake bothers me a bit, so I may rework that to put more of a bulge on top.

Folks who don't build planes for FS98 or CFS may be wondering why there are all those weird colours on this untextured model. The adjacent pieces are coloured differently so that when the wrong part shows in the foreground (bleed), it is visually more obvious. The parts are set as "Sharp" to emphasize the vertices and edges of each part to show up any panels that are concave and in shadow when they should not be.

It's almost ready for the paint shop at this point.

- Ivan.

smilo
July 21st, 2010, 14:14
Hey Smilo,

... Now if you will just break out the old CFS1 CD and download a Short Sunderland to do some "Lazy Flying", the CFS planes here won't feel so bad about looking inadequate next to that Sandringham of yours.

- Ivan.

first, the CFS1 CD has not left my disk drive.
it's always there.

after an hour or so of searching my backups,
I was unable to find the CFS Sunderland
I know that I have, somewhere.
not to be thwarted,
I went to flightsim and downloaded it
along with several others
in short order.
(no pun intended)
some worked, some didn't,
some panels worked, some didn't.
par for the course, really.
the models are FS98,
so the quality and detail is as expected.
BUT, I do have the Sunderland installed, again.
now if I could only find
some decent Pac NW scenery.
I know I have some Aleutians...
...somewhere.

womble55
July 22nd, 2010, 06:24
Folks who don't build planes for FS98 or CFS may be wondering why there are all those weird colours on this untextured model. The adjacent pieces are coloured differently so that when the wrong part shows in the foreground (bleed), it is visually more obvious. The parts are set as "Sharp" to emphasize the vertices and edges of each part to show up any panels that are concave and in shadow when they should not be.


Its amazing that threads like this can solve problems you have experienced, done it your own way, usually struggled. Then some smart alec comes along and says the blindingly obvious.

Thanks Ivan, life should be a bit easier now and in the words of that great sage homer......DOH!

Womble55

Ivan
July 22nd, 2010, 09:57
Hi Smilo,

If I were do to a flying boat, it would be either a PBY Catalina, Sikorsky, or a H8K Emily. It probably would be the Emily since I have never seen one for CFS before. No, it isn't on the build list yet.

Hey Womble55,

Which idea was the "Great Revelation"? The clown colours or the shadows? I am guessing it is the odd colours idea.

BTW, Attached is an updated model. Added were Exhausts, Wing Guns, and the brace on the quarter windows.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
July 22nd, 2010, 17:09
I'm also curious to know what made you "tick", womble :kilroy: ...

Ivan
July 23rd, 2010, 04:03
Next Steps:

Rebuild the Carbureter Scoooooop.

Adjust the width of the Canopy. It is too narrow and tapered toward the top. The front windshield supports are 0.35 wide and should be 0.55 wide (roughly). This is from putting a dial caliper on drawings. If someone knows the actual dimension, please let me know.

Add Cutouts under the quarter windows.

- Ivan.

Ivan
July 25th, 2010, 07:48
I got lazy and decided not to modify the canopy. These are views from the Virtual Cockpit fore and aft. Note the cutouts in the aft view. The cockpit aft wall is now three pieces to avoid concave polygons. The Carburetor Scoop has also been modified but it is barely visible from this angle.

- Ivan.

Ivan
July 25th, 2010, 07:53
Here are a few exterior views. The model is basically done and ready for the paint shop. The cutouts behind the cockpit are quite visible here as is the slightly lenghtened and reshaped carburetor scoop. The contours of the aft fuselage were also reshaped.

My son wants to fly this thing, so I guess he will take it up unpainted for the maiden flight.... But he has to finish his homework first!

- Ivan.

Ivan
July 26th, 2010, 07:33
My son had issues finishing his homework. He also decided he wanted to fly a TIE fighter instead. My daughter asked if she could take the first flight and with a little instruction, took the plane up for a short hop. The first attempt at a take off ended with a ground loop. Second attempt was successful. She rolled, looped, flew above the clouds, Split-S, and buzzed the runway. At her request, I landed it. The only minor glitch was a bleed of the flaps underneath. That bleed was a consequence of my "improved" assembly sequence and took about 10 minutes to fix.

Now for the DP and flight parameters. Surprisingly, for this aircraft I already have most of the information I need.

- Ivan.

womble55
July 30th, 2010, 01:08
[QUOTE=Ivan;450015]Hi Smilo,

If I were do to a flying boat, it would be either a PBY Catalina, Sikorsky, or a H8K Emily. It probably would be the Emily since I have never seen one for CFS before. No, it isn't on the build list yet.

Hey Womble55,

Which idea was the "Great Revelation"? The clown colours or the shadows? I am guessing it is the odd colours idea.

The vast variety of colours (colors) to help in the eradification of bleeds, I used to do a basic paint of say Red for the port wing with the words 'left wing' to help with this. The new method is easier toconcentrate on an idividual part or component.

As to a Flying boat what about a Blohm and Voss Bv222....
or one of the excellent examples from WW1 like the Hansa Brandenburg W29...

Keep up the good work

womble55

Ivan
July 30th, 2010, 13:48
Hi Womble55,

It looks to me like you already have a pretty good start to both the BV 222 and the H-B W-29.
I see you have what looks like a pretty decent lozenge patern on the W-29's wings. I need to do the same for my Albatros D.5A but can't find a good pattern to work from. Have you thought of making your components "sharp" so you can see all the edges?

I am just of the opinion that the Pacific Islands make great locations for operating Flying Boats and like the look of the H8K Emily, China Clippers, and perhaps even the Catalina.

If I were to build a float plane, it probably would be a Supermarine S-6, A6M2-N (easy considering I already have a pretty fair Zero), or a Kawanishi N1K1.

I don't know if you already have done AIR files for your seaplanes, but if you haven't, you might want to do what I did and use the Ground Effect Graph to kick the plane out of the water to break friction.

- Ivan.

Ivan
August 1st, 2010, 18:30
Hello All,

I have been working on a Damage Profile for the P-40C and hit something very unexpected. Generally, I use an existing Stock DP file and edit the boxes and values to match the plane I am working on. Thus far, just about all the weapons have had stock equivalents.

With the P-40C, I have lots of data regarding the weight of the ammunition. I believe the weight unit in a DP file is an ounce (1/16th of a pound). When I plugged in my values, I found that the weight was roughly three times what the stock values were for the .50 caliber Cowl Guns. The .30 caliber wing guns should have been somewhat similar to a .303 or 7.92, but was also much higher.

In checking the stock values, I found that the weights as specified in the DP file were just about a perfect match for the PROJECTILE weights of each weapon. I had always assumed that the values were the Per ROUND weight which would determine the weight of the load on board the aircraft. Seems like this is not the case, so.....

Where the heck is the weight of the ammunition (and links) load taken into account????

Any Ideas?
- Ivan.

Dave Cumming
August 2nd, 2010, 12:21
I had always thought that the weight figure at the end of the guns row was for the consumable - link and round. The guns themselves were entered into the air file as part of the general weight. Not knowing my way round the airfile I haven't paid much notice where it is entered. Looking at the 1% website I looked at the values they recommend for the ammo weight. .303" is given as 11.3g or 0.399oz. US .5" is given as 48.5g or 1.711oz. These are the bullets themselves, not the complete round. A complete 6.5mm round is about 400gr which is 26g or 0.9oz (6.5mm is the nearest thing I have - 180gr case, 44gr powder, 140gr head) If someone weighs a link then all the components could be added to give the weight in ounces that is taken off the plane each time the gun fires. This is what the last figure should be.

Ivan
August 2nd, 2010, 13:30
Thanks Dave,

I was also thinking consumables. I have some pretty good weight figures for the P-40C:
The two .50 caliber cowl guns had 380 rounds per gun.
Total weight of .50 caliber ammunition is stated as 228 pounds.
The four .30 caliber wing guns had 490 rounds per gun.
Total weight of the .30 caliber ammunition was 104 and a fraction pounds.

Like you, I also am fairly familiar with small arms ammunition. A .308 Wincheter round has a case that weighs around 170-190 grains. The bullet is typically 150-170 grain. The powder is around 40-45 grains, so the complete round should weigh around 360-380 grains. A .30-06 round has a heavier case (Ballpark estimate would be 200 grains) and a slightly heavier powder charge, so 410 grains would be about right.

I just don't understand why the values in the stock DP files are all projectile weights because I don't see how that value would be useful.

BTW, Can you send me a link to the 1% site for aircraft armament? I would like to look at some of their tables also.

Thanks.
- Ivan.

hubbabubba
August 2nd, 2010, 15:20
I just don't understand why the values in the stock DP files are all projectile weights because I don't see how that value would be useful.And I don't understand how it was overlooked for so long. I always assumed DP was giving the hole expendable weight. Nice find Ivan.

I was waiting for Dave's comments, which I was sure were forthcoming (thanks Dave).

I will now go have a look in my DP profiles. Have to go. A giant thunderstorm is approaching... it's scary!

P.S.- False alert. The skies turned pitch-black in minutes, but it passed away.

I was trying to say that I will look into my DAT files which I got from Simviation here (http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/syb2.cgi?section=cfs&file=arms.zip)

I'm no expert in ammo, but I will do my best to find informations on hole rounds-shell + links.

Ivan
August 3rd, 2010, 10:02
The weights of a complete shell and link are not easy to find, but not all that impossible either. I rounded up 19 .50 caliber links at a local gun show (all the fellow had) and added one of my own for a total of 20 which I summarised in a spreadsheet a while back. I believe I have a couple WW2 AP .30-06 rounds someplace. For rifle calibers, these are not illegal. For pistols, they are illegal.

Hubbabubba, I tried to download the DAT file from your link. I was not able to. Does anyone have the 1% spreadsheet for aircraft guns?

BTW, now that we know what the weights should be, what do we do about it???

- Ivan.

Dave Cumming
August 3rd, 2010, 11:50
It used to be at avhistory.org but they have moved totally to CFS3. I've attached Machine Guns & Cannons.zip which has the 1% spreadsheet that I downloaded years ago. The setting at the end of the Gunstation line should be the weight of 1 round and 1 link. The airfile places this at the co-ordinates given in the middle of the Gunstation line. The Guns line provides the details about where the projectile leaves the plane (and where the flash appears) as well as the trajectory. A P40 site at http://staff.jccc.net/droberts/p40/p40a.html

Ivan
August 3rd, 2010, 13:07
Thanks Dave,

That was exactly the spreadsheet I was looking for. I had a copy way back but don't remember where it was stashed. The copy you sent pretty much confirms what I remember: THIS spreadsheet also uses bullet rather than round weight.

The US 30 caliber MG has a Bullet and Link weight of 0.343 ounce. This works out to 150.0625 GRAINS which is the approximate weight of the bullet only. A .30 M2 Ball round is 150 to 152 grains. Armour Piercing .30-06 bullets weigh roughly 170 grains.

For those who don't understand the point of the discussion: When loading ammunition for one of the .30 Caliber Wing Guns for the P-40, the 490 cartridges with bullets, case, powder and the little steel links holding them all together should weigh about 26 pounds.

In CFS, we only load the bullets that will be shot. Case, Powder, and Link are omitted. The weight of 490 bullets only is about 10.50 pounds.

Hey Hubbabubba,
I take it that this will seriously affect the loadout of your Killer Jeep?

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
August 3rd, 2010, 16:25
May I kindly suggest that this line of posts should be worthy of its own thread?


Hey Hubbabubba,
I take it that this will seriously affect the loadout of your Killer Jeep?

Not really, the MG jeep only has 600 rounds and the load is carried at CoG so that it causes no parallax distortion in TG2. And the vehicle being already released, I have no intention to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I will certainly experiment on this for future releases though.

Could it be that the projectile weight has some influence on the ballistic trajectory? Penetration into "DP boxes"? Inertia? I'm thinking out loud here...

Here is the link for Simviation page; http://www.simviation.com/cfs1utilitites4.htm
you should be able to go to the download from there (next to the last at the bottom).

I'm pretty much convinced that they only take into account the projectile weight.

Ivan
August 3rd, 2010, 17:43
Hello Hubbabubba,

I found that page also at Simviation. Try the download. It doesn't work. I believe it is the same file as you had in your earlier link.

I don't believe the weight of the projectile should really mean anything. The hitting power is determined by a multiplier. I don't believe the trajectory can be determined by projectile weight. Ballistic Coefficient (Drag) is a more important factor.

Knowing what we know now, what do you all believe would be the best idea? Round and Link weight or keep it as Projectile weight? It seems to me that this would also be a good time to also rationalise damage values and hit boxes. What I and others have noticed is that the hitting power of CFS weaponry is much worse than history would indicate.

IIRC, The consensus at the old 714th was that damage was about 1/3 what it really should be.

As an example, The typical heavy bomber (B-17) could be brought down with an average of about 15 hits (anyone remember the actual number?) of 20 mm cannon and average only THREE hits of 30 mm cannon such as the MK 108. The typical 20 mm cannon in CFS has 1D1 x 24 hit points and the 30 mm has 1D1 x 89 hit points. Just about every system on a plane has at least 100 hit points. That means that a single hit by a 30 mm can't destroy any system. In reality, a single hit in the right place could blow off an entire wing. A fuselage hit would blow a hole about 3 feet in diameter and rip up all the structure under the skin.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
August 3rd, 2010, 21:53
Hi Ivan, Dave:wavey::wavey:

Yep Ivan, Simviation link is dead. Try Flightsim search engine with "arms.zip"; http://www.flightsim.com/file.php?cm=SEARCH

Dave spreadsheet says "Bullet & Link wt". So, people would have taken the time to take into account the weight of the link, which should not be more than a fraction of an ounce, but would have overseen the weight of the case and propellant? Bizarre...:kilroy:

On this site (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html), the M2 AP .50 cal cartridge is weighting 1,248 gr (2.852571 oz) and the projectile 706.7 gr (1.615314 oz); more than 43% of the "discarded" weight would have been omitted?

So, my answer to "Round and Link weight or keep it as Projectile weight?" would be "round and link", as long as the case is discarded. I'm not sure, but I think that some German cannons would keep the case like in a giant revolver.

As for DP-boxes vs Damage point, what do you think; should it causes more or less damage? I've seen opinions that differ from yours and, in the case of the stock .303, they would have reduced the points "shaved" from a box.

In multiplayer games, bombers are dropping in a pretty decent manner when hit. The jeep gas tank will go BOOM with 4 .50 caliber bullets, and should probably go at two. But in QC, a one pass strafing by a P-47D does the job 99% of the time.

BTW- I think that the "weight question" should be asked at the CFS2 forum.

Regards,

Ivan
August 4th, 2010, 03:46
Hello Hubbabubba,

I am not a member out at Flightsim. Actually I probably AM a member but can't remember the login or password.

Here is the "Weight Issue" as I see it. Most fighters eject the spent case and link. Some do not. I believe the 37 mm cannon on a P-39 does not. Typical swivel guns do not toss the spent cases overboard. They end up on the floor of the aircraft. In this case (no pun intended), the weight of the ammunition should be taken into account when the aircraft is loaded. It is carrying the extra weight at Take-Off. The weight is not reduced when the ammunition is spent. I don't know we can do about that in CFS. I say that we should put in the full weight of the rounds and links so that ammunition loads are a distinct weight factor in performance. I go to a fair amount of effort to calculate the Basic Weight plus pilot.

BTW, Why are German pilots heavier than US Pilots by 20 pounds??? US Pilot weights are 200 pounds. German pilots are 220 pounds (100 Kilograms).
:kilroy:

With US fighters, often there is a selection of load conditions: Fighter, Fighter Bomber, and Fighter Overload. Funny thing, but as a "Fighter", the aircraft typically won't be carrying a full ammunition load or full internal fuel load. Fighter Overload has both at maximum.

Also, I am not sure where you got the numbers for a .50 caliber round. The full round and link weight which I got from the P-50C loadout was 760 rounds == 228 pounds. That works out to 4.8 ounces per round.

Regarding the damage from a .303, I really don't know. I believe they are too potent in the game. Some of the cannons like the 20 mm MG 151/20 and 30 mm MK 108 are not potent enough. The statistics I quoted were gathered by the Luftwaffe. If the AVERAGE number of hits needed to kill a B-17 is only 3 rounds, there were plenty of cases it took fewer. Check out wartime photographs for confirmation.

I make no claims about a .50 caliber because I haven't done the research, but I would make an assumption that a single MK 108 hit should blow up the Jeep's fuel tank, right?

When flying against AI bombers, you would think you are flying against B-40s. Their gunnery is intense and extremely accurate. A single pass doesn't tend to kill all that often in my experience though perhaps I don't shoot very well. The following is yet another diversion from the topic, but I believe the bomber DP files should have reduced range for AI gunnery. You can't much alter their accuracy, but a fellow with a ring and bead sight or just a ring sight (often USAAF swivel guns didn't have a front sight), isn't terribly accurate at any range and certainly not past about 200 yards and certainly not to a thousand yards.

- Ivan

hubbabubba
August 5th, 2010, 05:44
Hello Ivan,


I am not a member out at Flightsim. Actually I probably AM a member but can't remember the login or password.The files are in the mail.


Here is the "Weight Issue" as I see it. Most fighters eject the spent case and link. Some do not. I believe the 37 mm cannon on a P-39 does not. Typical swivel guns do not toss the spent cases overboard. They end up on the floor of the aircraft. In this case (no pun intended), the weight of the ammunition should be taken into account when the aircraft is loaded. It is carrying the extra weight at Take-Off. The weight is not reduced when the ammunition is spent. I don't know we can do about that in CFS. I say that we should put in the full weight of the rounds and links so that ammunition loads are a distinct weight factor in performance. I go to a fair amount of effort to calculate the Basic Weight plus pilot.I think that the AIR file should represent the aircraft weight minus fuel and ammo. Depending on the information we have, it may be a difficult task. We have to assume, in absence of information to the contrary, that "maximum load" means full tanks and full ammo. Ammo should be deduced by subtracting the weight of "spent" ammo. For ejected links and cases, then the hole cartridge and the link should be taken into account while, in the case of self-contained clips, drums, or guns on a swivel, only the projectile and the propellant should count.

This means that, for example, a B-17 without any ammo will have to take off with its floor littered with empty cases but, quite frankly, who leaves ground with an unarmed flying fortress?:kilroy:


BTW, Why are German pilots heavier than US Pilots by 20 pounds??? US Pilot weights are 200 pounds. German pilots are 220 pounds (100 Kilograms).No idea. Must be a bit of census average mixed with a round number to simplify calculations.


With US fighters, often there is a selection of load conditions: Fighter, Fighter Bomber, and Fighter Overload. Funny thing, but as a "Fighter", the aircraft typically won't be carrying a full ammunition load or full internal fuel load. Fighter Overload has both at maximum.As if "maximum load" was not fuzzy enough! LOL!:icon_lol:


Also, I am not sure where you got the numbers for a .50 caliber round. The full round and link weight which I got from the P-50C loadout was 760 rounds == 228 pounds. That works out to 4.8 ounces per round.The link was in the post. The "ounce translation" was done with a little app I have, as the site gives the weight in grains or grams. Here are some weight as they appear; M1 tracer - 1,785 gr or 4.08 oz, M2 ball - 1,813 gr or 4.144 oz, M2 AP - 1,812 gr or 4.141714 oz, M8 API - 1,764 gr or 4.032 oz, M10 tracer - 1,752 gr or 4.004571 oz, M20 API-T - 1,718 gr or 3.926857 oz... the list goes on. Some projectiles weigh are also given, but not for all types. I think that, with the addition of the link, we are in the same ballpark.

I also made an error in my calculations; the cartridge minus the projectile weight more than the projectile. The M2 AP weight is 1,812 gr, not 1,248. My mistake.


Regarding the damage from a .303, I really don't know. I believe they are too potent in the game. Some of the cannons like the 20 mm MG 151/20 and 30 mm MK 108 are not potent enough. The statistics I quoted were gathered by the Luftwaffe. If the AVERAGE number of hits needed to kill a B-17 is only 3 rounds, there were plenty of cases it took fewer. Check out wartime photographs for confirmation.I think we should look more into normalizing DP boxes than damage points system. The latter was thought about pretty deep while damage caused is basically left to "artistic license".


I make no claims about a .50 caliber because I haven't done the research, but I would make an assumption that a single MK 108 hit should blow up the Jeep's fuel tank, right?Right. According to ARMS_WW2.dat, the Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 has a "1d1*73" dice-point ratio, the jeep fuel tank goes boom at 50 points.


When flying against AI bombers, you would think you are flying against B-40s. Their gunnery is intense and extremely accurate. A single pass doesn't tend to kill all that often in my experience though perhaps I don't shoot very well. The following is yet another diversion from the topic, but I believe the bomber DP files should have reduced range for AI gunnery. You can't much alter their accuracy, but a fellow with a ring and bead sight or just a ring sight (often USAAF swivel guns didn't have a front sight), isn't terribly accurate at any range and certainly not past about 200 yards and certainly not to a thousand yards.I don't want to boast (yes, I do!!!:jump:), but I once downed 8 B-17 in the "Fat cars" scenario without using rockets. Granted, my Fw90 was a flying colander when I made an emergency landing at Guyancourt, but it is feasible if you know where to shoot. Next time, try the tip of the wings, or at least the portion between the tip and the exterior engines (#1 or 4). For some reason, they do explode more often than they should and, when they don't, they have a tendency to collide with their neighbors in the formation.

Yes, bombers gunners are all sharpshooters, Bf 110 included. But in QC, they tend to be more "human". Dropping distance at 183 meters would make missions look weird; gunners were shooting as soon as they "thought" they had a chance, hoping that the hail of bullets would make the attackers think twice before getting closer and, at least, would diminish the precision of their attacks. Le May's raids over Japan with unarmed B-29 showed no more casualties due to fighters' interception than "normal" raids, which says a lot about air gunnery.

We could diminish the accuracy for AI (humans do the job all by themselves...) by tweaking the "dice factor" from, let's say, "1d1*" to "1d4*". This would cut the hits by 75% while keeping the hail of bullets coming. Call me masochist, but I like the audio-visual effect.:sniper::a1089:

Dave Cumming
August 5th, 2010, 13:42
I like the idea of different bullet weights depending on fighters or bombers. I have been working on the assumption that the bullet weight at the end of the line was round and link for many years! The 1% people also worked on more realistic DP boxes and I attach their notes (unfortunately without pictures but the full research might be found at avhistory.org. I had an idea of fixing all my dp files to be like this but it is yet another project that never got started! For accurate AI gunners I have amended my dp files so that they open fire at 300. That is normally the maximum range in which I engage them when in my fighter so it makes it all a lot fairer. For the damage that a round does, the speed and weight does appear to matter, only the 1d1x73 allocates the number of damage points. The speed of the bullet affects the trajectory I believe in CFS but I have not done any trials to prove this. I believed the 1% people when they said that small calibre guns were overpowerful and big cannon were underpowered; I adjusted my damage dice to the figure in their spreadsheet and Spitfires and Hurricanes now shred the enemy but it is much more difficult to shoot down lots of planes. The .5" power seemed about right but 20mm and 30mm cannon become very effective when their damage is increased.

hubbabubba
August 5th, 2010, 15:45
The 1% people also worked on more realistic DP boxes and I attach their notes (unfortunately without pictures but the full research might be found at avhistory.org.

Dave, if you could give us a more precise location to search for the "with pictures" text, it would be greatly appreciated. They're is a lot of "as you can see" in the discussion.

Ivan
August 6th, 2010, 10:35
Hello Hubbabubba,

Got your email. Also found the registration for Flightsim.com in my email as well.

I believe I would prefer having the guns on a Bomber dispose of entire round and link as far as weight is concerned. Yes, it would be somewhat inaccurate with the real bomber more or less carrying the extra links and cases around, but those could also be disposed of. Consider that a multi engine bomber in trouble often disposes of guns as well other items that can be unbolted. We can't do that in CFS, so at least give a disabled bomber the best break that we can. Also, the ammunition load may vary according to fuel and bomb loads.

200 pounds versus 100 kilograms. I don't think any explanation is really necessary here. :icon_lol:

Regarding aircraft weights, Here is the issue as I understand it:
Empty Weight (Not hard to find): Basic airframe and engine. Does not include guns, armour, radios, equipment or consumables. Not generally useful except as a starting point.

Empty Equipped (Not quite as easy to find): Airframe, engine, armour, guns, some equipment. No fluids.

Basic Weight (Nearly impossible to find but generally the most useful): Airframe, engine, all equipment, trapped fluids. No engine oil which is considered a consumable, fuel, ammunition or pilot. I add the weight of the pilot and oil which I declare NOT to be a consumable and enter into .AIR file.

Loaded Weight (Meanings vary): Possibly useful as a starting point to work backwards to find Basic Weight / Zero Fuel Weight.

For the P-40C, I have LOTS of information. I can email it to you, but it is just under a 3 MB pdf.

If I don't have the information, I estimate from the known data and weight of equipment. Most of the time, my estimates are within 50-150 pounds of the actual values when I have found the actual data later.

Regarding .50 Caliber round weight, I believe the math error was what bothered me.

I don't really believe damage boxes or damaged caused should be left to artistic license. Consider the case of a gunstation with a single gun. Just about ANY hit will disable that gun. Why should it have 150 points? The heaviest stock gun (30 mm MK 108) only causes 1d1x89 points of damage. We need TWO hits to disable a gun while in reality a single .30 caliber hit stands a very good chance of destruction???

Aiming at a wing to best destroy a bomber doesn't match with reality. This IS supposed to be a simulation.

With LeMay and his B-29s, their cruising altitude was about 10,000 feet higher than the B-17 in Europe. Most of the Japanese fighters couldn't even reach them until they stopped bombing from the Jetstream. 35,000 feet was above the service ceiling of most J Fighters. No wonder that guns or no guns made little difference. Also the top speed of the B-29 (360 mph) was very near the top speed of the best J Fighters and even faster than some of them. Consider also that a bomber after its bomb run would tend to leave the target in a slight dive and be quite a lot faster than the typical interceptor. B-17s in Europe would come over the target at 25,000 feet and below at just a bit over 200 mph.

- Ivan.

smilo
August 8th, 2010, 10:14
how about a Mosquito MK IV or VI
that can make it to Berlin and back?
there are several nice models out there,
most based on P.H.F. Burnage's excellent design,
but none have a range of 1,000+ miles.
I was able to get 975,
but that was at 50% throttle
and maintaining 5000 ft
with no bomb load and no weather.

smilo
August 9th, 2010, 15:51
okay, late yesterday, I was able to wring out the Mk VI FB
and got 1097 miles at 239 mph.
this is still a far cry from the 1850 mile range
specified for the Mk VI fighter bomber.
and then, there's the Mk IV bomber variant
which had a specified 2040 mile max range
humph

Ivan
August 9th, 2010, 16:50
Hi Smilo,

I am not familiar with the Mosquito. How much fuel is it carrying to achieve such a range? I did find one place that showed internal fuel to be 700+ gallons for the bomber variant.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
August 9th, 2010, 22:34
Hi Ivan, smilo,:wavey::wavey:

The FB6 type pilot manual states that the aircraft had 10 standard tanks! The "outer-wing" tanks (2 per wing) had 116 gallons capacity. The "main inner-wing" (2 per wing) had 286 gallons. The "main fuselage" two tanks carried 50 more gallons for a total of 452 gallons. These were "Imperial gallons", in US gallons, it was almost 543.

An additional "long range" fuselage tank could carry 63 gallons and two dropable 100 gallons wings tanks gave the total of 715 Imperial gallons (858.6796 US).

In some types, fuselage capacity was increased to 63 gallons and dropable 200 gallons tanks were also used.

P.S.- When I was referring to LeMay's bomb runs, it was the "torching" night raids made at ±10,000 feet. Night interception was difficult for the Japanese but, when they could manage such interceptions, downing B-29 was not easier. The best defense for the bombers was evasive maneuvers, sometimes dropping at tree-top level while returning to sea.

Ivan
August 10th, 2010, 03:44
Hi Hubbabubba,

In conversations with my neighbour who flew B-26 Marauders (and confirmed by other sources), the bombers would typically leave the target in a shallow dive and be going much faster than their maximum level speed. Considering these B-29s were flying night raids, the interceptors would have been twin engine night fighters. I don't know what the low altitude speed was for the B-29, but I don't believe the Japanese had a night fighter that was substantially faster in level speed than a B-29 at ANY altitude.

Here's a status update on the P-40C:

Engine power is about 20 hp more than it should be at most altitudes, but the sources I have do not agree completely, so this is more or less reasonable.

I found that the P-40C although it was just a touch (about 5 mph) faster than it should be at various altitudes was flying distinctly nose down. I adjusted the angle of incidence of the wing (Record 1204) to zero degrees which helped. The plane was then MUCH slower. The angle for minimum drag was also adjusted as was the coefficient of drag to bring the speeds back to what they were before.

The P-40C has much less engine power than the P-51D I typically use as the basis for flight models. Last night, I checked out the propeller power coefficients of all the stock flyable aircraft on the assumption that Record 512 to adjust propeller pitch would correspond to the power coefficient of the aircraft. Testing was done at an altitude of 500 feet.

I found that the closest match in power coefficient to the P-40C was the stock P-47D Thunderbolt. My suppliers quickly obtained a P-47D propeller which was cut down and mounted to the P-40C. The maximum speed was reduced very slightly (about 2-3 mph) as compared to the P-51D propeller, but hopefully the pitch changes are more reasonable.

Sea Level speed is now 305 mph
Speed at 15,000 feet is 347 mph (Should be 345 mph)
Speed at 12,500 feet is 351 mph

Still testing.
- Ivan.

hubbabubba
August 10th, 2010, 05:17
345/347=0.9942363112

That should put you in the 1% limit.:173go1:

As for the Mosquito; East-Anglia to Berlin is ±540 miles. 1,080 miles is well within "Woody Wonder" specs. B Mk IV and, later, Mk XI, would carry 4,000lbs "cookies" to that city, sometimes twice in the same night!

I went "bingo" once in a MP bomb run at St-Leu d'Esserent, flying as pathfinder in a Mosquito... a mere 153 miles, what a pity...:rolleyes:

Ivan
August 10th, 2010, 12:27
Out of Fuel in 153 miles.... Hmmmm....

Regarding performance, especially maximum level speeds, I actually prefer my numbers to be slightly higher (5-10 mph faster) than the recorded values because my testing method is to use autopilot and this is much more precise than actual human pilots can hold. In other words, the real aircraft probably went faster than the records show.

- Ivan.

womble55
August 11th, 2010, 23:15
Regarding performance, especially maximum level speeds, I actually prefer my numbers to be slightly higher (5-10 mph faster) than the recorded values because my testing method is to use autopilot and this is much more precise than actual human pilots can hold. In other words, the real aircraft probably went faster than the records show.

- Ivan.[/QUOTE]

There were so many thing that would affect the performance of a used aircraft, didn't Dowding admit that his Hurricanes were pushed to get 300mph.
Dents, battle damage repairs, worn and flaking paintwork indeed even the paint type itself would knock off speed and endurance. Maladjusted control surfaces, empty bomb cradles added even more. Also not every engine fitter in the RAF was Halton trained so engine performance would and did vary as did the fuel consumption between a new engine and a well used engine.
To get within the 1% mark is an exceptional acheivement but there were those examples that couldn't get within the recommended performance due to the previously mentioned cicumstances.

Ivan
August 12th, 2010, 04:02
Hi Womble55,

You are describing war-weary operational aircraft. All of mine are fresh from the factory, best examples of their type, and perfectly maintained.
:salute:

The biggest discrepancies in performance between aircraft in the field and factory fresh tend to be with Japanese aircraft. As an example, an aircraft engine would be designed for 2000 HP. The errors in manufacturing, poor materials, a supercharger that doesn't work as well as it should, and poor maintenance in the field might bring the actual output down to 1400 HP.

I believe this is fair. Even American aircraft in the continental US had problems like these. Check out the planes that flew against Koga's Zero that was captured in the Aleutians. A few of them could not function well enough to be representative of the types for performance comparisons.

For what it's worth, I am not really aiming for 1% accuracy for the reasons stated above. Some of the settings are not granular enough: Any change creates more than 1% in performance. To offset these, other settings need to be skewed. Also, CFS doesn't represent multi-speed superchargers. I would much rather have the performance curve be a best match across the altitude range rather than exactly match one or two heights and be way off at other parts.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
August 12th, 2010, 05:37
Hello womble55 and Ivan-Ivan,

Womble, don't you know? Ivan puts shower caps on his aircraft's wheels so they wont get soiled by the mud...:icon_lol:

You could eat on top of one of its engines, if he would let you do that, which he totally forbids, of course!

Dave Cumming
August 12th, 2010, 10:03
My encyclopedia has Mosquito Mk2 doing 1,705 miles , MkVI 1,120 miles @ 250mph, NF MkXII 1,520 miles @ 255mph @15,000 ft. I think that the initial mission in 'A Bridge Too Far' had a Mosquito mission which flew at 30,000 ft to achieve the required range.

Ivan
August 12th, 2010, 10:35
Mud??? Mud is NOT allowed!

Eating off the engine is not forbidden, but you might not like it if you don't like the current Gulf Coast cuisine and aromas.

:icon_lol:
- Ivan.

womble55
August 12th, 2010, 23:18
Hello womble55 and Ivan-Ivan,

Womble, don't you know? Ivan puts shower caps on his aircraft's wheels so they wont get soiled by the mud...:icon_lol:

You could eat on top of one of its engines, if he would let you do that, which he totally forbids, of course!


Speaking of eating what if you wrapped a nice Rib Eye or T-Bone steak in silver foil and placed it between the cylinder banks of a Vee 12, after your mission there would be a hot meal ready.....

Ivan
August 13th, 2010, 03:38
Hi Womble55,

I think the steak would be seriously overcooked. It might also smell a bit of engine oil or gasoline kinda like Gulf Coast seafood.

Unrelated screenshot attached.
- Ivan.

smilo
August 13th, 2010, 07:28
personally, I prefer my steak grilled,
slightly charred and rare inside.
actually, a well wrapped roast
placed in the engine compartment
would be just about right
after a several hundred mile road trip.
potatoes, carrots and such
added with a hundred or so to go.
mmm, mmmm, mmm

btw, damn nice spit!

I am preparing to make another Mosquito test flight.
this time;
the Burnage B IV with 4 bombs
cruising speed 265 mph @ 17000 feet

I have added N50* E/W0* to my GPS
which will be the start point
set AP heading 270,
throttle 60% for starters
AP IAS hold does not work
slow, easy 300 FPM climb
and then, cruise until out of fuel.
there, I will take the GPS distance reading
back to N50* E/W0*
the question being is the GPS measuring
in statute miles or nautical miles?

the flight will be made in multi player
so the pause mode will have no effect.

Ivan
August 13th, 2010, 11:20
Hi Smilo,

Where can we get the Burnage Mosquito B.IV?

The Spitfire was built a couple years ago and still remains unpainted. There was a discussion about 3D models of Spitfires at another forum, so I got a couple screenshots. Not really related to this thread, but I just like the look of the plane.

I did some more flight testing of the P-40C this morning. The initial climb rate is around 2800 fpm at around 185 mph. The actual climb rate should be 2690 fpm at about 165 mph. I can adjust it, but this isn't too bad. The P-40C seems to work rather well with a P-47D propeller.
:icon_lol:

- Ivan.

smilo
August 13th, 2010, 14:22
flightsim;
http://www.flightsim.com/file.php?cm=INDEXCALL&sPos=290

actually, I am one of the lucky few
to have a copy of your spit mk ix
it is a truly fantastic model.
does need paint, though.

the P40 seems to be in the ballpark.
close enough for government work.

I just finished my mk iv endurance test.
like I stated above,
the AP Airspeed hold does not work.
consequently, when I would step away,
the AS would change radically.
I ran at 44-47% throttle
and the speed would fluctuate from 245- up to 295+ mph.
I never let it get past those points.
anyway, I ran out of fuel 1076 GPS miles from the start point.
needless to say, this is a disappointment.
I was hoping for a range of from 1500 to 2000 miles
as is mentioned in a book I have.
oh well, so it goes.

of course, if the GPS is reading NM
then I went 1238 miles,
but it's still short.

Ivan
August 14th, 2010, 06:38
Thanks Smilo,

As with all the other unfinished projects, the Spitfire will get finished eventually. I just realised at the time that I did not know enough about tuning climb rates to really do it justice. Almost two years later, I believe I know enough to try another attempt at it. P-40C comes first though because it just happens to be what I am interested in at the moment.

I know the US Navy calculated what it called "Yardstick Ranges" which didn't really map to an operational radius, but rather to how much fuel the aircraft carried and how far it could fly at cruising speeds without taking into account take-off and climb expenses or loitering over the target.

I found that I already had the Mosquito FB version installed on my computer. I downloaded the B.IV version last night but didn't have a chance to do anything to it. I can tell from the FB model (if it is by the same author) that his philosophy and mine differ a bit.

Now that you opened this rather large can of worms, I guess we will all need to check the fuel consumptions of our aircraft. I will check out the Mosquito Bomber some time today hopefully.

- Ivan.

smilo
August 14th, 2010, 09:19
Hi Ivan, smilo,:wavey::wavey:

The FB6 type pilot manual states that the aircraft had 10 standard tanks! The "outer-wing" tanks (2 per wing) had 116 gallons capacity. The "main inner-wing" (2 per wing) had 286 gallons. The "main fuselage" two tanks carried 50 more gallons for a total of 452 gallons. These were "Imperial gallons", in US gallons, it was almost 543.

An additional "long range" fuselage tank could carry 63 gallons and two dropable 100 gallons wings tanks gave the total of 715 Imperial gallons (858.6796 US).

In some types, fuselage capacity was increased to 63 gallons and dropable 200 gallons tanks were also used.

...
apparently, a long range mosquito with external tanks
has not been modeled.
attached is a copy of a document included with
the RAF662 Mosquito FB.VI by Roger Lowery
I believe this is where Hubba got the information stated above.
works for me, although, it would be nice
if there was a long range version.
that said,
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion
that this is the case with most,
if not all, CFS models
and that it is a little late in the game
to start worrying about it too much.
so it goes.

Ivan, from my searching,
there are other mosquitoes out there.
no small wonder...it's a great plane.
my visual favorites are
the RAF662 by Roger Lowery
and 2 versions by Philippe Burnage.
I especially like the Mk IV bomber
with the plexiglas nose.
there are also versions by Shigeru Tanaka
and RAF 2000 versions that appear to be by Tanaka as well.
at the risk of being overly critical,
I am not fond of these visual models.
consequently, I have not taken the time
to really check them out closely
--------------
speaking of tanks and switches,
(yeah, it's a stretch)
Ivan, as I recall, long ago,
you were looking for a multi-position fuel tank switch
for your Dauntless...or am I dreaming?
did you ever find one?
I may have good news.

------------------:kilroy:-----------------------

as a side note;
asper Hubba's recommendation a while back,
I have been looking at the forum moderation tools.
does anyone object to my running an experiment?
I would like to try copying the mosquito related posts
to a new mosquito range thread.
if it works, I will then delete said posts
from this thread with an appropriate message.
please, please, can I try, please...:jump:

as there appears to be only 5 of us
actively using this place,
I will wait for your input
before I do my experiment...:wiggle:

Ivan
August 14th, 2010, 10:12
Feel free to experiment with the posts.

BTW, I just checked out the Mosquito flight model with FDE. The plane has three fuel tanks:
525 Left Tank: 231 gallons
526 Right Tank: 231 gallons
531 Center Tank: 0 gallons

Looks like the attempt was to combine all the wing tanks and half of the fuselage tanks on each side. Doesn't look like the conversion from Imperial Gallons to US Gallons happened, so the numbers are about 20% off.

The Conversion to Imperial Gallons should gain you about 20% range. There are a bunch of other things to try, but that is starting to deviate a bit from real values. I may mess with it a little but won't promise anything. I am fairly sure there are other significant issues with this flight model.

- Ivan.

smilo
August 14th, 2010, 10:39
granted, the document above is for the Mk VI,
but,
Fuel and oil systems
1. Fuel tanks
Fuel is carried in four outer wing tanks, four inner wing tanks, and two centre tanks.
The fuel capacities are as follows:
Main supply
Centre tanks 50 gallons

Inner wing tanks 286 gallons

Outer tanks 116 gallons

Total 452 gallons


The fuel capacities are given in imperial gallons. FS measures fuel in US gallons, so you will see larger numbers in the Engine and Fuel dialog.

In the real mosquito you can switch between main supply and outer tanks, but you can not use both at the same time. While the main supply can feed both engines, the starboard outer tanks will only feed the starboard engine and the port tank the port engine. If one engine fails, fuel left in the corresponding outer tank can not be used so the outer tanks should be emptied first.

interesting.

smilo
August 14th, 2010, 11:43
so why , do you suppose,
he chose a total of 462 instead of 452?
different resource, maybe?

452 IG= 542.829 gallons
462 IG= 554.838 gallons

making the change from Imperial to Standard Gallons
should get the range within the ballpark.
how much work is it to make that adjustment?
if it is simple and you have the time,
I can make the test flight.

any ideas why my AP Airspeed hold doesn't work?

Ivan
August 14th, 2010, 13:16
Hi Smilo,

Check Wikipedia. The Fuselage tanks originally held 50 gallons. In later models, they held 63 gallons, so:
One outter wing tank + One inner wing tank + 1/2 fuselage tanks (rounded down)
58+143+30(should be 31) = 231

I can change the AIR file pretty easily. As I commented on earlier, there are a bunch more bugs than this. Also, I am going to put some capacity into the Fuselage tank. With just the three tanks, the fuel selector for the stock P-51D should work just fine.

BTW, are you using a different panel with your plane? The panel that came with it seems to have some problems also: I tried to switch off engines by just using panel ignition controls and only the left one seems to do anything. Also it switches OFF when BOTH magnetos are selected.

Do you want me to send you just the modified AIR file with the fuel capacity change (quick) or with a few additional checks and probable changes? The problem is that a simple fuel capacity change won't get you the range you are looking for. If you are just looking for the range to fly a mission, let me know what you want the fuselage tank to be set at (conversion says 75.5 US Gallons).

- Ivan.

Ivan
August 14th, 2010, 13:27
If you think THIS is getting screwy, consider that with German fighters, you really can't select the drop tank. There typically is an air pressure line that plumbs into the drop tank and forces the fuel into one of the on board tanks. When you drop the tank, the internal tanks will be as full as they can be.

Also, some planes use what they call a "Standpipe Reserve". That means that although there may only be one fuel tank on board, the selector draws from one of two positions: Either at the lowest part of the tank (all fuel available) (also called Reserve) or a higher position which doesn't draw fuel below the reserve level.

The Dauntless actually has an inboard and an outboard wing tank, but I am not sure that they are individually selectable. If not, then effectively there is only one wing tank per side.

I have been playing with swapping gauges between the various stock panels. My current P-40 panel is basically a P-51D panel with fuel switching from the FW 190A. What I can't decide yet is the order the tanks should be on the selection. FWIW, the Ki-61 panel is basically a Me 109E panel with P-51D fuel selection. (The Me 109 doesn't have a fuel selector because it only has one internal fuel tank.) It may not look right, but it IS functional.

- Ivan.

smilo
August 14th, 2010, 14:00
I must be getting denser...
I don't see how increasing the capacity
could not increase the range.
but, I will take your word for it.
I would like the quick .air file
if it isn't too much trouble.
please and thank you in advance.

oddly enough, the standpipe reserve is familiar.
I have an old Massey-Ferguson tractor
that uses the technique.
the fuel valve is initially opened 1/4 turn
and the tractor is operated until it runs out of fuel.
the reserve is activated by manually turning the fuel valve full open.
there is just enough fuel to get back to the barn.

try shutting down the mosquito with Ctrl+Shift+ F1
that's Mixture idle cutoff
very odd about the ignition only half working.

oh yeah, I am using a different panel.
it's for precision bombing.

Ivan
August 14th, 2010, 15:09
Hi Smilo,

Yes, the increased capacity WILL increase the range. I must have just stated it wrong. The problem is that you are looking for about 50% more range and 20% more fuel won't go quite that far.

Check your email. I believe there also were a couple problems with the propeller animation (wrong direction?) and I changed that too. I can't adjust the pitch though.

Let me know how it works or doesn't.
- Ivan.

hubbabubba
August 14th, 2010, 20:41
I believe this is where Hubba got the information stated above.Let's just say that we both got our information from the same source; RAF "Pilot's note for Mosquito FB. 6".

Since most of the capacity was in the wings, general figures for all Mosquitoes must be pretty much the same. The fuselage was only containing a small amount. It is said that B Mk IV with bulging bomb bays could deliver a 4,000 lbs "cookie" to Berlin and back. Pictures are showing such aircraft with 100 Imp. gal. under both wings. I doubt that it was carrying the center 63 Imp. gal. with the bomb. So it would give 542 Imp. gal. or 651 gal.

According to this site (http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm) , the distance between East-Anglia and Berlin is ±993 miles, which gives us an average 1.53 miles per gallon (with a safety of 10%, we are still at 1.53 mi/gal).

Roger Lowery tanks give 92 gal right (526 AirEd) and left (525) and 57.6 center (531), for a total of 241.6 US gal or 201.74 Imp. gal. We are far from the count. More than that, 546 gallons are left in section 302, which the poor beast has to carry for nothing! I had made the same mistake in the Taifun (remember Ivan?).

Removing that dead weight and adjusting the "CFS1 style" tanks to reflect real capacity should go a long way.

Ivan
August 15th, 2010, 11:42
Hi Hubbabubba,

The fuselage 50 or 63 gallon tanks were internal and just behind the cockpit. Other than for weight reasons, there was no reason they could not be filled while carrying a bomb load.

Regarding the Record 302 fuel tanks, I do seem to remember some issue with these and your Taifun, but don't remember the details. I know the stock P-47D has Section 302 tanks. I also know that I tried way back to base my F6F-3 Hellcat on the stock Thunderbolt and was surprised as heck when the thing could not be belly landed. (It would slow down and then bounce and flip over.)

I never checked out whether This Mosquito Bomber had section 302 fuel tanks and whether the weights were correct. I generally don't get to that level of detail when working on an AIR file that isn't my own. I certainly didn't do any speed, power or climb tests. Since you pointed it out, I will go check the AIR file again.

I believe that a pretty good visual model for the Mosquito would be quite easy to build because of the simple shapes. Do you agree?

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
August 15th, 2010, 22:07
Hi Ivan:wavey:


The fuselage 50 or 63 gallon tanks were internal and just behind the cockpit. Other than for weight reasons, there was no reason they could not be filled while carrying a bomb load.
I will take your word for it. Despite having a large amount of literature on the Mosquito, internal fuselage tanks are only represented in a ¾ front "cut-off" view of a B Mk IV in a Japanese book, and they are described as 2x68 gallons! I find it rather difficult to imagine that the B Mk IV would carry 113 Imperial gallons without additional tanks while the FB Mk VI would have only that capacity with them. I would give precedent to pilot's notes over the Japanese book, no matter how ordinarily precise they are.

Redoing the calculation while taking into account these central tanks, and considering a capacity of +63 Imperial gallons (±136 US), we have 605 I.gal (±727 US). This gives an average of 1.37 miles per gallon US (1.52 with a 10% reserve).


Regarding the Record 302 fuel tanks, I do seem to remember some issue with these and your Taifun, but don't remember the details.My Taifun starboard wing was tilting the aircraft to the right, you found that I had tanks imbalance approximately at the tip of the right wing under 302 and 1003. I thought they were inoperative under CFS1 air file system, but they were still carrying their weight! The solution was simply to remove the whole two sections!

In CFS1 air files, only sections around 525 to 533 are used. All stock aircraft are using one to three tanks. AI aircraft are still using 302-1003 "FS98 style" tanks. Under "CFS1 style" tanks, only tanks from 525 to 531 are being emptied. The stock P-47D has no 302-1003 sections, you must have tweaked it without noticing. I verified in a "plain vanilla" installation of mine.


I believe that a pretty good visual model for the Mosquito would be quite easy to build because of the simple shapes. Do you agree?Which Mosquito? Very few aircraft were declined in so many different versions; photo reconnaissance, bomber, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, transport...A modeler could do a Mosquito every six months and he would not cover all the variants in a lifetime, unless he starts very young and dies very old...:engel016:

Ivan
August 16th, 2010, 02:51
The tanks behind the cockpit don't each carry 63 Imp Gallons. The COMBINED capacity is 63 gallons. This is just from Wikipedia. Perhaps I have other docs on the Mosquitos, I don't know because I haven't cared enough to look for them.

Perhaps you are correct about the tweaked P-47D AIR file. I probably found the sectin 302 / section 1003 fuel tanks as the simplest means of describing fuel tanks and used those. Everything was fine until I tried to belly land the airplane and then lots of weirdness. One other thing was that I didn't change stabiliser area until I found the plane was terribly unstable at altitiude. I then took a dial caliper to a MPC 1/72 Hellcat model and estimated the areas. After changing that, the instability was gone.

As for mosquito variants, the nose, engines and propellers change by a bit, but most of the versions are either bomber or fighter nosed with little bitty antennae or not. The wings, fuselage and tail don't change much and the engines don't project past the upper surface of the wing. To me, this looks like a much less complicated model than the B-25, B-26, Ju 88, or A-20.

BTW, The AIR file for the Mosquito B.IV has no section 302 fuel tanks and the Zero Fuel weight seems a bit low at 14,300 pounds. The engines also need to be moved forward by a bit but since I don't have any good drawings, I don't know by exactly how far.

- Ivan.

Ivan
August 17th, 2010, 06:48
One link for a .50 Cal weighs 269.4 grains. Found and weighed just ONE this morning.

- Ivan.

Ivan
August 17th, 2010, 11:37
Finished the Service Ceiling and Absolute Ceiling tests last night:
Starting with half fuel and full ammunition:
Service Ceiling 32,700 feet
Absolute Ceiling 33,900 feet

Actual reported Service Ceiling for the P-40C was 29,500 feet which I believe sounds a bit too low.
I am reasonably satisfied with the results.

- Ivan.

Ivan
August 17th, 2010, 12:16
--------------
speaking of tanks and switches,
(yeah, it's a stretch)
Ivan, as I recall, long ago,
you were looking for a multi-position fuel tank switch
for your Dauntless...or am I dreaming?
did you ever find one?
I may have good news.
:wiggle:

Hi Smilo,

Attached is an image of the SBD-3 Dauntless fuel selector. This is kinda goofy, but I would be satisfied if there were a gauge that could select Left Main, Right Main, Left Aux, Right Aux. The Reserve is a standpipe reserve in the Left Main tank.

Thanks.
- Ivan.

hubbabubba
August 17th, 2010, 19:52
Hi smilo:wavey:

Are-you the smilo12334 (spurious numbers) that is, among others, trying to talk some sense into the bozo who pretends on YouTube that the Mossie was all-metal, British only pretending it was wood to intoxicate the Germans into loosing time and money into building one? If so, a word of advice; don't loose your time into a desperate cause.

That guy is to place with those who believe that earth is flat and, believe it or not, one phenomenon who affirm that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not nuked but flattened with "classical" incendiaries! I've seen him being kicked-out of at least three forums. He tends to be very crude with those who try to say otherwise.:isadizzy:

Hi Ivan:wavey:

I have such a gauge that can be switched on Right-Main, Left-Main, Right-aux, Left-Aux, Normal (all) or Cut-off. I think it works only with 302-1003 "FS98 style" sections, but I'm not sure. I will try to test it with a tweaked "CFS1 style" tanks air file. It's a modified gauge that I used for an "extravaganza" F-16A panel of mine. Jet air files are only working with FS98 air files as CFS1 has only piston engines.

Incidentally, I have found HERE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV-merlin21_ads.jpg) and HERE (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV_ads.jpg) documents that describe the fuel capacity of the Mosquito B Mk IV and B Mk IV ii as being 536 gallons (I presumed Imperial) internal. Interesting fact; it goes down to 500 gallons with the "bulging bomb bay" version. Central main tanks gone?

It would also mean that the tanks were different between B Mk IV and FB Mk VI. Maybe the FB version had smaller wing tanks to increase roll rate? (I'm hypothesizing here...)

The range would have been barely enough for a Berlin bomb run, which fits operations reports.

Ivan
August 18th, 2010, 08:36
Hi Hubbabubba,
Let me know how the gauge testing works out. Also, where did the gauge come from?

The unpainted screenshot below shows the changes from your comments about the bleeds. Note that the split between the fin and tailcone has changed. The red triangle above the front of the wing fillet cures the fuselage bleed problem.

The other screenshot shows what the P-40C changes look like with the original P-40E paint. The untextured major components are the most major rebuilds in which not only were the polygons changed, but the entire component was deleted first. Looks like a roadkill to me.

I also checked out the roll rates for the P-40C. They are an almost exact match to the documented results up to 350 mph IAS. I did not test beyond that because of the severity of the dives needed to get to that airspeed.

- Ivan.

smilo
August 18th, 2010, 14:50
nope, I am not said, smilo1234.
I do not argue politics, religion,
or war denials in public forums.
the effort is an exercise in futility.

attached is a picture of the seven position fuel switch that I have.
I believe it was created by Chuck Dome.
I do not have the skills to change the gauge,
but I would imagine that redoing the gauge BMP
would not be that tough.

so, I had a thought about mosquito fuel capacities,
what if the air file was changed to reflect
the quantities with the wing slipper tanks?
granted, the tanks would not be visible in the model,
but, the long range mission could be accomplished.
the whole package could be renamed,
Mosquito B Mk IV LR
LR being Long Range
kinda hokey, but what the heck

Ivan
August 18th, 2010, 15:43
Hi Smilo,

Let me know how much fuel and where you want it. I'll check for replies after dinner.

- Ivan.

Ivan
August 19th, 2010, 06:22
Here's an aircraft that has been awaiting flight testing and a new panel for a few years. It differs from the Corsair uploaded here in that the canopy is different and the wing bend has been relocated inboard along with the landing gear. There are some dimensional inaccuracies though.

- Ivan.

Ivan
August 23rd, 2010, 13:50
Another minor variation on a theme. I built this one a few years back when one of the folks who is no longer here kept requesting. When I was done, his interest wasn't there any more.....

- Ivan.

Ivan
August 24th, 2010, 11:06
The P-40C has spent the last week or so in the paint shop. The P-40C is much fatter than the P-40E, so a few textures needed to adjusted.

The rudder was rebuilt to minimise a bleed that Hubbabubba found. The problem was that the NEW rudder extended past the bottom of the texture. In order to texture this, (0.bmp) the fin and rudder needed to be moved up. They collided with the main gear struts and the tail wheel. The tail wheel was moved.

As you can see from 4.bmp, there isn't a lot of space between the fuselage textures and other pieces here. Because the fuselage is deeper, the wing fillet needed to be moved to another texture. From the earlier screenshot, you can see that the top of the razorback section of the P-40C extends past the top of the texture.

- Ivan.

Ivan
August 27th, 2010, 07:43
As a general texturing note, it makes sense to lay out textures in such a manner that a single continous line can be drawn for the entire length of the fuselage. Putting a "Lightning Bolt" on the side of the aircraft might be impossible otherwise. This would be the vertical dimension that needs to be tweaked.

Also, the Fore-Aft dimension should be tweaked in places that might have a national insignia or emblem so that the emblem CAN be drawn easily. I haven't done the fore-aft check yet on this aircraft but the intention is there.

- Ivan.

Ivan
September 6th, 2010, 21:43
Been on vacation for the last week. Didn't do anything on the P-40C until last night. Did some layout of the panel lines on the fuselage tonight. This is mostly done. Wing panels need to be adjusted some. Exhausts and Radiators also need textured still. Note the goofy texture on the far side wheel? This texture file is shared with the control panel which still needs textured. I didn't want to lose the instruments, so I shifted things around temporarily. It will be done another day.

Time for Bed.
- Ivan.

Ivan
September 9th, 2010, 09:52
Put in some brackets and Coolant and Oil Radiators last night and this morning.

- Ivan.

Ivan
September 10th, 2010, 07:34
Painted the Exhausts last night. Also adjusted the AIR file for neutral pitch with the flaps down and "Nose Heavy" with landing gear down.

After the adjustments, I took a fairly long (half hour) test flight. I found another half dozen issues that need addressed. Most of them were fixed this morning.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
September 10th, 2010, 09:26
Exhaust pipes looks great from that angle.:applause:
Bravo!

Ivan
September 10th, 2010, 14:06
Hi Hubbabubba,

I still need to paint the Exhausts a darker shade on the bottom. They did end up looking better than I thought they would.

Here is some detail that you might appreciate:
Originally, I had not glued the Nose to the rest of the Fuselage. The Exhaust was glued directly to the side of the Nose.

I found that I was getting some bleeds from the Wing Fillets through the Nose from the opposite side, but only from Below.

This morning, I threw in a fore-aft glue part between the Nose and rest of the Fuselage. After THAT, the Exhausts bled through the Wing Fillets. After reworking the glue parts for the Exhausts, the bleeds pretty much went away.

BTW, I forgot to mention, the trim changes with flaps and landing gear were from the Pilot's Manual for the P-40 Tomahawks. The original flight model didn't have these traits because I didn't know about them.

- Ivan.

Ivan
September 12th, 2010, 20:33
Just cutting some Daisies with a Tomahawk.

Still needs proper paint and a DP, but works well enough for some lazy flying.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
September 14th, 2010, 03:02
Just cutting some Daisies with a Tomahawk. g.

If you want to cut daisies, step off the tarmac!:jump:

Looks more like runway's dusting to me!:icon_lol:

Ivan
September 14th, 2010, 11:18
Notice I am still going lower? I am just lining up on one lucky Daisy at the end of the runway.

BTW, I reworked the fuel tanks to put them in the order of their physical locations:
Reserve
Main
Fuselage

I also changed the bitmap on the control panel to put a letter (R-M-F) next to the switch position.

I had fun crashing it last night: Belly landing (plane sinks into the ground), and nosing it over to check scrape points. Also tested the clean stall speed: 85 mph or so. Adjust the stall warning to 13.5 degrees so that it now comes on just BEFORE the actual stall instead of after.

Still Working.
- Ivan.

Ivan
October 25th, 2010, 07:57
I guess it's that time again. I am considering the next project to build.

So far the short list has the following:
Mitsubishi J2M3 Raiden 21
Kawanishi N1K2-J-Ko Shiden-KAI
Messerschmitt Me 109G-10 or K-4

Yeah, I know everyone has built a Messerschmitt, but I want to own one. I don't believe I have ever seen a good Raiden or Shiden-KAI.

Any other suggestions?

- Ivan.

smilo
October 25th, 2010, 13:37
wellll, since you asked,
every time I watch the History or Military Channel
and they are talking about bomb runs,
there is always an A-20,
even if the are talking about B-24s.
or...a decent visual model of the Do17
to replace that ugly AI in game.
heck, it doesn't even have to be fancy.

Ivan
October 26th, 2010, 10:48
Hi Smilo,

The A-20 is in the plans, but is probably a bit too complicated for the quick project I have in mind. I don't know about the Dornier Do 17 though. Never had much interest in the plane.

Are you sure that someone else hasn't already done a good Do 17?

- Ivan.

smilo
October 26th, 2010, 14:28
I have never seen a Do 17,
other than the stock monstrosity.
although, there are a couple repaints of the stocker.
I wonder why MS decided to use
the Do 17m for the stock model.
maybe because others in the series
look a lot like the Ju 88,
except for the twin rudder tail.

oh well, so it goes.
the A-20, B-25 and Do 17
were just pipe dreams anyway.

oh yeah, BTW, a couple weeks ago,
I was at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.
one of the exhibits really caught my eye.
it was a collection of WWII Aircraft,
all in 1/72 scale.
it took the guy that put it together
7 years to complete the project.
the detail was excellent and all countries were covered.
oh yeah, there were over 400 models.
very cool

Ivan
October 28th, 2010, 04:11
Hi Smilo,

If you were to decide, which version of the Do 17 would you like to see? I know nearly nothing about this plane.

- Ivan.

smilo
October 28th, 2010, 15:34
thanks for asking.
there are many variants,
but, personally, I prefer the Z.
I believe the Z was seen
mostly in the Battle of Britain.
if you are interested,
I have some 3 view drawings.

Ivan
October 29th, 2010, 04:28
Please do email them to me though I still don't promise I will work on the project. I was looking at this plane as a project and it doesn't look all that difficult at first glance.

- Ivan.

smilo
October 29th, 2010, 07:14
I have several, so,
I will dig them out and zip 'em up.
they will be in the mail today.

I probably mentioned this before.
I always thought it would be good
to have improved AIs in CFS.
they didn't have to be perfect,
just look more like the real thing.
did you ever look at the Ju 88, Do 17 or Mosquito?
pretty sad, really.
IMO, they really detract from the game.

-------------:kilroy:----------------

I decided to attach the zip here
in case anyone else is interested

Ivan
October 29th, 2010, 12:05
There are plenty of good Mosquitos out there. There are also a couple good Ju88s out there also.
At least they are fairly good from my point of view. Why is the Do 17Z significant?

- Ivan.

smilo
October 30th, 2010, 19:29
other than being a major player
in the Battle of Britain,
and that the Do 17 is an example
of fake Luftwaffe airliners
being converted into bombers,
and finally, that the CFS visual model is bad,
the Do 17Z is of no significance, really.

Ivan
November 6th, 2010, 02:55
Hi Smilo,

In playing with parameters for the AIR file for the Dornier 17Z, I found that the plane is very oddly similar in LOTS of ways to the B-25C I was working on.

Also in poking around, I found that the conventional wisdom and knowledge about the Dornier are not all that accurate. The plane wasn't a world beater but also wasn't the dog that its reputation implies. The biggest fault in the aircraft appears to be that it was a bit underpowered. If the Do 215 which was exactly the same aircraft with a different engine had an even MORE powerful engine, perhaps its reputation would have been better.

- Ivan.

womble55
December 3rd, 2010, 02:13
This is a shock to me as much as to you but I have actually uploaded one of my aircraft....pauses for members to have a medicinal brandy....a Westland Wapiti. One of the interwar aircraft that served admirably without the recognition they deserved. It hasn't been built before so fills a gap in the 'conspicuous by their absence' category.

smilo
December 3rd, 2010, 06:42
SHOCKING!!!
better make mine a double...
brandy, that is.

well done, womble,
but you forgot to post a link;
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?catid=19

hubbabubba
December 3rd, 2010, 11:14
Forget the glasses and give me the bottle!:ernae::icon29::guinness:

There is an aircraft in the CFS1 novelty section!:greenbo:
I downloaded mine minutes ago, time to go flying.
Congrats womble!!!:applause:

Ivan
December 3rd, 2010, 15:20
I just downloaded my copy of the Wapiti. Thanks Womble55! I'll be checking it out tonight when I get home!

BTW, What happened to all the other CFS1 aircraft and other stuff??? Did I miss when everything went away???

- Ivan.

Seagull V
December 3rd, 2010, 15:51
Nice !!!!!!! Has always been one of my favourite inter-war land-based biplanes, along with the Hawker Demon & Bristol Bulldog. :ernae:

No Dice
December 3rd, 2010, 16:21
If I remember correctly, don't you have a float plane in your collection? Maybe you can dig it up.

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

Seagull V
December 3rd, 2010, 18:36
This one by any chance ??????? :kilroy:

Ivan
December 4th, 2010, 04:54
Hi No Dice,

If that question was addressed to me, I have never BUILT a float plane or flying boat though I have worked on a few. Mostly I have been working on flight models for them. A Kawanishi H8K Emily is on my build list, but not very high in the list of priorities.

- Ivan.

No Dice
December 4th, 2010, 11:50
This one by any chance ??????? :kilroy:

Problem is, I have the plane but the airfile is terrible, Hubbabubba pointed me to a replacement airfile but its not much better, Have you been able to fix it? I am big into floaters, bush planes and seabases in my scenery.

Dave

www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

hubbabubba
December 4th, 2010, 12:58
Problem is, I have the plane but the airfile is terrible, Hubbabubba pointed me to a replacement airfile but its not much better, Have you been able to fix it? I am big into floaters, bush planes and seabases in my scenery.

Dave

www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

Are you sure you have downloaded the proper airfile? It is the Fairey Seafox. I had no problem flying with it. It's no Extra 300, but it flies reasonably well and will T/O within a thousand feet.


FS98 - FS98 Aircraft FS98 EYA Air File For Fairey Seafox
[ Download (http://www.flightsim.com/kdl.php?fid=75520) | View (http://www.flightsim.com/zview.php?cm=list&fid=75520) ]
Name: eyaseafx.zip (http://www.flightsim.com/kdl.php?fid=75520) Size: 36,774 Date: 04-13-2004 Downloads: 120
http://www.flightsim.com/j/eyaseafx.gif FS98 EYA Air File For Fairey Seafox. EYA (Enjoy Your Aircraft) .air file for Fairey Seafox floatpane, in production from 1936 to 1938, FS98 model by Bob Wening (SF1.ZIP (http://www.flightsim.com/file.php?cm=SEARCH1&fsec=0&fname=SF1.ZIP)) ready to be moved into the FS98 aircraft. Well balanced flight dynamics for smooth and exact controlling with a force-feedback joystick allowing manual coordination in turns. By Christoph Ruhtenberg.

Ivan
December 5th, 2010, 18:43
Thanks for the links Hubbabubba,

I can't remember my password out there, so I won't be downloading it. If this thing is repainted, it could pass for a Douglas World Cruiser.

- Ivan.

Ivan
December 5th, 2010, 18:55
Here is the current Project. The way I am building it is too much for a single AF99 Assembly, so it will have to be a SCASM aircraft. At the moment, the component count is 26 but 12 are due to considerations for moving parts. It looked more complicated than the B-25C, but for resource count, it is actually MUCH less because there aren't any turrets, anhedral on the wings, transparent blisters, etc. The shape is incredibly complicated though.

Need to take a break to figure out how to complete this thing.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 5th, 2010, 21:07
Thanks for the links Hubbabubba,

I can't remember my password out there, so I won't be downloading it. If this thing is repainted, it could pass for a Douglas World Cruiser.

- Ivan.
Didn't you said not so long ago that you had found the login password?
Apparently, easy comes, easy goes!

The aircraft, you can find at Simviation HERE (http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/syb.cgi?section=vintage&file=sf1.zip), the corrective AIR file; 24916

Smilo will certainly like your flying pencil. You're experienced enough to know that, in CFS1, "easy project" is an oxymoron?:banghead:

BTW smilo, your "archives" sticky as outlived its usefulness. All your links are dead or pointing to the new "Warbird's archives".

Ivan
December 7th, 2010, 12:52
Hi Hubbabubba,

I downloaded the aircraft but haven't done anything with it yet. I will try it out tonight. Thanks.

As for easy CFS1 projects, I believe it is possible. The AIR file for this Dornier wasn't hard except that I am also using it to experiment with a few ideas that are more educational to me rather than necessary for the aircraft. The assembly of the Dornier is relatively easy. It is the complex shapes and cross sections that makes this plane hard.

My intended next project was the J2M Raiden and that aircraft has no complex shapes that I can recall. I don't know about the flight model though. That is a chance thing. Some need a lot of tuning, some do not.

- Ivan.

Ivan
December 14th, 2010, 04:06
Hello Hubbabubba,

I finally did a quick check of the Fairey Seafox first with its original AIR file and then with the replacement. The original is pretty poor and nearly unflyable. The replacement is better, but still has some serious issues:
1. It is a float plane but can't take off from water.
2. It doesn't have enough rudder authority to fly a level turn; The nose keeps going high.
3. The roll stability or damping is way too high to the point of eliminating any dihedral effect.

There are also bleeds in lots of places with the worst being of the float through the nose from above.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 14th, 2010, 06:04
Hello Hubbabubba,

I finally did a quick check of the Fairey Seafox first with its original AIR file and then with the replacement. The original is pretty poor and nearly unflyable. The replacement is better, but still has some serious issues:
1. It is a float plane but can't take off from water.
2. It doesn't have enough rudder authority to fly a level turn; The nose keeps going high.
3. The roll stability or damping is way too high to the point of eliminating any dihedral effect.

There are also bleeds in lots of places with the worst being of the float through the nose from above.

- Ivan.

Привет! Ivan,

I'm a bit surprised as I had no difficulty to T/O on water. Maybe we're using different classlist "grounds"?

Level turns are slow but feasible. It probably depends on what you consider a "level turn".

It is certainly not an aerobatic a/c, but it flies! Remember that the replacement AIR file was addressing the "feedback" shaker controls, but was still a FS98 file. Granted, the AIR file is not great, just good enough.

BTW, as a matter of coincidence, I fell on these pages at FLIGHT archives recently;
HERE (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201972.html) and HERE (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201983.html). At the same period, all major European nations were contemplating the creation of "navy fighters" that would be equipped with floaters! What were they thinking?:isadizzy:

Ivan
December 20th, 2010, 08:14
Hi Hubbabubba,

The Sea Fox even with floats takes off from a runway. It does not even start moving on the water at least not on my CFS installation. There IS rudder control, but just not quite enough. I was also flying about a 45 degree bank during the turn. Now considering the direction that nose went, it seems like the center of pressure is also in front of the CoG.

As for floatplane fighters, the Japanese produced a few such as the A6M2-N "Rufe" and the N1K "Rex". Their rationale was that there were only 4 fleet carriers at the time and they would not be available to provide air support on remote islands. The carriers would be required for the principal military operation. The Japanese never were able to build island airfields all that well, so floatplanes supported by seaplane tenders (of which they had a few) would do until airfields could be (slowly) constructed.

Interestingly, the A6M2-N didn't lose too much in maneuverability but top speed was only about 300 mph or about 35-40 mph below that of the A6M2 carrier fighter. Naval fighters of the time were really not much better. The Blackburn Skua and Roc come to mind.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 20th, 2010, 15:10
Hi Hubbabubba,

The Sea Fox even with floats takes off from a runway. It does not even start moving on the water at least not on my CFS installation. There IS rudder control, but just not quite enough. I was also flying about a 45 degree bank during the turn. Now considering the direction that nose went, it seems like the center of pressure is also in front of the CoG.

As for floatplane fighters, the Japanese produced a few such as the A6M2-N "Rufe" and the N1K "Rex". Their rationale was that there were only 4 fleet carriers at the time and they would not be available to provide air support on remote islands. The carriers would be required for the principal military operation. The Japanese never were able to build island airfields all that well, so floatplanes supported by seaplane tenders (of which they had a few) would do until airfields could be (slowly) constructed.

Interestingly, the A6M2-N didn't lose too much in maneuverability but top speed was only about 300 mph or about 35-40 mph below that of the A6M2 carrier fighter. Naval fighters of the time were really not much better. The Blackburn Skua and Roc come to mind.

- Ivan.

Hello Ivan,:wavey:

I'm pretty much convinced that your classlist.bgl is different than mine. Try this one; 25979

Here is proof that it can t/o from water;
25980It was done in front of Ripe, one hand on the stick, the other on the keyboard taking pictures. Take-off speed is reached around 60 knots.

Concerning fighters with floats, it's a bit like a ballerina with snowshoes...

They are only up to it as long as no land-borne fighters are around. The Fleet Air Arm Swordfish attacking the Bismark would have been wiped-out if a schwarm of 109 had been around.

Ivan
December 20th, 2010, 19:05
The Graf Zeppelin never got finished, so your Schwarm of Hundert Neuns would have had a hard time getting to where the Bismarck fought her last fight. Even land based bombers could not make it. The 109 would never have made a good shipboard fighter. It didn't have the range and endurance at the time and never did for any version that was built. It also apparently didn't have the nice low speed handling that is needed for deck landings. Consider how many landing accidents happened even on regular air strips.

The Convair Sea Dart might have been competitive.... Actually one on one, I believe a A6M2-N would have given a F4F Wildcat a pretty good fight. My pick would be the Rufe over the Wildcat.

I have been able to use other flying boats in my CFS installation. I worked on a Dornier 18 a while back. I have also flown plenty of Catalinas as sea planes. I will test again. I believe I did the minimum modification to my classlist so that water was landable. I don't want to change any more than I need to.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 20th, 2010, 21:32
I don't want to change any more than I need to.
Actually, the only change is to water tiles surfaces. Your own modified classlist.bgl is probably using "bumpy grass" surface. Mine is using "concrete", that's all. The problem with "bumpy grass" is that it increases friction, hence the difference in t/o ability.

My point was that, facing "real" fighters, navy varieties (USN, IJN or FAA) were at a serious disadvantage, especially early in the war. Incidentally, you are probably aware that a "T" (for traeger = carrier) version of the Bf 109 was build, incorporating longer foldable wings? They were deployed on short runways in the Frieseland archipelago and performed remarkably well.

Seagull V
December 23rd, 2010, 00:25
I use the SeaFox in CFS2, it is definately "sluggish" and I have been considering looking at the airfile when I get time. Performance figures from "Aircraft Archive - Classics of World War Two" give the following:-

Weights:- Empty - 3805 lb / 1726 kg, Loaded - 5420 lb / 2458 kg, Max Catapult - 5650lb / 2562 kg
Powerplant:- One Napier Rapier VI sixteen-cylinder, H type, air cooled engine rated at 395 hp
Performance:- Max Speed - 124 mph / 199.6 km/h, Initial climb rate - 420 ft/min / 130m/min,
Service ceiling - 9700 ft / 2950 m, Range - 440 miles / 710 km

In comparison, the de havilland DH-9 of WW1 vintage had a Max speed of 116 mph / 187 km/h.
Weight empty 2193 lb / 995 kg.

The SeaFox also has 2 large floats to assist all that wire bracing in providing additional air resistance.

hubbabubba
December 23rd, 2010, 04:55
I use the SeaFox in CFS2, it is definately "sluggish" and I have been considering looking at the airfile when I get time. Performance figures from "Aircraft Archive - Classics of World War Two" give the following:-

Weights:- Empty - 3805 lb / 1726 kg, Loaded - 5420 lb / 2458 kg, Max Catapult - 5650lb / 2562 kg
Powerplant:- One Napier Rapier VI sixteen-cylinder, H type, air cooled engine rated at 395 hp
Performance:- Max Speed - 124 mph / 199.6 km/h, Initial climb rate - 420 ft/min / 130m/min,
Service ceiling - 9700 ft / 2950 m, Range - 440 miles / 710 km

In comparison, the de havilland DH-9 of WW1 vintage had a Max speed of 116 mph / 187 km/h.
Weight empty 2193 lb / 995 kg.

The SeaFox also has 2 large floats to assist all that wire bracing in providing additional air resistance.

The Seafox was slow and clumsy but, during the River Plate battle, it was the only aircraft aloft, making it the best aircraft around!

Had the Graf Spee been able to launch its own observation plane, the pocket battleship may have sailed to nearby Argentina coast where it would have received a more amicable reception.

I wonder what an Arado Ar 196 versus a Fairey Seafox air combat would have looked like...:kilroy:
My money on the Arado.

Ivan
December 23rd, 2010, 15:00
There is a fair amount of evidence that the Graf Spee could NOT have sailed a whole lot further without some serious mechanical overhaul which is one of the reasons her captain chose to scuttle her. He wasn't going home regardless of whether he could win the second surface battle. It wasn't battle damage that finished her. It was mechanical unreliability of her large diesels. BTW, her Arado seaplanes were casualties of the first gun battle and could not disprove the British claims that there was a larger surface fleet outside Montevideo.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 24th, 2010, 13:32
There is a fair amount of evidence that the Graf Spee could NOT have sailed a whole lot further without some serious mechanical overhaul which is one of the reasons her captain chose to scuttle her. He wasn't going home regardless of whether he could win the second surface battle. It wasn't battle damage that finished her. It was mechanical unreliability of her large diesels. BTW, her Arado seaplanes were casualties of the first gun battle and could not disprove the British claims that there was a larger surface fleet outside Montevideo.

- Ivan.

Diesel engines were fine and running at their full regime. It is the raw fuel filtration system that was damaged beyond sea repairs. With 16 hours of diesel fuel, captain Langsdorff could have reached the Argentinian side of the River Plate, but he was convinced that a larger British force was waiting for him beyond the horizon. Had the Ar 196 been launched before the aircraft was damaged, he would have known that only two light cruisers were in pursuit, the HMS Exeter out of battle order.

This is a lot of "if", "but" and "maybe". But the fact is that Langsdorff taught he was engaging the Exeter and two destroyers probably escorting a convoy. A simple reconnaissance flight would have changed all that.

On that;
A Merry Christmas to all
and to all
Peace on Earth

Ivan
December 24th, 2010, 15:46
Yes, Merry Christmas Everyone!!

The Exeter was done and was headed to the Falklands, but by the time Graf Spee was due to leave, a heavier unit (I believe it was a County Class Heavy Cruiser called HMS Cumberland) was there to replace Exeter. I don't believe Graf Spee could have beaten a fresh CA and two CLs and still have been in a condition to sail anywhere. I still think it was his obligation to make a fight of it even though it would have been a losing one.

The reasons I believe Graf Spee would have lost are the following:
All of the British units were faster. Graf Spee could not run.
The Cumberland was almost as big as Graf Spee and had 4x2 x 8 inch guns (Two more guns than Exeter). I believe County class were about 9800 tons standard and Graf Spee was about 12,000 tons standard.
Graf Spee didn't have any heavier armour than a typical Heavy Cruiser, so any of the cruisers could hurt her.

The big bluff was that Langsdorf was convinced that a Battlecruiser (I think it was HMS Renown) was also around and that was definitely not the case. If that were the case, Graf Spee would have stood NO Chance whatsoever.

- Ivan.

Ivan
December 24th, 2010, 18:50
This project is being done a little differently because of all the wacky shapes. Because the shapes kept needing to get changed to fit together properly, I figured it would make more sense to just show the reference parts and templates until everything was final. (No, it is not even close to final yet.)

- Ivan.

smilo
December 24th, 2010, 19:31
very nice...smilo is happy boy! :jump:

hubbabubba
December 25th, 2010, 20:59
Hi Ivan,

Your Dorniers looks a lot like mesh terrain before texturing. Do you do that often?

Hi smilo,

I think Ivan has awaken the child in you, not that he was much asleep...

Concerning the Graf Spee, I read KM Admiral Graf Spee / Pocket Battleship 1932-1939 (Kapitän zur See Gerhard Bidlinmaier, (Ret'd) Profile Warship 4) while digesting Christmas Eve's supper. Very instructive.

The Ar 196;

It was the first production aircraft from Arado and, like all first-production, it was plagued with teething troubles. Although having provision for two aircraft, the Graf Spee only carried one. The first engine developed cracks in the cylinder-block on 7 October and had to be replaced by the spare. That engine also developed cracks on 24 October and the flying personnel made a makeshift repair with metallic sealing compound, strapping the cylinders with a steel band. On 2 December, the Ar 196 had to make a rough sea landing, but was recuperated just before capsizing. But on 11 December, the engine finally broke down at the end of its last sortie and. after salvaging useful equipment, it was jettisoned. Two days later, the River Plate battle was to start.

The KM Admiral Graf Spee;

The ship had six 28 cm (±11 in) guns housed in two turrets 3 by 3 fore and astern. Secondary armament was made of eight 15 cm (±6 in) housed in individual turrets, four on each side. Six 105 mm and six 37mm guns (originally eight, but two were transferred to the Altmark) were there for anti-aircraft protection.

Langsdorff was convinced that it could out gun anything the Admiralty could bring him, except the Renown.

The HMS Exeter;

Six 8 in guns in three twin guns turrets, two fore, one astern, as main armament. Secondary armament(also used as AA) consisted of eight QF 4 in guns in four twin turrets. Anti-aircraft weapons were two 20 mm Oerlikon single gun mounted aft and fore on the main turrets and two quad turrets with QF 2 pounders "pom-pom".

The HMS Ajax and HMNZS Achilles;

Main guns; eight 6 in guns in four twin turrets, two fore, two astern. Secondary-AA; 4 QF 4 in in single turrets and 12 QF 0.5 in Vickers in quad turrets.

Langsdorff was right in his appreciation; his secondary armament was equal to the main armament of the Ajax or the Achilles, although it could only point half of his secondary guns in a broadside attack.

His main guns were far superior to those of the Exeter, not only in caliber but also in range and precision. It registered 11 hits against only 2, transforming the Exeter in a very large pontoon.

Had the two other ships been, as he taught at first, escort destroyers, the matter would have been settled short n' sweet.

With 16 hours of diesel and 40 minutes of main guns ammunition, the Graf Spee could have turned for the Argentinian coast rather than Montevideo. The HMS Cumberland would only arrive on the night of 14/15 December.

While Uruguay was leaning towards the British, Argentine was showing signs of pro-Germany feelings.

With a reconnaissance aircraft, Langsdorff could have made better choices.

Ivan
December 27th, 2010, 08:00
Hi Hubbabubba,

There seem to be quite a few subjects raised. Hope I can remember to cover everything.

The Framework view of the Dornier 17Z is mostly for Smilo's benefit. From inside AF99, I can see most of these relationships without having to bring them into the simulator though it doesn't hurt to be able to spin things around a bit. I haven't done this before because there generally the shapes of an aircraft haven't been quite so complicated for any of my previous projects. One new technique I am using is to arrange all of my reference parts for a particular section of the aircraft into a component so that I can set all the references with just one command. That is saving me a fair amount of time because setting the component as reference clears out all prior references.

The Arado 196 is a strange one. The issues you are bringing up seem to mostly involve the engine which was a fairly proven design. The BMW 132 was also used in the FW 200 and the DORNIER 17.... One of the photographs I saw of the battle damage on board Admiral Graf Spee showed the remains of a burnt out seaplane which would suggest that the Arado was aboard during the battle.

Discussion of the Admiral Graf Spee will be continued on the next message.
- Ivan.

Ivan
December 27th, 2010, 13:09
The Battle of River Plate.

Aftermath:
HMS Exeter: All guns unserviceable. She has suffered severe damage but is hardly a pontoon. She sails for the Falklands under her own power.

HMS Achilles: No Significant Damage.

HMS Ajax: Both Aft Turrets unserviceable. One gun in a Forward Turret disabled.

DKM Admiral Graf Spee: One 5.9 inch gun disabled. All Range Finders disabled. Oil Purifier destroyed. Desalination plant destroyed (Apparently this was also required for operation of the diesels. I am not sure what the purpose of clean water was. Perhaps it was for coolant, perhaps it was for anti-detonant or for cylinder cleaning.) The Desalination plant apparently was the most critical loss and reports sent to Germany were only revealed in 2000.

Most of AGS's main armament ammunition was expended. In the prior battle, her secondaries landed absolutely ZERO hits on any of her opponents.

The ship that replaced HMS Exeter was a County class Cruiser: HMS Cumberland. Cumberland was a ship that was nearly identical in dimensions to Graf Spee (20 feet longer but 3 feet less beam). The German 28 cm gun threw a 660 pound shell. The British 8 inch gun threw a 256 pound shell. The British gun had about twice the theoretical firing rate, but for practical purposes, the firing rates were close to identical. Not that it was important (because either ship's main armament would have blasted through its opponent), but except for the conning tower and turret faces, the armour was fairly similar with belt thickness going to Cumberland.

If both ships were healthy and fighting one on one, Graf Spee should win but not without sustaining crippling damage. As the fight stood with two other hulls, I can't see Graf Spee surviving such a fight. Should couldn't even target all of her opponents at the same time. There would always be one opponent unengaged.

- Ivan.

Ivan
December 29th, 2010, 11:05
Hi Hubbabubba,

I also found a copy of Warship Profile 4 yesterday and read through it last night. It is interesting but there are a few statements within that are obviously incorrect. One of the pictures in the book is the one showing the burnt out seaplane after the battle.

One thing that WAS laid to rest by this book was the remaining ammunition load for Admiral Graf Spee. She had a total of 186 main gun rounds out of her full load of 600. Most of them (170) were AP rounds. She had been using mostly HE rounds against the British cruisers which means that they were considered "soft" targets. It also meant that she had expended nearly ALL of her most effective ammunition during the first engagement.

Even when her class ship the Deutschland was laid down in 1929, there were a few ships that were not only faster but also more powerful than she was. The British had the battlecruisers Renown, Repulse and of course the Hood. The Japanese had the Kongo class battlecruisers Kongo, Kirishima, Hiei, and Haruna. By the time she was in service, there were plenty of heavy cruisers that could have beaten her or at least fight to a draw one on one. Look at the Japanese Myoko and Takao classes.

At the time of her death, there were plenty of ships that were not only faster than she but also much more powerful. Perhaps her captain should have been a bit more cautious about any engagement with a warship.

I believe the Deutschland / Lutzow class were fine ships but because of Versailles Treaty limitations were never much more than a large London Treaty heavy cruiser with optimised armament.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 29th, 2010, 21:05
(...)

The Arado 196 is a strange one. The issues you are bringing up seem to mostly involve the engine which was a fairly proven design. The BMW 132 was also used in the FW 200 and the DORNIER 17.... One of the photographs I saw of the battle damage on board Admiral Graf Spee showed the remains of a burnt out seaplane which would suggest that the Arado was aboard during the battle.

(...)
- Ivan.

The carcass of the Arado Ar 196A-1 was effectively still standing on the catapult of the Graf Spee in Montevideo as these pictures show;
26579This one, depicting damages amidship, shows clearly that the engine and the wings of the aircraft are missing;
26580This one, from the stern perspective, shows the floats still attached;

but the best view is this one;26581


We can observe that the engine and the wings are "neatly" missing, they haven't been torn away by the blast of an explosion or burn by fire, like the tail fuselage would suggest. Otherwise, we should see the charred remains of spars, the distorted engine's supports. Between the time a Graf Spee lookout signaled the masts of a warship (0530 hours) to the first Exeter salvo (0620 hours), the Ar 196 could have been catapulted half-a-dozen times... if it was airworthy. The book I cited above was clearly referring to the log book of the Graf Spee. Another document, to be found HERE (http://www.grafspee.com/news.html) , is also referring to the log book and gives the same date for the aircraft demise. I can only but speculate here. Since the last flight of the Ar 196 and the beginning of the battle, less than 48 hours had gone by. It is more than probable that the salvaging of all useful items was interrupted by more urging affairs. Again, concerning the BMW 132, we are left with hypothesis; was the engine fuel injected like other Luftwaffe BMW 132 engines, and contrary to carburettor-fed "civilian" aircraft, causing overheating or abnormal cylinder pressure? Was the engine too stiff, or too loose, in its cradle? Was the cowling causing bad airflow around the engine? I see no reason to reject log book entries, and no good reasons to believe that the Ar 196 was left on its catapult while its services were so much needed.


The Battle of River Plate.

Aftermath:
HMS Exeter: All guns unserviceable. She has suffered severe damage but is hardly a pontoon. She sails for the Falklands under her own power.

HMS Achilles: No Significant Damage.

HMS Ajax: Both Aft Turrets unserviceable. One gun in a Forward Turret disabled.

DKM Admiral Graf Spee: One 5.9 inch gun disabled. All Range Finders disabled. Oil Purifier destroyed. Desalination plant destroyed (Apparently this was also required for operation of the diesels. I am not sure what the purpose of clean water was. Perhaps it was for coolant, perhaps it was for anti-detonant or for cylinder cleaning.) The Desalination plant apparently was the most critical loss and reports sent to Germany were only revealed in 2000.

Most of AGS's main armament ammunition was expended. In the prior battle, her secondaries landed absolutely ZERO hits on any of her opponents.

The ship that replaced HMS Exeter was a County class Cruiser: HMS Cumberland. Cumberland was a ship that was nearly identical in dimensions to Graf Spee (20 feet longer but 3 feet less beam). The German 28 cm gun threw a 660 pound shell. The British 8 inch gun threw a 256 pound shell. The British gun had about twice the theoretical firing rate, but for practical purposes, the firing rates were close to identical. Not that it was important (because either ship's main armament would have blasted through its opponent), but except for the conning tower and turret faces, the armour was fairly similar with belt thickness going to Cumberland.

If both ships were healthy and fighting one on one, Graf Spee should win but not without sustaining crippling damage. As the fight stood with two other hulls, I can't see Graf Spee surviving such a fight. Should couldn't even target all of her opponents at the same time. There would always be one opponent unengaged.

- Ivan.

The Exeter had lost all its main guns, was without communication, without gyro-compass, without main mast, was listing 11° and crawled to the Faklands at half speed, steered below aft deck and navigating with a boat's compass. Okay, she was not a pontoon. Maybe a barge?

The Achilles was almost unscathed, but very low on ammo, as she had been shooting broadside after broadside. With only three main guns left, the Ajax was involuntarily forced into a saving mode.

The damage on the Graf Spee were not so apparent. The range finding theodolites were still functional. Otherwise, how could we explain that she straddled the Achilles at 11.5 nautical miles on her second salvo at 1015 hours, long after she had received her last shell impact? She still had, according to numerous sources, all of its main gun and enough ammunition for 40 minutes of continual firing.

The main problem was the oil-fuel treatment plant. Here is the best description of the system I have found so far;


The ‘Deutschland’ Class armoured ships, to which Admiral Graf Spee belonged, were diesel-propelled. The diesel fuel oil available for marine use in those days was much “heavier,” i.e., viscous, than today’s more highly refined product. Accordingly, it needed to be pre-heated to achieve proper combustion when burned in diesel engines. About 24 hours’ supply of heated fuel oil was therefore kept in a ‘day tank’ for immediate supply to the engines. In the ‘Deutschland’ Class armoured ships the day tank was heated by internal steam coils, steam being supplied from a donkey boiler by way of an unprotected
line running along the upper deck. This critical design flaw now manifested itself: a 6 inch hit on Admiral Graf Spee’s upper deck amidships had severed the steam supply line from the donkey boiler to the day tank. There would be no more pre-heated fuel available for main engines once the oil in the day
tank had been exhausted. And without preheated fuel, the engines would rapidly carbon up and eventually stop running altogether — especially in the cold waters of the North Atlantic which would be encountered on the return to Germany.

The PDF can be found HERE (http://www.noac-national.ca/noac/members/Starshellspring06.pdf) , and the system description was explained to the author by seasoned RCN-RN naval engineers specialized in diesel propulsion.

I do agree with you that the Graf Spee was doomed after entering Montevideo harbor. What puzzle me was why Langsdorff didn't went instead to Buenos Aires, well within reach. Night was falling and he only had to take the Rio de la Plata (which, btw, means Silver River, not "plate" river) dragged channel to get there. During its sojourn in Montevideo, all the help came from Buenos Aires anyway, as pro-British and pro-French harbor facility providers were not cooperating.

Most of Langsdorff decisions were based on sketchy, when not faulty, information. He attacked the Exeter thinking she was alone with two destroyers escorting a convoy. Once having dealt with the Exeter, he did not pursue his advantage on the light cruisers, thinking that a larger force was beyond the horizon. He found refuge in a neutral port knowingly pro-British while another neutral port, Buenos Aires, knowingly pro-German, was within reach on the pretense that he would have to fight in shallow waters. He then left Montevideo and scuttled the Graf Spee, in shallow waters, thinking the Ark Royal and the Renown were waiting for him.

How many of these decisions would have been different if the Ar 196 had been patrolling?

hubbabubba
December 29th, 2010, 21:38
Hi Hubbabubba,

I also found a copy of Warship Profile 4 yesterday and read through it last night. It is interesting but there are a few statements within that are obviously incorrect. One of the pictures in the book is the one showing the burnt out seaplane after the battle.

One thing that WAS laid to rest by this book was the remaining ammunition load for Admiral Graf Spee. She had a total of 186 main gun rounds out of her full load of 600. Most of them (170) were AP rounds. She had been using mostly HE rounds against the British cruisers which means that they were considered "soft" targets. It also meant that she had expended nearly ALL of her most effective ammunition during the first engagement.

Even when her class ship the Deutschland was laid down in 1929, there were a few ships that were not only faster but also more powerful than she was. The British had the battlecruisers Renown, Repulse and of course the Hood. The Japanese had the Kongo class battlecruisers Kongo, Kirishima, Hiei, and Haruna. By the time she was in service, there were plenty of heavy cruisers that could have beaten her or at least fight to a draw one on one. Look at the Japanese Myoko and Takao classes.

At the time of her death, there were plenty of ships that were not only faster than she but also much more powerful. Perhaps her captain should have been a bit more cautious about any engagement with a warship.

I believe the Deutschland / Lutzow class were fine ships but because of Versailles Treaty limitations were never much more than a large London Treaty heavy cruiser with optimised armament.

- Ivan.

The Graf Spee was even slower than its original figures owing to the fact that, almost from the start of its raiding campaign, she was due for a general overhaul of its engines. The crew did his best to keep them running, but cracks had developed in their mountings and maximum speed was limited at 22 knots. That detail appears in the document I cited earlier HERE (http://www.grafspee.com/news.html) .

Most of the ships you're mentioning were great ships indeed, but they were not near the Rio de la Plata. Only the Renown was closing in.

As for being cautious, I think that Kapitan zur See Hans Langsdorff was misguided by bad intelligence and inopportune guesses. He also had a misplace confidence in his ship, especially in its ability to take damage. It was reported that he was totally dismayed when he realized in Montevideo that a single 6 inch shell had probably sealed their fate.

As we say; c'est la guerre!:ernae:

Ivan
December 30th, 2010, 19:14
There are many places where there is no armour but a single hit can make a great difference. The Bismarck caught at least one 14 inch hit on her unarmoured bow section and had some of her fuel contaminated by a hit which ruptured a fuel tank. Neither one had any risk of sinking her, but resulted in the instant termination of her mission along with great questions about her seaworthiness and ability to return to base.

In the US line of battleships, the New York class had widely distributed armour while the following Nevada class had "all or nothing" armour which was considered to be more optimal but left more places entirely unprotected.

There are many "should haves" here. Admiral Graf Spee should have gone home when she had the chance. Bismarck should have pursued and sunk Prince of Wales when she had the chance....

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
December 31st, 2010, 08:58
There are many places where there is no armour but a single hit can make a great difference. The Bismarck caught at least one 14 inch hit on her unarmoured bow section and had some of her fuel contaminated by a hit which ruptured a fuel tank. Neither one had any risk of sinking her, but resulted in the instant termination of her mission along with great questions about her seaworthiness and ability to return to base.

In the US line of battleships, the New York class had widely distributed armour while the following Nevada class had "all or nothing" armour which was considered to be more optimal but left more places entirely unprotected.

There are many "should haves" here. Admiral Graf Spee should have gone home when she had the chance. Bismarck should have pursued and sunk Prince of Wales when she had the chance....

- Ivan.

WWII saw the end of battleships as the main weapon at sea. Most Axis major ships ended at the bottom of some ocean, sea, fjord...

Submarines and aircraft carriers were now ruling the waves.

And now;

May 2011 bring you all the best in your life!!!
And peace on Earth... of course!

Ivan
December 31st, 2010, 12:29
Happy 2011 to you all also.

I still like Battleships though. BTW, at the end of her fight, Admiral Graf Spee was still making 22 knots away from the two CLs at around 7:00 AM. I suspect she could have done better before the fight.

It was a glorious (or perhaps wasteful) time. There were only ever 150-180 Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers built by all the nations on this planet. Most never fought their own kind. All are retired. Most are dead now. Many died without ever having fired a gun in anger. Many were never even finished in construction and went immediately to the scrap yard. Most took at least two years or more to build and waited years to fight. Some took a decade to build. When they fought, their lifespans were measured in minutes.

- Ivan.

Ivan
February 19th, 2011, 06:05
Update on the Dornier 17Z:

I've been doing some metal cutting on the nose and belly sections of the planes. It got too complicated to do the windows at the same time as the panels. I also found out that the limits on component size were not as low as I had thought, so I need to revise the templates for part of the nose section.

This is the fuselage assembly and to add more pieces, I had to delete components shared with other assemblies such as the Cowls and Wing Tips. Note that you would not want to delete the Inner Wing and Wing Fillet components because there would be no way to tell if panels did not quite line up as I found when I was building the Dark Red Fuselage Section.

- Ivan.

Ivan
February 22nd, 2011, 14:31
Turned out there were a few more "Doesn't Fit" type events in finishing up the nose on the Dornier. About half of the nose was rebuilt yet again.

Here is a revisit of an earlier project. I liked the look of the exhausts on the P-40C, and the P-40E got jealous, so it got a new set of exhausts also.

- Ivan.

No Dice
February 22nd, 2011, 15:17
Turned out there were a few more "Doesn't Fit" type events in finishing up the nose on the Dornier. About half of the nose was rebuilt yet again.

Here is a revisit of an earlier project. I liked the look of the exhausts on the P-40C, and the P-40E got jealous, so it got a new set of exhausts also.

- Ivan.
And I Love it, Any improvements you make to your planes I would love to be the first to get my hands on.
I will email you later about a repaint of one of my favorites and posting it on my site.


Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

Ivan
February 25th, 2011, 13:21
Hi No Dice,

Which plane were you planning on repainting?

Regarding the P-40E, I originally had intended to put some 3D exhausts on the plane, but the problem was that the nose section is so complicated to avoid bleeds that I really could not do that. I had enough AF99 resources left over to create the pieces as structures, but could not add those pieces because they would create bleeds. After doing the P-40C, I figured I had a method that would work to eliminate bleeds AND put in exhausts. Turns out that my method didn't work because while the P-40C has two intake dividers, the P-40E has three and that makes a big difference in assembly.

Took me a while, but I believe I finally found a reasonable solution. Pity that a screenshot really doesn't show hardly any of the work that was done other than some new exhausts. The flight model was also changed a bit as was the DP file to better reflect ammunition weight.

- Ivan.

No Dice
February 25th, 2011, 14:25
Sorry I have not emailed you yet, It's your P47D model 27 version. Hard to find a good 47 model and yours is great.
I simply want to do a repaint to represent the 47's in the later war period flying out of Sardinia to go along with my scenery. Of course I would include the original textures but also would include a panel and sound mods by myself.
I am only half way through Sardinia but I think I will do an entierly new release on the scenery. Have been able to update some of the textures and repair some of the damage done when it was boot-legged. Not near as hard as creating an aircraft but I am quite proud of it. this release will include moving objects, waterfalls and more ... but not enough to crash a computer during missions.

This release will include Northern and central Italy, Elba, Corsica and the top half of Sardinia.

I will try to email you later.

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

Ivan
February 26th, 2011, 18:53
Thanks for the comments about my Bubbletop P-47. Glad you like it. I am also surprised there aren't a whole lot of good models of this plane out there.

Funny you should mention the P-47D-27. I have been reworking that plane recently. After finishing the plane a few years ago, I had noticed that there was something really not quite right about it. The shape was CLOSE, but something around the canopy area just didn't look right. I got a few photographs of bubbletop Thunderbolts and a few good drawings and noticed that the canopy was way too large and the framing was shaped wrong. Recently I looked through a copy of the WarbirdTech book about the P-47 and found when checking the fuselage stations that the dimensions on my Thunderbolt were not quite right. They really aren't all that close. I corrected what I could and left it for a while because there were a bunch of bleeds I could not figure out how to correct. I am still not entirely certain I have found them all yet which is why the plane is untextured right now. I have already added two components and a whole lot of extra parts to try to cure the problems.

Notice how different colours are shown for the same pieces when they are viewed from different angles? That is because some subset of the parts are assembled and glued differently to cure a bleed from a particular angle.

If you observe the shape of the canopy, you will notice that the contours are a bit different from what was released and hopefully closer to the real thing. If you check against a dimensional drawing, you will notice that things are pretty far off in places. The cockpit for example is too far to the rear. I still think it is a pretty plane though.

- Ivan.

No Dice
February 26th, 2011, 19:08
But I did not think it required any. Looks great Ivan !! I can't wait for the new release ( and then maybe I can talk you into making a floater for me)

Please keep'um coming

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

Ivan
February 28th, 2011, 12:40
Attached are some screenshots of recent changes to the Dornier 17Z. With all that smooth panelling, I have to do some cutting for the windows.

Attached also is the P-47D-27 on a test flight last night. I believe I need to give the plane more drag in the landing configuration and to add some nose tuck in compressibility effects, Checklists, adjust trim.....

For grins, I took it into quick combat against a Fokker Eindecker. In a low level dogfight against a flea, this critter is ponderous. You get into trouble really quick when trying to follow a puff ball.

- Ivan.

Ivan
March 9th, 2011, 14:55
The last two planes I mentioned are actually current projects. Both seem to be stuck with little problems.

The Issue with the Eindecker is deciding what the hitting power of the single 7.92 mm Machine gun should be. The firing rates are easy to figure out. The Stock Me 109E has cowl guns of the same caliber which have 10 Hit Points. The 1% Aircraft spreadsheets suggest the number is more like around 3 Hit Points. I figure the AI Range for this gun should be pretty low since there is only a Ring and Bead sight (about the same as a typical Bomber's Swivel guns) instead of a Reflector Sight.

As a related discussion, my belief is that the stock CFS aircraft guns have too little power which seems to be supported by the difficulty in destroying aircraft such as the B-17. Historically, the Germans found that their 20 mm cannon took about 15-20 hits to kill a Viermot (4 engine bomber). Their 30 mm cannon only took about 3 hits on average to kill a Viermot and only a single hit to kill a Fighter. Bombers' aerial gunners seem to also have way too much accuracy. Since we really can't turn that down, I believe that we should turn the AI range down a bit. 250-300 Yards for a swivel gun with a Ring and Bead sight (which in my opinion is STILL very generous) and 500 yards or perhaps a touch shorter for a powered turret with a decent gun sight.

What do you all think?

The P-47D-27 has some flight performance problems that I am still trying to work out. The plane has very poor stability in pitch at high altitudes 30,000 feet and higher. I also am trying to tune the plane to exhibit the directional instability that the real plane had. A tech from Republic told pilots NOT to use full rudder travel or yaw the plane more than about 10 degrees at high speed. If they did, there was a pretty good chance the plane would do an outside snap roll. The problem was reduced but not entirely eliminated even with the fin extension on later planes. There is one characteristic I do not believe I can reproduce which is the tendency for the Thunderbolt in compressibility to pitch down severely if power was reduced.

- Ivan.

No Dice
March 9th, 2011, 17:04
But, I shot off an email to one of the greats in that area. I will update you when I get his opinion.

I think what ever you do will be fine with me.


Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

Ivan
March 9th, 2011, 18:01
Actually No Dice, I don't really need help with these projects. I was just asking some opinions and reporting a status. What I need most is probably a cook, baby sitting and a tutor for my kids. BTW, who are you consulting with?

- Ivan.

No Dice
March 9th, 2011, 18:36
Ivan,
I may have used the wrong wording, Input or opinion may be better.

I contacted Bruno, back in the day of the Original "Free Flight Site" I made many friends and contacts that not unlike yourself I still keep in contact with. Although most have retired and moved on from CFS or even FS they
still live by the rules of this great community and are more than willing to help out a fellow if they can.

I will try your PM on this site again, but I think i does not work.

We made need to start another thread, I am still looking for WW Cline, SpitFire1 ( Ananth) and a few more.
Maybe we can start a MIA thread.

Dave

www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

Ivan
March 10th, 2011, 03:43
Hi No Dice,

You mean Bruno Duffort? He sure did put together a lot of airplanes for CFS. We actually have one of the Greatest here at this site, Jerry Beckwith. The problem that I am working on for the P-47 isn't very difficult. I don't really need help to figure it out. It is a matter of adjusting and testing, lather, rinse, repeat.......

I didn't know my PMs here didn't work. I was pretty sure they did because I periodically get one. You can always send to my email at Ivan1GFP@yahoo.com.

- Ivan.

Ivan
March 12th, 2011, 07:39
Hello No Dice,

I just finished a Service Ceiling test with the P-47D-27 this morning. The plane is now stable enough to run autopilot OR manual piloting by adjusting trim up to 42,000 feet. Perhaps it is a bit too stable now, but it WAS a high altitude fighter.

Service Ceiling (100 feet per minute) == 41,530 feet
Absolute Ceiling (3 feet per minute) == 42,000 feet

That is pretty much inline with published specs or perhaps a touch low. Typical specs quote a 42,000 feet service ceiling. The plane had 220 gallons of 370 gallons of internal fuel, so it might have gone higher if I had more patience or less fuel.

From what I have seen, Service Ceiling specifications tend to be pretty optimistic. As a case in point, when the Germans used Ju-86 bombers in various theaters, the RAF should have had plenty of fighters capable of interceptions but needed to rework a few planes to actually attempt the interceptions.

I kind of knew the solution but didn't want to use it because it pretty much invalidates all testing I had done thus far. Time to redo all of the earlier tests for speed, trim, etc. In case anyone is curious, the solution was to move the center of lift from 1 inch ahead of the center of gravity to 3 inches behind.

- Ivan.

No Dice
March 12th, 2011, 10:56
As usual Ivan you are talking about 42000 feet above my brain capacity, Hell I ain't nere as smart as all ya''ll on the " Round Table" of the " Order Of Sims". Shoot I was lucky to make it out of D'Iberville High School, probably had something to do with the fact they had a student smoking area and the PTA sold beer at the football games ?

All I know is everyone can't wait until your next release, because they don't get released until they are perfect.

"Laissez Les bon Temps Rouler" my friend !

So, in wrapping up, I'll take your word for it. It's going to be a great fly.

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

Ivan
March 13th, 2011, 07:42
Actually perhaps I am not nearly as smart as I thought I was. Turns out that I wrote a bit too soon. The signs for the change didn't quite look right, but I wrote the message anyway. Seems like I got everything backwards. I believe now that the real cause of the instability is a 100 gallon fuel tank under the cockpit which is 3 to 4 feet behind the CoG CoL. The full tank causes a very far aft loading when it is full. Still playing.....

- Ivan.

Ivan
March 28th, 2011, 07:14
With the discussion about Float Planes, I decided to finish up my A6M2 Model 21 Zero. I keep running into limitations of the AF99 software. Here is an example: The plane looked fine a couple days ago but I noticed that the Aft Wall of the cockpit isn't textured. Neither is the Control Panel.

When I assigned textures, here is what I got..... Time to see where I ca be a bit more economical.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
March 28th, 2011, 08:57
Or time to use SCASM...:kilroy:

I know your objections, but, from my point of view, this is where our philosophies take different roads. AF99 preaches what it doesn't do; economy. To facilitate its work, it forces you to redo the same parts again and again, which is a highway for reaching AF99 limits sooner than later.

SCASM not only liberates you from AF99 "limits", it permits to, most of the time, draw once-and-for-all the part, which is really economic.

I'm tempted to start a thread where people could learn to draw their own "aircraft-like" objects. Nothing fancy, all done with freewares, just for the fun of it. Like crosswords or plastic-modeling.

Anyone interested?:ernae::ipepsi2:

No Dice
March 28th, 2011, 09:34
Between you and Ivan, I am sure we could all learn some interesting stuff. I remember years back when a gentleman used scasm to add a banner that flied behind his plane and the IG4 guys added pilot heads to some reworks they did.

I would love to learn how to apply scasm to macros ( other than a box) and eliminate the bleed in CFS1. CFS2 seems not to have that problem.

Ivan, the plane is looking great to me.

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

hubbabubba
March 28th, 2011, 10:49
Between you and Ivan, I am sure we could all learn some interesting stuff. I remember years back when a gentleman used scasm to add a banner that flied behind his plane and the IG4 guys added pilot heads to some reworks they did.

I would love to learn how to apply scasm to macros ( other than a box) and eliminate the bleed in CFS1. CFS2 seems not to have that problem.

Ivan, the plane is looking great to me.

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

If you know how to make scenery macros, No Dice, you're half-way there!

SCASM, with possibly FSASM, is one of the few assemblers around. CFS2 is no different than CFS1, except for the z-buffering, which explain the no-bleeds. But even CFS2 has bleeds in some circumstances. For example, my jeep shows some bleeds when used in it. The funny thing here is that CFS1, when properly mastered, can do things by showing orders that CFS2 can't.

But, basically, you can work CFS2 with SCASM as well.

Ivan's A6M2 is certainly fine, but I hope that you have noticed the big hole in the cowling, a sure sign of AF99 tantrums. The aircraft still compiles in AF99 (which, incidentally, uses an internal version of SCASM), but misses parts.

Ivan
March 28th, 2011, 11:51
No Dice,
You DO see the hole in the cowling?

Hubbabubba,
We have discussed this a bunch of times. I would not have been able to do this canopy frame rebuild using SCASM. In AF99, I can see how the lines either converge or gradually change direction. In SCASM, you can't see that. I don't know that I can calculate a line of increasing or decreasing curvature in my head. It helps to have a graphical program to do a graphical task. In doing this canopy, I made lots of changes to parts by moving a vertex only about 0.01 or 0.02 feet, build, check contours again. What got me looking was a mismatch between the glass polygons and the frame polygons. Without a visual reference, I could not make these tweaks.

Don't worry, I DO use SCASM to change the Cockpit POV and a couple other things.

- Ivan.

No Dice
March 28th, 2011, 12:21
Well yes I noticed the hole but was hoping it was a simple problem in the texture mapping.

I do make many of my macros but tend to keep them simple in CFS1 because of the bleed and my pea sized brain.
Anyone using EOD or FSDS cam make a macro for CFS2 but many that may seem simple to the Hubba and or Ivan just don't work in CFS1 without the higher brain capacity required to understand manipulating scasm.

Nuff Said

hubbabubba
March 28th, 2011, 12:23
No Dice,
You DO see the hole in the cowling?

Hubbabubba,
We have discussed this a bunch of times. I would not have been able to do this canopy frame rebuild using SCASM. In AF99, I can see how the lines either converge or gradually change direction. In SCASM, you can't see that. I don't know that I can calculate a line of increasing or decreasing curvature in my head. It helps to have a graphical program to do a graphical task. In doing this canopy, I made lots of changes to parts by moving a vertex only about 0.01 or 0.02 feet, build, check contours again. What got me looking was a mismatch between the glass polygons and the frame polygons. Without a visual reference, I could not make these tweaks.

Don't worry, I DO use SCASM to change the Cockpit POV and a couple other things.

- Ivan.

I don't worry Ivan! LOL!


And I know that, for a virtuoso of the violin, learning to play the banjo is not a very appealing proposition. And you are a virtuoso of AF99.:applause:

Ivan
March 28th, 2011, 17:37
This model was doing just fine until I decided to line up the polygons on the canopy frame and glass. I had to add a few polygons because some of the glass could not line up along a canopy frame.

THEN, I was getting bleeds from the canopy frame.

When I added more polygons to the canopy frame, I started losing large parts of the cowl.

I reworked the canopy frame with different glue and fewer polygons and then most of the bleeds disappeared.

After that, I noticed that the control panel was not textured nor was the cockpit aft wall. In adding textures there, I lost pieces of the cowl.

In adding textures to these two parts, pieces of the cowl went away again.

Here is a test to steal about 6 polygons per side off the wings. They won't change in shape and it brings the resource count down enough to restore the cowl. Now I just have to reshape some of the polygons to restore the shape. Actually it should end up better than it was before.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
March 28th, 2011, 17:49
What about the big rectangular hole near the port wing tip?:banghead:

Ivan
March 29th, 2011, 04:56
Hi Hubbabubba,
:jump:
That hole is the result of stealing 6 polygons off the left wing tip. Three off the top and three off the bottom. I wasn't sure that reducing the polygon count by that little would be sufficient to restore sanity to AF99, but it was.

After that experiment proved to work, I found that since this was derived off one of my first projects, I made all the parts and didn't mirror any. The right wing had all right wing parts instead of left wing parts fit to the opposite side. Thus, I would have to modify both left wing parts and right wing parts to finish the job.

Instead, I chose to spend about an hour writing a short C program to copy the left wing component and reset a flag in each part entry to fit to the side opposite from where it was in the original. Program worked fine, so now WingR is an exact copy of WingL but just with each polygon flipped.

Now you might be wondering why don't I just keep the WingL component and fit to opposite side in final assembly. I found that this method doesn't always work with AF99 even though it should.

The final task was to modify all the affected wing parts to stretch them over the hole. That wasn't very difficult because it was just a matter of snapping to existing vertices on the remaining wing tip parts.

After that, I was too sleepy to finish up the texturing on the cockpit interior. I still need to flip the plane around in the simulator to make sure some other piece of the plane isn't missing a few polygons.

- Ivan.

Ivan
March 30th, 2011, 13:36
After removing 6 polygons from each wing, the remaining polygons were altered to cover the opening that resulted.

The original "Long Wing" was derived from my A6M5 Reisen by taking off the wing tip and adding a new group of parts that extended the wing. Economy wasn't my goal. That original extended wing remains on my A6M3 Model 22 Reisen. The new A6M2 Wing can be seen in the other screenshot and in my opinion does not adversely change the shape.

- Ivan.

No Dice
March 30th, 2011, 17:38
Looks like the same shaped wing to me. Other than that I will stay out of it and just wait on the plane: with floats of course.

OK Hubba , you're up next! LOL

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

Ivan
April 9th, 2011, 17:01
Actually I guess *I* am up again.

I took a little time to finish up the pretty much ongoing Fokker Eindecker I had been working on. I can say I didn't bother with a lot of the checks that I normally do on a plane, but it seems OK to me.

This originally started life as a test of what could be done with a lot of 2D parts.

- Ivan.

Ivan
May 7th, 2011, 05:58
In the ongoing attempt to start as many projects as possible and finish nearly none of them, I am looking around for another subject to build for AF99 as an illustration of a How-To process.

Short List includes:
1. Yakovlev Yak-9 (or 7, or 9U, or 1, or even perhaps a 3)
2. Messerschmitt Me 109G-10 or K
3. Mitsubishi J2M3 Raiden 21
4. Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden-KAI
5. Macchi C205 Veltro

Yes, There are other projects currently in the works, but they are of enough complexity that the shapes of the model itself would be a distractor to just illustrating basic principles.

- Ivan.

hubbabubba
May 7th, 2011, 11:07
In the ongoing attempt to start as many projects as possible and finish nearly none of them, I am looking around for another subject to build for AF99 as an illustration of a How-To process.

Short List includes:
1. Yakovlev Yak-9 (or 7, or 9U, or 1, or even perhaps a 3)
2. Messerschmitt Me 109G-10 or K
3. Mitsubishi J2M3 Raiden 21
4. Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden-KAI
5. Macchi C205 Veltro

Yes, There are other projects currently in the works, but they are of enough complexity that the shapes of the model itself would be a distractor to just illustrating basic principles.

- Ivan.

It will be #5 for me; nice looking machine with clean lines and, as far as I know, you haven't done Italian yet.

No Dice
May 7th, 2011, 12:43
I am with Hubba on the #5 , Would settle for #2 and in all of your free time would love a good Stuka Dive bomber.

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

smilo
May 7th, 2011, 13:59
to be honest, at first blush,
i thought, oh brother,
here we go again.
you tease!

sorry, for that,
i'm just a cynical a$$

but then, i reread the post a few times
and realized that you intend
on doing a tutorial project...right?
if so, very cool.

so, i guess i will go along with the others
and vote for the Veltro
for all the reasons stated above.

it should be interesting
to see the project progress.

have fun

Ivan
May 7th, 2011, 17:49
Hubbabubba,
Seems like your choice is very popular. I was kind of surprised that the Yak wasn't more popular since I don't believe anyone has actually done a good one. The Macchi fighters have at least a couple good examples.


No Dice,
I have been thinking about the Stuka also. There is a pretty fair Ju-87B out there but I don't believe anyone has actually done a Ju-87D very well.


Smilo,
You might consider it a tease, but I was looking for an uncomplicated project. The Dornier as you know isn't a simple project. The majority of the issues aren't related to how to use AF99. They are more related to the complicated shapes and how to fit them together and then how to combine things in SCASM that can't be done in a single project.

What I need for a AF99 Tutorial is something uncomplicated. The Veltro does have asymmetrical wings which is a bit strange, but certainly no show stopper.


One of the other project considerations was the Ki-43 Hayabusa either as a -II or a -III version. I believe a radial engined plane would illustrate more techniques, but the Veltro is good enough.

BTW, Anna Honey left for China on a Business trip this morning. Ivan the single parent will be seriously occupied for about a week and a half just doing the feeding and chauffering thing.

The Countdown Begins!
- Ivan.

No Dice
May 7th, 2011, 18:40
Ivan, Best of Wishes to " Anna Honey" and Mr. Mom.
As far as the Stuka, I have yet to see an " Ivan" quality model or one even close. IF you find one ( anybody) I would love to see it.


Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)

smilo
May 7th, 2011, 19:03
I am with Hubba on the #5 , Would settle for #2 and in all of your free time would love a good Stuka Dive bomber.

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com (http://www.thefreeflightsite.com)
well, there's always this little beauty.
it may not be up to Ivan's standards,
but, it ain't bad, either.
it's the best one i've seen.

No Dice
May 7th, 2011, 19:47
Smilo,
Where Do I get The Stuka ?

Dave

Ivan
May 7th, 2011, 21:50
Hey Smilo,

I'll take one of those also. It looks a bit like a Ju-87B rather than a Ju-87D, but it is pretty.

BTW, What do you all think of the Hawker Hurricane Mk.II as a Tutorial subject?

- Ivan.

Dave Cumming
May 8th, 2011, 01:34
#5 would be my preference.

Someone in CFS2 has just completed a Fiat G55. It was another very nice Italian plane and supposed to outfly spitfires and Fw190s.

smilo
May 8th, 2011, 05:12
okay guys, here's the story;
several years ago, i was given
a copy of the Ju87B-2 10_LG1
in it were the textures you see
in the screen shot.

a few years later,
i was given a package
that was called FS Classics.
low and behold, the Stuka was in it,
all be it with different textures,
along with many other fine examples.

jeepers, there was even documentation.

here's the rub, it turns out
that it was a payware package by
2000 Interactive Associates (CDC) Ltd.
just for fun, google it

here's a line from the document;
All rights reserved. You may use this software for
personal use only. You may not transfer any part to any other party, online service or the Internet.

needless to say,
with all of the brew-ha ha about piracy,
i am more than a little leery
about passing this stuff around.
it doesn't matter
that i think these files
are past their prime,
are dead in the water,
and should be available.
no matter

so, here's the deal,
i am, currently, very busy
and don't have the time to follow this up.
if someone here would like to
get permission from these guys,
i would be pleased as punch
to offer the entire package at Dave's site,
or better yet, two packages.
it's a biggie...about 200mb

as enticement, here is a zip file
of the Luftwaffe documentation.
it's on the attachment size border line,
so i will have to add the RAF doc
in another post.

smilo
May 8th, 2011, 05:18
turns out i can't upload the RAF document.
it's 6.44mb
i'll see if i can split it.
or do you want me
to post it in another thread?

Ivan
May 8th, 2011, 06:13
Hi Smilo,
Now that I know what it is, don't worry about it. I think I might even already have a version of that plane though with a different paint job. From the sounds of it though, even if that model is quite good, a distributable SturzKampf Flugzeug is worthwhile.

Dave!
Haven't heard from you in a while. For CFS1, there is even a publicly available AFX for the Fiat G.55. I downloaded it way way back and did a lot of fixing to it for my own personal use. I didn't create this AFX, so I am not about to upload the model any place.
Recently I found M14Forum.com and have been spending a fair amount of time over there.

- Ivan.

smilo
May 8th, 2011, 06:34
i have others that i have acquired over the years,
but this one is the best
and PJ's paint really enhances it.

one of these days,
i should go through and organize
all of the stuff i have
spread all over the place.
now, there's an on going project.

maybe later, much later.
i'm currently approaching Cape Gloucester
in an A-20 in the Southwest Pacific Tour;
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?52921-Boston-or-Bust-or-Havoc-in-the-SW-Pacific&p=579353#post579353
turning on final in a couple minutes

hubbabubba
May 8th, 2011, 11:39
Hubbabubba,
Seems like your choice is very popular. I was kind of surprised that the Yak wasn't more popular since I don't believe anyone has actually done a good one. The Macchi fighters have at least a couple good examples.
(...)
- Ivan.

You're the one who asked! Any on the list would do, but the "Veltro" is one hot plane...:applause:

I was unaware of the asymmetry, so the Yak would do as well. It's your show:ernae:!