PDA

View Full Version : P36 exclusive screenshots



Deano
February 15th, 2010, 15:21
Thanks to Tim-HH we now have some nice in game screenshots of the P36 Hawk. Work is going well and we're in full flow now, so expect more updates of the forth coming weeks.

http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-1.jpg

http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-2.jpg

http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-3.jpg

http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-4.jpg

http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-5.jpg

http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-7.jpg

http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-8.jpg

b52bob
February 15th, 2010, 15:25
BEAUTIFUL piece of work!

Lewis-A2A
February 15th, 2010, 15:29
The Precious! wants :jump:

MCDesigns
February 15th, 2010, 15:30
Wow, fantastic shots, love the shadowing/AO on the textures, are those baked?

Warrant
February 15th, 2010, 15:45
Sweeeeeeeet! :medals::applause:

Bomber_12th
February 15th, 2010, 16:13
Dean, I am really looking forward to a FSX-native P-36, as I am a huge fan of the whole Hawk series of fighters! As a constructive piece of criticism however, the canopy and windscreen assemblies aren't quite right. Please compare the following photo, to the 5th photo in your post, and take into consideration the differences in proportions and shapes:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(The-Fighter/Curtiss-H-75A-1-Hawk/1522631/L/&sid=64e5ae383ea00b6fa2c3c55d58a01b50

Here is another showing the canopy shape from the front-quarter:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Curtiss-Hawk-75A-1/1396500/L/&sid=64e5ae383ea00b6fa2c3c55d58a01b50

I hope you understand where I am coming from, and I am only offering such advice so that the product can be the best it can. Unfortunately I don't have any detailed drawings at this time, of this area on the aircraft. Everything else looks very nice indeed!

Edit: By the way, it would be great to see a pre-war, USAAC scheme, with overall-polished metal, included with this product!

Deano
February 15th, 2010, 16:26
Dean, I am really looking forward to a FSX-native P-36, as I am a huge fan of the whole Hawk series of fighters! As a constructive piece of criticism however, the canopy and windscreen assemblies aren't quite right. Please compare the following photo, to the 5th photo in your post, and take into consideration the differences in proportions and shapes:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(The-Fighter/Curtiss-H-75A-1-Hawk/1522631/L/&sid=64e5ae383ea00b6fa2c3c55d58a01b50

Here is another showing the canopy shape from the front-quarter:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Curtiss-Hawk-75A-1/1396500/L/&sid=64e5ae383ea00b6fa2c3c55d58a01b50

I hope you understand where I am coming from, and I am only offering such advice so that the product can be the best it can. Unfortunately I don't have any detailed drawings at this time, of this area on the aircraft. Everything else looks very nice indeed!

Edit: By the way, it would be great to see a pre-war, USAAC scheme, with overall-polished metal, included with this product!


thanks for the heads up. We will be releasing 10 schemes with the aircraft once released.

Ken Stallings
February 15th, 2010, 16:31
You know, I used to remember the running joke about "rivet counters." You know, the folks who would obsessively count the rivets, note their position, and say one was crooked.

Of course, it was meant in hyperbole to point out people who were being a bit unreasoned in their expectations.

Well, today, it seems the "unreasonable" has become the reality!

When I look at screenshots like that, I really think the rivets truly are all there, and in the right places, and there really isn't anything left to say in terms of want for the exteriors of these virtual aircraft.

And that rudder! I swear I feel like I can reach out and touch it doing a pre-flight! I just looked so real!

Ken

Old Crow
February 15th, 2010, 16:35
Holy Cow! That it Beautiful. :ernae: The P-36 is definately one of my all time favorites. Cannot wait to fly it. Wonderful work people!

c87
February 15th, 2010, 16:58
For the P36/Hawk 75 fans, the latest issue of Flight Journal magazine focuses on this airplane (more specifically, the French air forces in WWII that used the aircraft). There's a great shot of the airplane on the cover. And I'd have to agree that photos in the magazine show a rounder front windshield at the top portion than what's conveyed in the screenshots. I have to say though that that model looks superb.

Scratch
February 15th, 2010, 17:06
Dean, I am really looking forward to a FSX-native P-36, as I am a huge fan of the whole Hawk series of fighters! As a constructive piece of criticism however, the canopy and windscreen assemblies aren't quite right. Please compare the following photo, to the 5th photo in your post, and take into consideration the differences in proportions and shapes:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(The-Fighter/Curtiss-H-75A-1-Hawk/1522631/L/&sid=64e5ae383ea00b6fa2c3c55d58a01b50 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-%28The-Fighter/Curtiss-H-75A-1-Hawk/1522631/L/&sid=64e5ae383ea00b6fa2c3c55d58a01b50)

Here is another showing the canopy shape from the front-quarter:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Curtiss-Hawk-75A-1/1396500/L/&sid=64e5ae383ea00b6fa2c3c55d58a01b50




Hmm......I'm not so sure. I think we need to see more screenshots.:)

Bomber_12th
February 15th, 2010, 17:42
Dean, I just want to make sure that I don't sound like your 'ordinary pest', or anything. For the casual simmer, or for someone simply giving the work a nod (which I could be inclined to do as well, since it a very beautifully done rendition) it would be a waist of time to go back and redo anything that has already been done.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I'm sure you and your developers have already seen this page, and those like it, but just incase you haven't, these photos should really help out in the creation of the interior:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
http://www.aircraftwalkarounds.be/Images/CurtisHawk75Part2CockpitIn/index.html (http://www.aircraftwalkarounds.be/Images/CurtisHawk75Part2CockpitIn/index.html)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
There are some very clear photos of the windscreen construction, and I especially like how, per this being a French example, some of the placards/stencils are written in French, even onto the canopy crank assembly. The overall impression of the cockpit is quite similar to a P-40B/C pit, looking very "1930's".

C87, I too have that magazine, and agree that it provides some great photos and a bit of history on the Hawk 75 heritage.

Murray Cod
February 15th, 2010, 18:02
looking at the title of the thread didn't get me excited, but HOLY COW that is one great looking model. I might have to add it to my hangar after all.

rsgunner
February 15th, 2010, 18:23
That is outstanding!

Russ

Ken Stallings
February 15th, 2010, 18:23
Dean, I just want to make sure that I don't sound like your 'ordinary pest', or anything. For the casual simmer, or for someone simply giving the work a nod (which I could be inclined to do as well, since it a very beautifully done rendition) it would be a waist of time to go back and redo anything that has already been done.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I'm sure you and your developers have already seen this page, and those like it, but just incase you haven't, these photos should really help out in the creation of the interior:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
http://www.aircraftwalkarounds.be/Images/CurtisHawk75Part2CockpitIn/index.html (http://www.aircraftwalkarounds.be/Images/CurtisHawk75Part2CockpitIn/index.html)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
There are some very clear photos of the windscreen construction, and I especially like how, per this being a French example, some of the placards/stencils are written in French, even onto the canopy crank assembly. The overall impression of the cockpit is quite similar to a P-40B/C pit, looking very "1930's".

C87, I too have that magazine, and agree that it provides some great photos and a bit of history on the Hawk 75 heritage.

You certainly have an eye for detail!

Your photos show the situation quite accurately.

Ken

ryanbatc
February 15th, 2010, 18:33
The Precious! wants :jump:

lol, One "Card" to Rule Them All

Ooh, looks really nice, is this the same company that's making that SBD?

stiz
February 15th, 2010, 19:00
very nice!!

by the way dean, an avro anson or airspeed oxford would be great if you dont know what to build next :icon_lol:

OBIO
February 15th, 2010, 19:06
Since my computer can't run FSX....and there is little hope of having a system that will run FSX for quite a long while...I am simply going to say:

That is the absolute worst rendition of a P-36 I have ever seen. The details are all wrong, the wheels are on backward, the pilot is cross-eyed, the plug wires are too short, the glove box is full of old McDonalds ketchup packets, the left turn signals don't blink at the correct rhythm, and there are 12 rivets in the wrong spot.

Of course, I am just showing my total envy of you folks who can run FSX and who will get to fly this work of art and see those details time and time again. Superb workmanship and attention to detail! I agree with Ken Stallings in that it seemed like one could reach out and touch this plane...so very life like, so tactile. :applause::applause::applause:

OBIO

warchild
February 15th, 2010, 19:19
afraid the canopy does appear incorrect.. But, its an easy mistake to make.. not so easy to correct sometimes.. But you see, at that period in history, there existed three planes.. The model 75 which in america was the P-36. The A-36 and the A-37. Ther P-36 was made by curtiss, the A-36 was made bu north american, and the A-37 was made by curtiss.. The A-36 went on to become the P-51. it had a semi rectangular canopy frame around the windscreen, The A-37 went on to become the P-40 with its curved bent tubing for a canopy frame. However, in different ways, each of these planes resembled each other.. This is most likely the reason for the continuing debate as to which aircraft inspired the design of what other aircraft.. I can say that the way the canopy is currently modeled, is much harder to do in max, than simply taking a tube and bending it in the middle which is pretty much what curtiss did..

Now, what maintains a question in my mind, and therefore keeps me from pronouncing the shape incorrect is the fith and sixth photographs on this page.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p36hawk.html
here you can clearly see the odd shap of the windscreen frame from the side and front left quarter. Rather than a simple bent tube, the frame comes up, then flattens out and curves forward around the top of the windscreen. The rest of the canopy frame is composed of bent tubing, but that first one is far more complex. Easy to do with a welding jig, but not the easiest to do in 3D..

Please remember too, that this is an alpha model.. At a time when another plane is due for release, it was rushed through so my people could start doing what they do best, which is making it sit and fly right..

warchild
February 15th, 2010, 19:26
Holy Cow! That it Beautiful. :ernae: The P-36 is definately one of my all time favorites. Cannot wait to fly it. Wonderful work people!

Old crow,
Glad to hear that.. We're pretty sure we have the engine dialed in, and the basic flight model is ready to move to beta testing now.. I'll be honest. its a blast to fly. We're still trying to dial in its stall and spin. The P-36 had a rather nasty stall/spin entry thats been quite challenging. but my lead tester has promised me that he'll drive me completely nuts if need be to get it right..

Bomber_12th
February 15th, 2010, 21:07
Pam, based on those photos, I'm sorry, but I don't see any difference than in any other P-36 or H-75 windscreen photos you will come across - as the windscreens are all the same. All I am frankly concerned about, is the canopy profile shape, head on. While it may or may not be important from the exterior to some, this will be extremely pronounced, when actually sitting in the cockpit, looking forward and around. As in the photos I have linked to, showing the H-75/P-36 windscreen, there was no bent tubing used. The main beam, creating the shape of the canopy, is just that, a flat curved beam, with a strengthening support tube, as a cross-member, with two pieces of thick bracing wire, at the front. There is indeed a lip that comes out, from the main structural beam, extending a bit over the glass, which may be giving you some illusions, if just looking at old photos. The plexiglass, is how it has been modeled, as a single piece that wraps around. As you state that it is only an alpha version, all the better that any kinks get worked out now, rather than later.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
This photo is one of the most honest tellings of what I describe:<o:p></o:p>
http://www.aircraftwalkarounds.be/Images/CurtisHawk75Part2CockpitIn/Hawk%2075%20Cockpit%2009.html (http://www.aircraftwalkarounds.be/Images/CurtisHawk75Part2CockpitIn/Hawk%2075%20Cockpit%2009.html)

Some further great photos of the Fighter Collection's Hawk 75, can be found by scrolling down to the links coinciding with the aircraft (any and all details you ever wanted to see on the aircraft):
http://www.aircraftwalkarounds.be/Walkarounds_English.html
<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>
By the way - the A-36, was a development from the original P-51 design, which was a whole generation (and several years) in aeronautical design following the P-36 and P-40. Of course the Curtiss fighter designs followed one another, using the findings secured from the model before. P-36 windscreen is very much the same structure that is incorporated into the P-40B/C models, except for the P-40B/C's introduced a panel of bullet proof glass.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I think I have said all I really can at the moment, and with the likelihood of making more enemies than ever, I guess I will just keep my mouth shut from here on out, unless you insist on further 'proofing' by a guy like me - and just to level the playing field, I am speaking as a developer myself, who knows exactly what it would take to redo what has been done, whether it be modeling or texturing, and not someone shouting from the sidelines, having had no experience doing the same work. As I have expressed before, I am one of the biggest, true fans there could be for having an accurate H-75/P-36 in FSX, and I look forward to the day it is released, as someone who will certainly be a customer.

jankees
February 15th, 2010, 23:42
OUTSTANDING!

Where do I sign up?

Lionheart
February 15th, 2010, 23:55
Awesome work on that bird! Goodness. Love the bump mapping and textures. Shading is photo real....



Bill

warchild
February 16th, 2010, 00:01
<o:p></o:p>
I think I have said all I really can at the moment, and with the likelihood of making more enemies than ever,

you wont make an enemy of me bomber.. not this easily ::chuckles::.. ya gotta try lots harder ;)..

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 00:09
very nice!!

by the way dean, an avro anson or airspeed oxford would be great if you dont know what to build next :icon_lol:

Im still thinking hard about the Airspeed Oxford :salute:

But theres still another 2 aircraft that I havent announced yet and its going to be a busy year for us.

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 00:10
Im discussing the canopy issue with our modeler today.

jankees
February 16th, 2010, 00:25
Im still thinking hard about the Airspeed Oxford :salute:

But theres still another 2 aircraft that I havent announced yet and its going to be a busy year for us.

weren't you considering a Marauder too (yes please!)?

Hurricane91
February 16th, 2010, 04:01
What a honey!

roger-wilco-66
February 16th, 2010, 04:10
truly outstanding! Great work!

Cheers,
Mark

Henry
February 16th, 2010, 06:12
Hmm thats an alpha model :eek:
WOW!
H

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 06:51
weren't you considering a Marauder too (yes please!)?

Hi Jankees, yes thats correct, we are looking at doing a couple of twins.

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 07:11
canopy revision :

http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/canopyv2.jpg

This is as far as we dare go before we have to alter any of the fuselage section

Cleartheprop
February 16th, 2010, 07:48
Fantastic work ! :ernae:

Bomber_12th
February 16th, 2010, 08:08
canopy revision :
This is as far as we dare go before we have to alter any of the fuselage section

Dean, I am extremely impressed, that you, and the 3D modeler you have, are going to the lengths required to make the necessary changes, and the new windscreen is looking excellent! The more accurate curvatures are definitely there - which is very clear to see, after cross-referencing the individual photo I linked to in my last post.

I am very much looking forward to seeing the range of schemes you will include of those ten you mention. Again, I applaud the efforts, all around, to bring this historic aircraft into FSX!

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 08:53
RE the paints.

3 UK
3 FR
4 US

Lewis-A2A
February 16th, 2010, 09:04
Hey dean any chance of a glimpse at those uk schemes?

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 09:24
Hey dean any chance of a glimpse at those uk schemes?

Not just yet, I'm dragging these out a little so as to keep interests up :icon_lol:

Nick C
February 16th, 2010, 09:24
Oooo nice work guys. :applause::applause::applause:

Dain Arns
February 16th, 2010, 09:34
The outside is nice.
But, any shots of the VC yet? :jump:

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 09:53
The outside is nice.
But, any shots of the VC yet? :jump:

2 weeks for sure :wiggle:

I guess you never seen the rear section of the tail, you'll be amazed how detailed it is in and around the compartment door

Lewis-A2A
February 16th, 2010, 09:54
In Soviet Russia, VC makes you!

crashaz
February 16th, 2010, 10:09
Im in love!!


Thanks also for addressing the windscreen concerns voiced by Bomber. We all appreciate the work and effort put into this classic.... thanks so very much!! Think I will celebrate it by finishing up the Wheeler Field hangar for it! :jump:

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 10:15
Im in love!!


Thanks also for addressing the windscreen concerns voiced by Bomber. We all appreciate the work and effort put into this classic.... thanks so very much!! Think I will celebrate it by finishing up the Wheeler Field hangar for it! :jump:

Excellent, I'll be looking forward to that.

Im currently pushing to release the oldest airfield in France that the Hawk flew from in the late 30's early 40's prior to Germany over-taking the airfield. In the planning I would also like to have some hawks as static objects some in maintenance mode and some AI also. The airfield in question is St Ingelvert.

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 10:18
Is there any Frenchmen around that would like a free Dauntless and is handy in using M$ word to translate me a few pages.

if so email me at dean@vertigostudios.co.uk

As we will be shipping 3 manuals :

English
German
French

stiz
February 16th, 2010, 10:29
Im still thinking hard about the Airspeed Oxford :salute:


well if it ever goes further than thinking hard (which is should! :icon_lol:) then this might of help :)

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/Stiz987/Airspeed-Oxford-cockpit.jpg

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 10:45
Hi Stiz the one I had in mind was also used as a small civil liner, I'll see if I can find a image of it in red and white.

Henry
February 16th, 2010, 10:48
Hi Stiz the one I had in mind was also used as a small civil liner, I'll see if I can find a image of it in red and white.
there is a particular BOAC twin that could be andy:icon_lol:
LOL
H

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 10:49
ahh here it is

http://www.kolumbus.fi/martti.kuivalainen/ProdPics/arctic_Airspeed.jpg

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 10:50
there is a particular BOAC twin that could be andy:icon_lol:
LOL
H

Oh and Mr H's twin comes first prior to any twins :D

Gibbage
February 16th, 2010, 11:31
Good stuff. Nice catch on the canopy/windshield guys! This is why the 3rd party dev's like to post here. Catch these little things before it gets finished. :salute:

Im also looking forward to seeing the cockpit. These warbirds have a lot of exposed framework and the P-40/Hawk 75's were no exception. The good thing with the frameworks is they catch a lot of nice shadows during an AO/Dirt bake like the F6F did. It will be interesting too see how the P-36 fairs!

Deano
February 16th, 2010, 11:49
I do hope theres no comparison in dev methods between the Hawk and the F6F, if there is I wont post anymore workings here.

This is after all a post regarding the Hawk and not a comparison of other models, lets keep it clean so theres no bitching ;)

Ken Stallings
February 16th, 2010, 15:19
I am always impressed when I see designers respond in such professional ways to sincere inputs from customers, and even more impressed with such rapid changes and feedback to those who offered the suggestions.

Well done, folks! Well done, indeed! :icon29:

Ken

Ken Stallings
February 16th, 2010, 15:20
Oooh! That twin has my mouth watering!

Ken

Old Crow
February 16th, 2010, 15:48
Since there is talk of other aircraft......................How about a Curtiss Hawk III ???? :kilroy:
Ivan Hsu did a Beauty for CFS2 and FS2004. I fell in love with that plane and after futilly trying to get it to work in FSX gave up. Please conside it. :icon29:

Gibbage
February 16th, 2010, 16:43
I do hope theres no comparison in dev methods between the Hawk and the F6F, if there is I wont post anymore workings here.

This is after all a post regarding the Hawk and not a comparison of other models, lets keep it clean so theres no bitching ;)

Sorry if I upset you, but it was not my intention to compair the two. Im just interested in other developers take and how they approach things. Just like how musicians compair techniques. Ill drop the subject.

DX-FMJ
February 16th, 2010, 17:08
Vertigo Studios you ROCK! Stunning quality and I am confident all releases by this company will be spot on! :icon29:

warchild
February 16th, 2010, 17:16
Gibbage. For myself and my team, the F6F set the bar.. My self defined job on the P-36 was to create a much more accurate flight model than the f6f has.. Thats no small chalenge as you well know. The F6F is formidable.. Our flight model is now ready to move from alpha testing, to being married with the gauges and visual model, and into beta testing, and yet, it's already being compared by some of my people, to some of A2A's aircraft.. in my mind, we have a ways to go.. I guess that in the end, the proof is as always in the pudding. Perhaps its metaphorical, but JFTC is making you the very best bowl of pudding its ever made for you to enjoy.. Deans instructions to me were simple. "Make it perfect". Truth told, i dont know if i can do that or not, but by gods i'm gonna try.

OH.. Word of warning.. if you get flight sickness, take a dramamine before flying this plane.. it loses several feet from the change in lift when you raise the flaps, and it isnt a nose down thing.. it drops straight off the wing..

Panther_99FS
February 16th, 2010, 17:44
Yowsers! :applause::jump:

letsgetrowdy
February 20th, 2010, 21:39
I saw a Hawk 75 just yesterday at Duxford. The Fighter Collection have got one, in this very livery.

Deano
March 29th, 2010, 10:50
Heres a small update for you all detailing the P36 cockpit textures.

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-10.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-11.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-12.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-13.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-14.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-15.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-16.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-17.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-18.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-19.jpg" />

The last update we will have for you is the tail section details.

I Hope you like them.

PRB
March 29th, 2010, 10:52
Awesome! Ok, here's my MudMarine imitation:

"Release it now!" :icon_lol: :d

spotlope
March 29th, 2010, 10:58
Stunning cockpit detail! That's some A++ texture work. :salute:

MudMarine
March 29th, 2010, 11:09
Awesome! Ok, here's my MudMarine imitation:

"Release it now!" :icon_lol: :d


HEY NOW!! I resemble that comment!!:icon_lol:

PS RELEASE THAT DAMN THING NOW........please!! hehe

Nick C
March 29th, 2010, 11:10
Showing great potential, thanks for keeping us updated Dean. :salute:

warchild
March 29th, 2010, 11:13
HEY NOW!! I resemble that comment!!:icon_lol:

PS RELEASE THAT DAMN THING NOW........please!! hehe

Patience ::LOL:: I'm afraid i'm part of the holdup. We're taking this FDE places very few others have gone. In another thread i reported that this FDE makes me feel i need to take flying lessons just to fly this plane on a computer.. Yup, we're making it that real.. A the moment, I and Paul are awaiting the gauges so we can sync them up with the flight model and run some tests, but it shouldnt be long now.. Please bear with us. it's worth the wait..
Pam

Tim-HH
March 29th, 2010, 11:21
Wow! Very impressive! :applause:

Greetings
Tim

robcap
March 29th, 2010, 11:43
very, very nice!

R.

dswo
March 29th, 2010, 11:47
Sugoi!

NWarty
March 29th, 2010, 11:55
Absolutely stunning work!

MudMarine
March 29th, 2010, 11:56
Patience ::LOL:: I'm afraid i'm part of the holdup. We're taking this FDE places very few others have gone. In another thread i reported that this FDE makes me feel i need to take flying lessons just to fly this plane on a computer.. Yup, we're making it that real.. A the moment, I and Paul are awaiting the gauges so we can sync them up with the flight model and run some tests, but it shouldnt be long now.. Please bear with us. it's worth the wait..
Pam

Trust me, I am a very patient person. Just my way of showing excitement! All good things come to those who wait.

Deano
March 29th, 2010, 12:11
We should have some detailed screenshots of the tail section shortly for those that dont know, we decided to also model the interior section of the tail as this has a compartment door.

The P36 is doing well and as soon as I have something solid to work with the usual beta guys will be notified.

warchild
March 29th, 2010, 12:17
Trust me, I am a very patient person. Just my way of showing excitement! All good things come to those who wait.

I'm just fearful you guys are gonna hate my work.. This plane is demanding exactitude from me, and wellllll, its getting it, but jeez is she a spoiled bi**h. She demands to be handled in a very specific way. Especially during takeoffs landings and high AOA climbs and banks. but gods its so nice when i'm up there. I'm not patting myself on the back, just admiring the design of the plane itself. i can understand quite well now why they made the P-40 from her.
Soon.. very soon on my end. just a matter of balancing out rotational torque on the airframe..

MudMarine
March 29th, 2010, 13:20
I know I'm going to love her already!! :jump:

Dain Arns
March 29th, 2010, 14:18
Heres a small update for you all detailing the P36 cockpit textures....
I Hope you like them.

Now you're talking ... or err showing! :jump: :icon_lol:
I guess I'm an odd person, but since I spend 99% of my time inside the cockpit, that's one of the more important features to me.
Love it! :applause:

roger-wilco-66
March 29th, 2010, 14:46
drooool

PRB
March 29th, 2010, 14:51
I'm just fearful you guys are gonna hate my work.. This plane is demanding exactitude from me, and wellllll, its getting it, but jeez is she a spoiled bi**h. She demands to be handled in a very specific way. Especially during takeoffs landings and high AOA climbs and banks. but gods its so nice when i'm up there. I'm not patting myself on the back, just admiring the design of the plane itself. i can understand quite well now why they made the P-40 from her.
Soon.. very soon on my end. just a matter of balancing out rotational torque on the airframe..

I won't try to speak for anyone else but, I've already seen your work, so I'm not worried about that! It's looking great, and I'm sure it will fly just as nicely! Can't wait for this one!

Curtis P40
March 29th, 2010, 15:15
Wow...Curtiss would be proud
Curt:kilroy:

Cirrus N210MS
March 29th, 2010, 15:20
i am been wanting a P36 for fs for a very very long time i used to fly the P36 in IL-2 AA mod all the time :salute:

warchild
March 29th, 2010, 15:38
i am been wanting a P36 for fs for a very very long time i used to fly the P36 in IL-2 AA mod all the time :salute:

Somehow i dont think the one you flew in IL-2 is going to be the same..
Words of advice. Hold the nose up on takeoff, increment flap retraction and dont start retract the flaps till you hit 160 mph. Watch your speed, and lookout for the stall.. its a killer. The plane pancakes a bit once the flaps are up but nothing to worry about if your expecting it. once your in the air Enjoy :) :) she flies like a homesick angel..

Panther_99FS
March 29th, 2010, 15:42
:jump::jump::jump:

MudMarine
March 29th, 2010, 16:20
Somehow i dont think the one you flew in IL-2 is going to be the same..
Words of advice. Hold the nose up on takeoff, increment flap retraction and dont start retract the flaps till you hit 160 mph. Watch your speed, and lookout for the stall.. its a killer. The plane pancakes a bit once the flaps are up but nothing to worry about if your expecting it. once your in the air Enjoy :) :) she flies like a homesick angel..

Sounds like FUN!!!

warchild
March 29th, 2010, 18:03
Well, Thanks to Paul ( no pressure Paul .. Muahahahahahahahaaaaa ) i think we have a flight model to be proud of.. considering that whatever works on my machine, breaks on his, he's been never tiring and always there. His insights and advice are a major force behind us driving this to whole new levels.. I dont think we're quite done yet.
Pam

crashaz
March 29th, 2010, 18:18
Hmm note to self... when talking off at Hickam Field... take off towards the east and not the west. That drop would feel better bellylanding out there than in the hills and trees to the West. :d

txnetcop
March 29th, 2010, 18:18
SWEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTT!!!!!!!
Ted
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Ken Stallings
March 29th, 2010, 18:59
I'm speechless!

Those screen shots of the virtual cockpit are exquisite, and even that word seems inadequate, but it's the best I can think of.

I've seen a lot of stuff released over the years, but I cannot think of another work that matches what I just saw.

Bar-raising material folks!

Ken

warchild
March 30th, 2010, 03:04
For spins :

DO NOT reduce power: go to full power on.
DO NOT center the elevator: Go to full elevator
DO NOT counter the spin with the rudder; Either center it or go full rudder in the direction of the spin
HANG ON:
CLOSE YOUR EYES
and PRAY you got enough air between you and the ground.

The p-36 had some very unique and violent spin behaviors. we havent quite accomplished that level of violence yet and we're not positive fsx will allow it, but we are in the ball park. The spin behavior was fixed by Curtiss on the P-40 by placing scoops under the leading edge of each wing, but nothing was retrofitted to the P-36.. I'm going to keep trying to make it more real.. :)

warchild
March 30th, 2010, 03:09
I'm speechless!

Those screen shots of the virtual cockpit are exquisite, and even that word seems inadequate, but it's the best I can think of.

I've seen a lot of stuff released over the years, but I cannot think of another work that matches what I just saw.

Bar-raising material folks!

Ken

Thanks Ken :)
Thats what we're hoping to do with this one.. By we, i dont mean just my giys, but Dean and the team at vertigo as well.. They're really giving it their very best..

Skittles
March 30th, 2010, 03:23
For spins :

DO NOT reduce power: go to full power on.
DO NOT center the elevator: Go to full elevator
DO NOT counter the spin with the rudder; Either center it or go full rudder in the direction of the spin
HANG ON:
CLOSE YOUR EYES
and PRAY you got enough air between you and the ground.

The p-36 had some very unique and violent spin behaviors. we havent quite accomplished that level of violence yet and we're not positive fsx will allow it, but we are in the ball park. The spin behavior was fixed by Curtiss on the P-40 by placing scoops under the leading edge of each wing, but nothing was retrofitted to the P-36.. I'm going to keep trying to make it more real.. :)

That sounds to me like the method to get out of a flat spin. Doing any of those monouvres in ANY aircraft which is spinning 'properly' and you'll just prolong the spin. :salute:

MudMarine
March 30th, 2010, 03:44
I know the first thing I'm going to do with this plane........STALL IT!!:jump:

peter12213
March 30th, 2010, 04:04
Yes same here, I believe there might be many of a crash reported once it's out lol! :salute:

PRB
March 30th, 2010, 04:24
For spins :

DO NOT reduce power: go to full power on.
DO NOT center the elevator: Go to full elevator
DO NOT counter the spin with the rudder; Either center it or go full rudder in the direction of the spin
HANG ON:
CLOSE YOUR EYES
and PRAY you got enough air between you and the ground.


Ok, I'm a little fuzzy on the spin recovery procedures here. Should I close my eyes before I start praying? Can I just hang on and close my eyes? :icon_lol:

Can't wait to practice stalls! I'm going up to 7,000 feet first, though... :jump:

MudMarine
March 30th, 2010, 04:28
I'm just wondering.....I'm supposed to keep my eyes open while flying? I think PRB can attest to my flying skills, my eyes are closed most of the time!:icon_lol:

Ian Warren
March 30th, 2010, 05:26
Hmm Dean , the Airspeed Oxford , that would be a big NZ hit , we had just over 300 operating around New Zealand in the training role of course , currently in the hanger at Wigram getting refurbished , a Consul/Envoy , the wings are detached and well on its way to have it brought back up to a standard with it possibly the fuselage being brought inline with the Oxford , the entire aircraft is pretty much complete but simply needs TLC !
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

huub vink
March 30th, 2010, 09:17
Really beautiful images from the cockpit Dean! When I read your post Pam, it will be a real challenge to fly this beauty!

Cheers,
Huub

Bomber_12th
March 30th, 2010, 11:25
The P-36 should be a delightful airplane to fly as long as you stay away from spins. Spins are prohibited even in the P-40, for being violent, and according to a few reports I have read, they are even more violent in the P-36, as Pam has stated. Stalls, as long as they are coordinated and not accelerated, should be uneventful and very conventional. I know the P-40 had the 'best ailerons' of any of the allied aircraft in WWII - being very responsive and quick in rolling maneuvers - and I'd guess it must be close to the same or identical with the P-36. The aircraft should have no problem what-so-ever, taking off, without any need for flaps (I've never heard of a P-36 or P-40 needing flaps for takeoff, since they tend to get airborne very effectively without them), and I'd caution anyone in the real thing to wait till 160 mph to raise flaps, if you have any at all on take off, since I think 140 is maximum flap speed, though I need to look it up again. All you have to watch for on landing is the narrow-track gear, otherwise it should be an easy airplane to land.

For anyone interested in watching the P-36 in action (note how nicely the aircraft gets airborne):<object width="480" height="385">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e3TzxzU_cwc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>

Bomber_12th
March 30th, 2010, 11:33
And another good video can be found here (showing a very conventional, straight-forward 3-point landing toward the end):

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Curtiss_P-36_Hawk-Airline_Private_Aviation_Video-7116.html

As long as I can do anything reminiscent of the flying in these videos, and get the same results, I'll be happy. :)

Deano
March 30th, 2010, 11:41
Hi John, thanks for the heads-up

Bomber_12th
March 30th, 2010, 11:56
Perhaps as a testimony to the aircraft's flying abilities, I remember Stephen Grey (owner/founder of The Fighter Collection) commenting that while flying the aircraft for the first times around Chino, California, where TFC's Hawk 75 was restored, he was very disappointed in that he never got the opportunity to roll the aircraft, since he was always in class-airspace or had other things on the agenda. As soon as it got to Duxford, and assembled, he couldn't wait to take it up and put it through its paces. :)

Some photos from those early flights:
http://hawksnest.1hwy.com/Survivors/TFCHawk75.html

Deano
March 30th, 2010, 12:01
On the subject of landing gear... what kind of forces would create a gear collapse :icon_lol:

As we will be offering some failures with this one, none engine related.

We already started modelling (possibly) the oldest Airfield in France which will accompany the Hawk, few hangars and stationary aircraft of the Hawk and possibly the Morane Saulnier MS406

huub vink
March 30th, 2010, 13:38
We already started modelling the oldest Airfield in France.........

Dean,

You make me curious... and I gave it a long thought. Viry-Châtillon South of Paris already existed in 1909. Lyon however already had an airfield in 1907. Mulhouse already had an airfield in 1906, but I think this region was German in those days..... Étampes is quite old but I don't think it is that old.

So I give up, which airfield is in the making?

Huub

Deano
March 30th, 2010, 14:00
Dean,

You make me curious... and I gave it a long thought. Viry-Châtillon South of Paris already existed in 1909. Lyon however already had an airfield in 1907. Mulhouse already had an airfield in 1906, but I think this region was German in those days..... Étampes is quite old but I don't think it is that old.

So I give up, which airfield is in the making?

Huub

Hi Huub,

Prior to you posting I thought to myself ok.. I might get flamed here on the oldest airfield in France so I edited my post to say (Possibly) hahaha

The airfield in question is St Ingelvert.

Regards
Deano

Cirrus N210MS
March 30th, 2010, 14:19
more good videos on P36

ShRekbtRpU0

huub vink
March 30th, 2010, 14:44
Ha ha, don't worry, I was just curious. Saint Inglevert is old, but I don't think it is that old. However it is a very interesting airfield as it was not only used by the French in 1940, but also by RAF fighters from the BEF.

Cheers,
Huub

Deano
March 30th, 2010, 15:28
lol :wiggle:

From my sources.. the airfield was just a grass area until the Germans took it over and then constructed a concrete strip on it. We'll be doing only the grass version though.

if anyone has any interesting photos of Saint Inglevert, I would love to get hold of any additional photos to help us.

warchild
March 30th, 2010, 16:43
On takeoff's and handling. please keep in mind that i'm in this thing 4 to 6 hours a day in little 2 to 5 minute segments, so i'm always looking for troubles, always feeling the slightest "bump". i could be overreacting.
Since we're still in alpha dev on the flight model, i suspect my numbers may be off in areas including lift. Raising them so that the plane lifts off at something slower that 120 knots will be a challenge as its not just one number that need to be changed. its going to be the entire flight model that needs to be adjusted, but, i suspect that i'm in the ballpark already. i would be suspicious of flaps on this or the p-40 not being able to withstand 200mph max speed limits though. The current numbers being used for flap limits are from the Iris P-40 i worked on, as those numbers came directly from Curtiss and the MOD. mostly the MOD. Speed limitations for modern day P-40s ( and likewise P-36s ) are indeed limited to 140 mph, but all aerobatics are also outlawed as well..
THAT said, i just watched a p-40 claw its way off the ground at 80 mph. something my P-36 doesnt do yet, so apparently, i have a bit more work to do :)..
Thanks for the alert. you saved me from possibly making a grave error..
Pam

heh.. another addendum.. Wing loading on the P-36 and P-40 both was 31.5 pounds per square foot.

warchild
March 30th, 2010, 17:15
For anyone interested in watching the P-36 in action (note how nicely the aircraft gets airborne):<object height="385" width="480">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e3TzxzU_cwc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

Its amazing the way the p-36 almost dwarfs that little morane.. i think the 36 scared the other guy when the morane did that fast left break ::lol:;..

Bomber_12th
March 30th, 2010, 18:36
Yep, take off in the P-36 would be at much slower speed than 120 mph, let alone knts. For the P-40E, you can safely break ground at 100 mph, and the P-36 was a lighter ship, with the same wing area. Stall speed, as I recall, in the P-36 is right around 72-75 mph, so I wouldn't see there being any problem in breaking ground at 85-90 mph, safely. Unfortunately I don't have a manual in hand to back this up.

All in all, I just want to make sure that you aren't making the aircraft challenging where it really isn't. ;)

warchild
March 30th, 2010, 19:04
manuals and official documentation have been the bane of the project from the start. even finding statements and comments from p-36 pilots has been a rare treat and not at all common. I estimated stall speed at around 83 mph w flaps. at least i wasnt too far off my rocker..
the only thing we've actually had to work with besides wiki ( yuck) is pictures and 3 views, and a tiny bit of irish luck ( and a whole lot of mr murphy ).. Once i clean up after murphy, it wont be too difficult to set it all right..

warchild
March 30th, 2010, 19:25
All in all, I just want to make sure that you aren't making the aircraft challenging where it really isn't. ;)

I'm hoping i dont, but with as little data as there is, and given the technology of the day, its a bit hard to avoid. like i said, it has 31 pounds per square foot of wing loading. thats heavy for that type of wing. i would expect 25 pounds maybe, maybe even 27, but 31 is a shocker.. given the negative lift on the tailplane added into the equation and i can tell ya, this plane needed someone who knew how to fly.. the videos are deceptive. those pilots make it look simple..
not to worry though, besides having what we think is a dead on flight model, theres ggoing to be a second that can be used which will be far easier to manage.. i wont produce something that isnt enjoyable.. or at least, i try my best not too..
Pam

Bomber_12th
March 30th, 2010, 19:50
No problem Pam - I had actually figured that there would be much more resources in your hands to use. The abilities of designing flight dynamics is still way beyond me, though I can just as easily fuss about them as the next guy. :d

I look forward to seeing, and feeling, the finished product!

crashaz
March 30th, 2010, 19:50
lol :wiggle:

From my sources.. the airfield was just a grass area until the Germans took it over and then constructed a concrete strip on it. We'll be doing only the grass version though.

if anyone has any interesting photos of Saint Inglevert, I would love to get hold of any additional photos to help us.

How's this? Really that 2nd link is awesome. :wavey:

http://norav.50megs.com/images/st_ingelvert_france.jpg

http://www.anciens-aerodromes.com/terrains%20aviations/StInglevert.htm

warchild
March 30th, 2010, 23:44
No problem Pam - I had actually figured that there would be much more resources in your hands to use. The abilities of designing flight dynamics is still way beyond me, though I can just as easily fuss about them as the next guy. :d

I look forward to seeing, and feeling, the finished product!

:;CHUCKLES:; NO WORRIES.. The thing thats scary for me is its becoming organic.. Not exactly what most people would call technical.. more like biological or even dynamically systemic like a spiders web. Lower one number and some other number is now too high, raise another number and it takes three or four other areas up with it.. Tug here, it rips there, cut there, and somewhere else collapses.. its really quite interesting..

alain95
March 31st, 2010, 00:26
Thank you for making a grass version of the airfield, people here have bad feeling with german concrete :salute:
Note the pilot on the first screenshots seems to be a Pandorian :naturesm:

warchild
March 31st, 2010, 00:42
Alain?? I find myself at a moment of pure ignorance.. Would you mind explaining what a pandorian is?? All i can find on the web are references to fantasys and oddly "gone with the wind"..
Thanks
Pam

Deano
March 31st, 2010, 01:24
Hi Crashaz, yes we already have the 2nd link photos thanks. The first link you gave wont open. But still thanks for helping.


How's this? Really that 2nd link is awesome. :wavey:

http://norav.50megs.com/images/st_ingelvert_france.jpg

http://www.anciens-aerodromes.com/terrains%20aviations/StInglevert.htm

OleBoy
March 31st, 2010, 06:42
Hi Crashaz, yes we already have the 2nd link photos thanks. The first link you gave wont open. But still thanks for helping.

Go here: http://norav.50megs.com/images/

And then scroll down to: st_ingelvert_france.jpg

huub vink
March 31st, 2010, 09:51
Pam,

According to the French Hawk 75-A1 manuals (Notice sommaire générale du Curtiss H75 A1 and the Notice de Manoeuvre de l'avion Curtiss H-75-A.1), the Hawk started to show some lateral instability below 160 kilometers per hour and became less sensitive on the pitch below that speed.

According to the manual stall speed was between 80 and 110 kilometers per hour. Stall speed with lowered flaps is not mentioned.

Drag causes by the cowling flaps from the engine would cause a 10% speed reduction at any speed and setting.

During a normal landing the flaps should be lowered to 45º at 120 kilometers per hours. Flaps should never be lowered when speed exceeds 225 km per hour.
In all "standard" conditions (the French used 4 standard set-ups) the flaps should be up during take off according the manual. However in the flight specification the take off with lowered flaps is described.

The landing shown in the movie posted by Bomber_12th is exactly how it is described in the manual. Arrive at the runway close to stall speed and tilt the nose a bit (or according the French description "raise the engine")

I hope this helps you a bit.

Cheers,
Huub

EDIT: Some additional information I found in Section VI CARACTERISTIQUES DE VOL (Flight characteristics)

Start:
With a start weight of 2630 kg a minimum path of 250 meters is required to be clear of obstacles 8 meters in height.
With flaps lowered 45º take off speed is 118 km/hr. And the aircraft will requires a runway of 165 meters before it lifts.

Landing:
For landing path of 380 meters free of obstacles of 8 meters in height is required for landing.
With flaps down 45º and a touch down speed of 112 km/hr the aircraft will require 225 meters of runway from touch down until full stop.

warchild
March 31st, 2010, 10:37
its gonna help a lot huub :).. Thank you.. might have to make a gauge to cause the extra drag from the cowl flaps but compared to the rest of the airplane, that shouldnt be too hard..

Ok,, blind irrational admission time.. Everything i had described about this plane is eactly how it was behaving untill last night, when i found that something had gone in and changed all my realism settings to minimal. Needless to say, as soon as i corrected the realism settings, the plane was no longer flyable, BUT, as of 8AM this morning, the plane is back in the air and we're moving quickly to return this plane to the dream she has been.
Pam

RyanJames170
March 31st, 2010, 14:02
what is the price on this cool ship going to be?

Deano
March 31st, 2010, 14:32
what is the price on this cool ship going to be?

HI Ryan, unsure at the moment as we're working out the airfield and such.

SpaceWeevil
March 31st, 2010, 23:25
Pam,

According to the French Hawk 75-A1 manuals (Notice sommaire générale du Curtiss H75 A1 and the Notice de Manoeuvre de l'avion Curtiss H-75-A.1), the Hawk started to show some lateral instability below 160 kilometers per hour and became less sensitive on the pitch below that speed.

According to the manual stall speed was between 80 and 110 kilometers per hour. Stall speed with lowered flaps is not mentioned.

Drag causes by the cowling flaps from the engine would cause a 10% speed reduction at any speed and setting.

During a normal landing the flaps should be lowered to 45º at 120 kilometers per hours. Flaps should never be lowered when speed exceeds 225 km per hour.
In all "standard" conditions (the French used 4 standard set-ups) the flaps should be up during take off according the manual. However in the flight specification the take off with lowered flaps is described.

The landing shown in the movie posted by Bomber_12th is exactly how it is described in the manual. Arrive at the runway close to stall speed and tilt the nose a bit (or according the French description "raise the engine")

I hope this helps you a bit.

Cheers,
Huub

EDIT: Some additional information I found in Section VI CARACTERISTIQUES DE VOL (Flight characteristics)

Start:
With a start weight of 2630 kg a minimum path of 250 meters is required to be clear of obstacles 8 meters in height.
With flaps lowered 45º take off speed is 118 km/hr. And the aircraft will requires a runway of 165 meters before it lifts.

Landing:
For landing path of 380 meters free of obstacles of 8 meters in height is required for landing.
With flaps down 45º and a touch down speed of 112 km/hr the aircraft will require 225 meters of runway from touch down until full stop.

Pam, I hope you remember to convert all that into MPH, lbs and yards! It must feel strange being brought up on the metric system but being forced to use 'alien' units when you go flying. Of course we need a universal system for safety, but I dare say most Europeans (apart from the Brits) feel it's the wrong one. For all its coldness and lack of folk history at least the metric system is consistent and logical.

warchild
April 1st, 2010, 05:00
Pam, I hope you remember to convert all that into MPH, lbs and yards! It must feel strange being brought up on the metric system but being forced to use 'alien' units when you go flying. Of course we need a universal system for safety, but I dare say most Europeans (apart from the Brits) feel it's the wrong one. For all its coldness and lack of folk history at least the metric system is consistent and logical.

::chucles:; Actually, i was born in Illinois. its metric that always gives me a challenge, but being in this community, i've begun thinking in both styles of measuring. to me, theyre both good though i got to admit that i find a bit more quaintness and romance to some old geezer sighting in a line thats so many feet and inches and danged if he aint right most of the time.. for me, it has more of a "human" feeling to it, but, i'm an old fart myself and gotta admit, i miss some of the old ways..

MudMarine
April 1st, 2010, 05:24
Metric? Whats that? Only thing it did for me was force me to buy two sets of wrenchs!:icon_lol:

Bomber_12th
April 1st, 2010, 06:00
Take Off Distance With Flaps Up, at 5786 lbs. - 820 ft
Take Off Distance With Full Flaps, at 5786 lbs. - 541 ft
Take Off Done With Full Flaps (short field) - 73 mph
Stall Speeds - 50-68 mph
Flap (And Gear) Never-Exceed Speed - 140 mph
Full Flaps - (By) 75 mph
Landing Touchdown Speed W/Full Flaps - 69-70 mph

Here are some quick calculations based off of the information that Huub has posted. It is interesting just how slow the speeds are, but then again, they do make sense for the airframe and era of the design. The big difference between stall speeds listed, could be based on clean/dirty stalls, or it could be based on dirty stalls at various weights. I noticed that the airspeed to put the final selection of flaps down, is very close to landing speed. I know that in the P-40, which I believe shares the same flaps as the P-36, the flaps are very very effective. Because they deploy so fast, you usually put half flaps down, after you have slowed enough (140 mph), in the pattern, after putting the gear down, but then you must wait until about 300-400 ft from the runway to put full flaps down, because it brings the airspeed right down to landing speed, right then and there.

SpaceWeevil
April 1st, 2010, 07:29
Metric? Whats that? Only thing it did for me was force me to buy two sets of wrenchs!:icon_lol:
I think the important thing is to work in one system or t'other and not try to mix them. When I fly the FW190 or Bf109 I have the metric checklists handy and it soon becomes second nature. Incidentally, the Brits built Merlin engines to Imperial measurements but Packard chose Metric!

Anyway, back to the P36. I love how people have chimed in with new information, and how the devs have listened, made changes and not gone all precious. It's a great sign, and I'm definitely in line for this one.

Matt Wynn
April 1st, 2010, 08:26
Developer and end users in perfect synchronicity... ok in near perfect Harmony, this I like! this is what defines a community, helping and sharing what we know and what we find :ernae:

huub vink
April 1st, 2010, 09:33
I noticed that the airspeed to put the final selection of flaps down, is very close to landing speed.

Hi John,

That depends how you read it. As the "not to exceed speed" for both under carriage and flaps is 225 km/hr, you can lower the flaps earlier than 120 km/h. However when you are still flying at 120 km/hr you should definitely have lowered your flaps! At least that is the way I read it ;).

Cheers,
Huub

Bomber_12th
April 1st, 2010, 10:27
Thank you Huub, that does sound truer in that regard. 73mph take off speed with full flaps is also something to be taken with a grain of salt - figures of which are only to be used if you really want to get off the ground in the shortest amount of runway - 73 mph doesn't give you a whole lot of room ahead of stall speed - and at this speed, the angle of the aircraft would still remain very much in a three-point attitude. Without flaps, take off speed, I can only imagine, may be around the 80-85 mph range, perhaps right in the middle - of course I am only guessing based on my experience with other aircraft - with the tail wheel just barely off the ground at this point.

Dean, the extra airfield and possible Moranes for the airfield sounds excellent! For me, the best means of operating aircraft like these, is off of grass, and I look forward to seeing the scenery and how it comes about.

MudMarine
April 1st, 2010, 11:08
I think the important thing is to work in one system or t'other and not try to mix them. When I fly the FW190 or Bf109 I have the metric checklists handy and it soon becomes second nature. Incidentally, the Brits built Merlin engines to Imperial measurements but Packard chose Metric!

Anyway, back to the P36. I love how people have chimed in with new information, and how the devs have listened, made changes and not gone all precious. It's a great sign, and I'm definitely in line for this one.

Always drives me nuts when I fly my butcher bird!!

delta558
April 1st, 2010, 11:32
Interestingly (while we're talking figures), in the small part of the operation handbook we've got the section on range and endurance gives two sets of figures; optimum and practical (in the same configuration). There's approximately 200 miles difference, with different fuel usage and time taken. I suppose the practical range is allowing for wear and tear, also piloting ability.

Bomber_12th
April 1st, 2010, 11:50
Paul, I've seen those types of figures before with other aircraft, and I wonder if it is the same as "cruise vs. economy cruise". As an example, for practical means - getting from point A to point B the fastest - in a Mustang, one would use 36/37 inches of manifold pressure, with 2400/2300 RPM, and the mixture in auto-rich. Economically however, one could bring this back to 36/2200, or as much as 30/2000 or 28/1800, bring the mixture back to auto-lean, and while your speed would be less practical, your mileage would be much better.

I notice that you state that the "configuration" is the same, does this mean power settings or loading?

warchild
April 1st, 2010, 11:58
Take Off Distance With Flaps Up, at 5786 lbs. - 820 ft
Take Off Distance With Full Flaps, at 5786 lbs. - 541 ft
Take Off Done With Full Flaps (short field) - 73 mph
Stall Speeds - 50-68 mph
Flap (And Gear) Never-Exceed Speed - 140 mph
Full Flaps - (By) 75 mph
Landing Touchdown Speed W/Full Flaps - 69-70 mph

Here are some quick calculations based off of the information that Huub has posted. It is interesting just how slow the speeds are, but then again, they do make sense for the airframe and era of the design. The big difference between stall speeds listed, could be based on clean/dirty stalls, or it could be based on dirty stalls at various weights. I noticed that the airspeed to put the final selection of flaps down, is very close to landing speed. I know that in the P-40, which I believe shares the same flaps as the P-36, the flaps are very very effective. Because they deploy so fast, you usually put half flaps down, after you have slowed enough (140 mph), in the pattern, after putting the gear down, but then you must wait until about 300-400 ft from the runway to put full flaps down, because it brings the airspeed right down to landing speed, right then and there.

yeahhh, those flaps are something else. even now, they'll almost stop that plane in mid flight. Landing for me has been interesting cuz it always feels like i'm gonna fall right out of the sky before i'm even going slow enough to touch down.. Even then, its rather amazing to see just how far off my estimations have been, and i'm thinking its because i used the incorrect wing plan. Given its age, i hadnt thought that it would have used the same wing as the b-17, but apparently, i'm incorrect. That wing had a habit of not wanting to let go of the sky. it was very high lift and would explain a lot here..
:;chuckles:; maybe i better pour some coffee and get woke up. gonna be a long, interesting day :) ..
THank you :) :) :)
Pam

warchild
April 1st, 2010, 12:34
I think the important thing is to work in one system or t'other and not try to mix them. When I fly the FW190 or Bf109 I have the metric checklists handy and it soon becomes second nature. Incidentally, the Brits built Merlin engines to Imperial measurements but Packard chose Metric!

Anyway, back to the P36. I love how people have chimed in with new information, and how the devs have listened, made changes and not gone all precious. It's a great sign, and I'm definitely in line for this one.

I cant afford to not listen. normally, i have manuals and documentation straight from the MOD or FAA ot even the manufacturer to use, but not this plane.
The p-36 was the responsible for the first two kills of the american war. thaose were against zeros no less. it was such a good plane that even the germans, once they conquered france and finland, used it. Hell, it could out maneuver their bf-109. its direct offspring ( the XP-37 ) is central in the never ending debate of the origins of the P-51 mustang, and the P-40 ( its direct descendant ) is legendary. how coul i properly honor the guys who flew these things if i copped an attitude and let my over fluffy ego rear its vogon head?

What Dean does is art, and theres a lot there to be exceptionally proud of, but what i do is numbers. Numbers cant be copyrighted, hell, half the time its nigh on impossible to even get the right ones, and yet those numbers are a part of our history, and shouldnt be owned by anyone, but because of that history, neither should they be treated with any less respect than any other information regarding that history.

Keep in mind that when you go to buy this aircraft, your not paying for my work. Your paying for some of the most exquisite and detailed modeling available anywhere, and the artistry of Dean and his modelers and artists. My work is free, and on this one bird, this one time, you can all sit back and say "hey, I helped her make that fly right". Considering the history of Flight Sim with its overblown advertisements, its puffed up claims and its abundance of pure manure, This plane will be a lot to be proud of, for all of us.
Pam

PRB
April 1st, 2010, 12:45
Pam, I’ve always been fascinated with the history of the early months of the war, when the allies were getting their butts handed to them every day. Those pilots were astonishingly under trained, by today's standards, yet they didn’t complain, and when to war with these planes, and often to their deaths. It’s a tragic story almost beyond comprehension, as was that entire war, from start to finish. This plane in particular played a large part in those early tragic months. I’m glad it is being made, and you seem to be pouring your soul into it to get it right, and that makes me want to fly it all the more. I can’t wait until it is released!

delta558
April 1st, 2010, 12:59
John, to be clearer about the figures I quoted, there are no engine settings given - taking one as an example:

Optimum range with 160gal fuel and 0lb bombs
cruise speed 1060 miles at 6.6mi/gal or 5.3 hrs at 30gal/hr (a.f.c 0.48)

compared to

Practical range with 160gal fuel and 0lb bombs
cruise speed 860 miles at 5.4mi/gal or 4.3 hrs at 37gal/hr (a.f.c 0.60)

Settings for cruise speed (with engine settings) are given seperately.

warchild
April 1st, 2010, 13:34
Thanks Paul :).. I've got two of the best mates in the world workin on this with me. Delta558 and Butch. if it doesnt fly right, it wont be because of them. I'm loving what i'm seeing here. the care, the concern, and the downright desire of people to give what they have in the way of knowledge to help make this plane fly better than anything else ever made before. Man! Talk about a community to be proud of, and to be proud to be a part of.. I'm in awe.

wiltzei
April 1st, 2010, 13:37
OT:
...the germans, once they conquered france and finland...
Finland basically made a contract with the Germans in order to receive arms to be used against the Eastern neigbour, but has been occupied/controlled by any other nation since 1917.

warchild
April 1st, 2010, 13:41
John, .

Paul!!! :;lol;; climb on msn.. i have files for you..

warchild
April 1st, 2010, 15:32
OT:
Finland basically made a contract with the Germans in order to receive arms to be used against the Eastern neigbour, but has been occupied/controlled by any other nation since 1917.

my bad.. i didnt know this.. it would make perfect sense though.. Finland isnt exactly known as being bad boy on the block, and they needed to defend themselves.

Ken Stallings
April 1st, 2010, 16:19
OT:
Finland basically made a contract with the Germans in order to receive arms to be used against the Eastern neigbour, but has been occupied/controlled by any other nation since 1917.

Little known fact is that it was very close to adding the UK and France to that alliance against Stalin!

Imagine how world history had developed had that happened -- an alliance of France, UK, and Germany with Finland to defeat the Soviet Union!

It almost happened!

Ken

huub vink
April 2nd, 2010, 09:34
... but I wanted to explain some things about things which have been mentioned in this thread so far. As you most likely already know I love history, so sit back and enjoy the free lesson.....

But first something very practical........

A nice conversion tool

A long time ago Milton Shupe pointed me towards a very nice free conversion tool. I use it both private as at work. You can find it here: http://joshmadison.com/software/convert-for-windows/

It is simple, but very handy and will run on any operating system.

A small history lesson about Finland during the Second World War.

Finland has been part of Sweden from 1200 until the end of the Finnish war between Sweden and Russia in 1809, when the Swedish lost Finland to Russia. Although Finland and Russia technically had one Head of State, it had the status of an autonomous Grand Duchy. When the Rusian empire collapsed this led to Finland's declaration of independence on 6 December 1917. This caused a civil war in Finland between the social democrats (Reds) and the conservatives (Whites). The Whites were supported by Imperial Germany and the Red by the Sovjets. The whites prevailed the reds and in 1920 the borders between Finland and Russia were defined in the treaty of Tartu.

In August 1939 the Sovjets violated this treaty and attacked Finland. This resulted in the Winter War which lasted until March 1940. After operation Barbarossa the Fins joined the Germans against Russia as member of the Axis powers. Therefore Finland was the only democratic state to join the Axis powers. Finland however refused to permit extensions of Nazi anti-Semitic practices within Finland. This war, which lasted until September 1944 is know as the Continuation War by the Fins.

Although it was never stated officially by the Fins most historians agree that Finland had to join the Axis forces, because otherwise the country would have been crushed in a similar way Poland was.

When the Germans had to evacuate Estonia the Moscow armistice between Finland and Russia was signed in September 1944. Due to which Finland had to make many consessions, which resulted in new borders between Finland and Russia.

As not all the troops of their former German allies did not leave Finland, the Fins fought these former allies during the Lapland War. This war lasted from September 1944 until April 1945

A not very likely alliance

I consider an alliance between France, UK, and Germany with Finland to defeat the Soviet Union very unlikely. The First World War or Great War caused many huge scars which are often still noticable today almost a century later. One of the things not many perhaps realise is that, due to the fact this war was so horrible, already during the First World War a struggle started between the establisment who wanted to keep things as they were and people and movements which wanted to change everything to prevent re-occurance of such a war. The second group could more or less be devided in (extreme) left wing (communism) and extreme right wing (facism). This resulted in many conflicts and several civil Wars, from which the Spanish Civil War is most probably the best known, but even in my own peaceful country a plan was made to get rid of the monarchy.

The Axis powers were examples for the extreme right,where the UK and France were examples where the established order stayed in place. Any alliance with an extreme gouvernment, would be a direct thread to the stability of the establishment from the more conservative contries.(As Germany had trown out the Monarchy (Emperor Wilhelm II) an alliance with them would definitely put the position of the Royals in the UK under discussion).

Next to that, the largest frustrations caused by the armistice after the First World War were much blamed on the other parties. Therefore it is very unlikely that any of these parties could "sell" such an alliance to their own country.

Back to the Curtiss P-36/H-75

Curtiss never sold one Hawk to Finland as the Finnish Hawks were sold to them by the Germans. Most presumably because the Germans and Fins had a mutual enemy in the Russians. A part of these Hawks were captured in France and and some of them were captured in Norway, where several of them were not yet assembled and still stored in crates. Therefore it is most likely the all Finnish Hawks had been equipped with metrical instruments.

The Germans allowed the French to keep a reasonable amount of Hawks as well, which served with the Vichy forces.

Cheers,
Huub

warchild
April 2nd, 2010, 10:27
Huub; thats amazing.. Thank you. :D :D :D

Cazzie
April 2nd, 2010, 10:41
In August 1939 the Sovjets violated this treaty and attacked Finland. This resulted in the Winter War which lasted until March 1940. After operation Barbarossa the Fins joined the Germans against Russia as member of the Axis powers. Therefore Finland was the only democratic state to join the Axis powers. Finland however refused to permit extensions of Nazi anti-Semitic practices within Finland. This war, which lasted until September 1944 is know as the Continuation War by the Fins.


Correct Huub, in addition, Finland could only turn to Germany for her survival, she was cut off from supplies from the Allies by Germany occupying Norway. Russia was in no way going to supply the Finns, so Germany was her only source. Finland was never listed as a full member of the Axis Powers, but as a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany.

Caz

wiltzei
April 2nd, 2010, 10:51
I noted a crucial missing word from my previous post.

...neigbour, but has never been...

Here´s a documentary about the Winter War. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI50Uhirte0.

---

And here´s a handy conversion chart. http://flightsim.com/zview.php?cm=list&fid=14355

Deano
April 2nd, 2010, 15:06
Heres another screenshot but this time of the tail section. more can be seen on our website over the next couple of days and also exclusive screenshots to our newsletter members.

Please excuse the high res renders.


<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-20.jpg" />

warchild
April 2nd, 2010, 15:14
Such an odd and humble monument we build, to remember lives we've never met, in situations we can never understand. ordinary people in extraordinary times not so many years before i was born.

Bomber_12th
April 2nd, 2010, 15:21
That is just stunning work, Dean, and not just as a casual remark either! I find it very easy to identify the equipment in the back - amazing job in recreating all of those details! Like a model kit, it is unfortunate that all of that detail work in the back will only be seen through the small access door, when in the sim. Just the seat cushions themselves are a thing of excellence - very organic and natural. Everything looks very accurate!

If you have an open beta-tester spot, man would I like to volunteer!

crashaz
April 2nd, 2010, 16:15
:jawdrop: incredible work!

huub vink
April 3rd, 2010, 03:02
Absolutely incredible Deano ! When I look at the images it is hard to realise this isn't a piece of beautiful digital art to show the construction of an aircraft, but actually a model which will be flyable in FSX.


Such an odd and humble monument we build, to remember lives we've never met, in situations we can never understand. ordinary people in extraordinary times not so many years before i was born.

Wow Pam, it sounds almost like a poem. But this is what I like most in this hobby, these old warbirds and their history contribute to my understanding of the past. The past is the base of the current and I think we can and should learn form the past.


If you have an open beta-tester spot, man would I like to volunteer!

Hey John, please join the queue :d

Cheers,
Huub

Ken Stallings
April 3rd, 2010, 06:52
Dean,

Every succeeding screenshot is more impressive than the previous!

Ken

Ken Stallings
April 3rd, 2010, 06:53
Such an odd and humble monument we build, to remember lives we've never met, in situations we can never understand. ordinary people in extraordinary times not so many years before i was born.

Some of us can understand.

However, your words remain fully poetic and poignant! :engel016:

Cheers,

Ken

warchild
April 3rd, 2010, 10:32
Up until four weeks ago, I would have said i understood. I would have said that the only difference between these men and myself, were the uniforms and the equipment used. i understand terror very well. Now though, i'm not so sure. There is a precious difference.
or maybe i'm just losing it, going too far over the edge.. The numbers have finally eaten my brain, i dont know..
:)

Bomber_12th
April 3rd, 2010, 10:48
While speaking about history, I thought I would shed some light on the scheme that has been depicted on Vertigo Studio's P-36, thus far, the same aircraft that is currently owned and flown by The Fighter Collection at Duxford:

This aircraft is serial no. 82, of the first batch of 100 Hawk 75A-1's built for France. It arrived in France in April of 1939, was assembled there, and then operated during the Battle of France against the Luftwaffe. With the collapse of France imminent, the surviving Hawks were flown to Oran, where they came under the control of the pro-Nazi Vichy French. With the Vichy French, Hawk No.82 flew against Allied aircraft during Operation Torch. Amazingly, the aircraft survived the war, and all of this action, and went to serve within a training unit in France, from 1946 until 1949. Fortunately, unlike so many other aircraft of its kind, it wasn't scrapped, and instead sat derelict in a field. Michel Pont, a Frenchman, saved the aircraft in the mid-50's, and stored it until the mid-1980's, when The Fighter Collection obtained it, again putting it into storage, now at Duxford. Starting in 2003, the aircraft was restored to flying condition, by Fighter Rebuilders in Chino, CA, first flying again by early 2005.

-Information taken from Warbirds International, Nov./Dec. 2004 and March/April 2005 issues.

Within the same reading, it states that this is the only aircraft still flying, that fought for and fought against the Allied powers during WWII.

warchild
April 4th, 2010, 15:43
I uhhh.. got to thinking. Naturally, with my part in this project, i'm into this plane pretty deep, so i may just be imagining things, but, still, it seems to me that a lot of people realy want to see this happen. A really lot of people want to see this happen. Then someone mentioned that the french model 75A was the only one left flying. Now, i'm not exactly young myself, and any more, like the chinese say, I feel my ancestors drawing close. That got me thinking, and i remembered this from somewhere, and it may be corney, but i believe the old girl's earned it..
Hope you like it..
Pam


http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k171/urushira/Valhalla-2.jpg

crashaz
April 4th, 2010, 21:12
very fitting. :ernae:

Nick C
April 5th, 2010, 00:25
Very nice Pam. I'm actually listening to a series of excellent books at the moment, all set during the period of time when the Vikings were trying to to conquer Britain and their battles with Alfred, Kind of Wessex. It's a very interesting time.

Deano
April 5th, 2010, 11:56
ok Its official we will be creating the P39 for FSX and you all have Mal to thank for that, just awaiting on a few more photos and then we're good to go.

crashaz
April 5th, 2010, 12:53
Excellent news! The South Pacific is being very well represented!!!:jump:

Ken Stallings
April 5th, 2010, 18:49
ok Its official we will be creating the P39 for FSX and you all have Mal to thank for that, just awaiting on a few more photos and then we're good to go.

Beautiful airplane. Will be a wonderful addition for FSX.

But it suffered so horribly against the Zero for the USAAF. Reading Saburo Sakai's autobiography, it was pretty clear that regardless of pilot skill, he chewed up P-39's like no one's business! At least the P-40 could get above the Zero and use zoom and boom tactics.

On the other hand, the Russians just absolutely adored them!

Undeniable fact, but I never have really understood why so much of the aerial combat on the Eastern Front took place at such lower altitudes than in the Western Front of the ETO and the PTO. That's a prime reason why the P-39 faired so much better for the Russians.

Great announcement! Looking forward to it!

Ken

warchild
April 5th, 2010, 22:24
Beautiful airplane. Will be a wonderful addition for FSX.

But it suffered so horribly against the Zero for the USAAF. Reading Saburo Sakai's autobiography, it was pretty clear that regardless of pilot skill, he chewed up P-39's like no one's business! At least the P-40 could get above the Zero and use zoom and boom tactics.

On the other hand, the Russians just absolutely adored them!

Undeniable fact, but I never have really understood why so much of the aerial combat on the Eastern Front took place at such lower altitudes than in the Western Front of the ETO and the PTO. That's a prime reason why the P-39 faired so much better for the Russians.

Great announcement! Looking forward to it!

Ken

i may be incorrect, and i hope someone corrects me if i am, but if i recall, the P-39 was used by the russians mostly as ground support and anti tank (?) operations.. That big canon sticking out its nose was pretty effective..

peter12213
April 6th, 2010, 12:29
Yeah thats right Pam I'm sure they just used them as tank killers, although I wouldn't be supprised if they did have a dogfight or two with the Germans, they probably didn't come off that well though!

huub vink
April 6th, 2010, 13:47
I know you should always be very careful with non verified internet sources, but here I found an interesting read about the Russian P-30 aces (look at the scores!)

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html

Cheers
Huub

Deano
April 6th, 2010, 15:31
So she was a nice plane after all woohooo..




I know you should always be very careful with non verified internet sources, but here I found an interesting read about the Russian P-30 aces (look at the scores!)

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html

Cheers
Huub

Ken Stallings
April 6th, 2010, 16:03
i may be incorrect, and i hope someone corrects me if i am, but if i recall, the P-39 was used by the russians mostly as ground support and anti tank (?) operations.. That big canon sticking out its nose was pretty effective..

You are correct.

The Russians really loved that 30mm and 20mm it would carry.

It was kind of like a mini-version of the IL-2. However, the Russian cannon on the IL-2 was a lot better than any US manufactured cannon in World War II. The Russian cannon had better mussle velocity, faster rate of fire, and jammed a lot less frequently. In fact, the Russians made the best aerial cannons in the whole war.

However, several Russian aces flew the P-39 so it wasn't entirely inept as an interceptor or fighter. Though a highly experienced Me-109 pilot had hisay with the P-39 if he fought it properly.

Ken

Lewis-A2A
April 6th, 2010, 16:03
not sure i'd go that far Dean, Bud Anderson ripped the thing to pieces in his book. The Russians certainly knew some secret of how to use them though as it wasnt like they were up against inferior aircraft, those Luft aces were riding some top notch kit.

Slug Flyer
April 6th, 2010, 16:04
i may be incorrect, and i hope someone corrects me if i am, but if i recall, the P-39 was used by the russians mostly as ground support and anti tank (?) operations.. That big canon sticking out its nose was pretty effective..

I believe this is a common myth. From what I've heard, the muzzle velocity of the 37mm cannon was actually too low to make it an effective anti-tank weapon.

Ken Stallings
April 6th, 2010, 16:11
I know you should always be very careful with non verified internet sources, but here I found an interesting read about the Russian P-30 aces (look at the scores!)

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html

Cheers
Huub

Ground attack is the better description. But, the 30mm equipped P-39 could take out one of the Mark IV Panzers with it thinner armour platting. However, it had little chance of taking out, or even damaging, one of the Panthers, Tigers, or Elephants.

However, most ground attack was against trucks, artillery, and troops. In this respect, the P-39 was excellent. It had the cannon, two .50 cal MG's on the nose, and up to four additional MG's in the wings. That's a heck of a lot of firepower. Combined with the small size of the aircraft, the firepower was heavily concentrated.

Also, the mid-mounted engine proved a bit more protected to ground fire since from the ground, the fire mostly had to penetrate the wings first.

Cheers,

Ken

Ken Stallings
April 6th, 2010, 16:16
not sure i'd go that far Dean, Bud Anderson ripped the thing to pieces in his book. The Russians certainly knew some secret of how to use them though as it wasnt like they were up against inferior aircraft, those Luft aces were riding some top notch kit.

Altitude.

The P-39 had a weak turbocharger. In the PTO, the Zero flew faster, higher, and farther. And the Zero was a master of dogfighting over the P-39. Also, the USAAF used poor tactics in the first year of the war, which is a shame because Claire Chennault had already figured out how to beat the Zero, but no one in the USAAF wanted to listen to him!

Chennault was still shunned because of his advocacy against the primacy of the bomber mania. He was shoved out the back door with a contrived medical report and went to China to become the truly great air leader he became.

The P-40 could climb higher and could dive faster. This advantage meant that using the right tactics, P-40's could kill Zeros when P-39 with their altitude limits could not.

Even Sakai in his book wrote how frequently he felt sorry for the Americans flying the P-39. Some of his most poignant stories were told of P-39 pilots he fought over New Guinea. He admired their spirit and skill, but he killed them anyway!

Ken

huub vink
April 7th, 2010, 09:54
So she was a nice plane after all woohooo..

Of course it is a nice plane and in FS we don't have to take it in combat, but we just enjoy the flight. ;) Due to the odd lay-out it should be something special to fly! (Like Piglet's SAAB J-21).


Russian pilots flew the Airacobra as "air superiority fighters," and at the low to medium altitudes of air combat on the Eastern Front, they did so with considerable success, against German Fw 190s and Bf 109s. The 216th Fighter Division (later 9th Guards Fighter Division) flew Airacobras from August, 1942 to the end of the war in May, 1945 and counted 28 aces with at least 15 victories.

Above a quote from the web-site which link I posted. Obviously the P-39 performed quite reasonable as fighter as well. So perhaps the Russians did know a secret the other P-39 users didn't (or they just used better tactics) :d

(At least) 28 x 15 victories 420 victories!!! Not bad for a unit equipped with fighter which are not considered "top notch".

Cheers,
Huub

warchild
April 7th, 2010, 11:58
it aint the equipment ( though thats a help ) its the person using it.. people forget, the P-36 shot down the first two planes of the war.. they were zero's..
good pilots..

Ken Stallings
April 7th, 2010, 13:17
Of course it is a nice plane and in FS we don't have to take it in combat, but we just enjoy the flight. ;) Due to the odd lay-out it should be something special to fly! (Like Piglet's SAAB J-21).



Above a quote from the web-site which link I posted. Obviously the P-39 performed quite reasonable as fighter as well. So perhaps the Russians did know a secret the other P-39 users didn't (or they just used better tactics) :d

(At least) 28 x 15 victories 420 victories!!! Not bad for a unit equipped with fighter which are not considered "top notch".

Cheers,
Huub

Altitude Huub, altitude.

All things must be considered in context.

If you didn't put armour plate, a heavy radio, and self-sealing fuel tanks in a Brewster Buffalo, it would turn with a Zero. But, that's not how the US Navy and Marine Corps equipped there's in the war. And, so they were death traps. On the other hand, the Fins did fly there's that way and they chopped up the Russians with them.

Ken

warchild
April 7th, 2010, 14:02
Welll, i'm trying really hard to make the P-36 real enough so that, if there WAS a combat situation, you could fly it and it would perform faithfully.. You all will be the judges of whether i've succeeded or not. right now, i'm in math way over my head, so please bear with me.. I will give you all, my very very best..

Deano
April 13th, 2010, 10:43
A few screenshots show casing the liveries that will be shipped with the Initial release of the P36 then another 6 liveries released with the expansion pack.

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-22.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-23.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-24.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-25.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-26.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-27.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-28.jpg" />

<img src="http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-29.jpg" />

Lewis-A2A
April 13th, 2010, 11:33
Hot dog! :ernae:

Tim-HH
April 13th, 2010, 11:34
That looks excellent, Dean! :applause: Love the bare metal one :jump:

Greetings
Tim

Deano
April 13th, 2010, 14:19
My PC isnt the greatest so please excuse the jaggys :D

Cag40Navy
April 13th, 2010, 14:24
I sorry to ask but what will the expansion pack be?

Deano
April 13th, 2010, 14:39
additional liveries and full real aircraft management with failures included. This will be our first real expansion pack with damage models etc..

MudMarine
April 13th, 2010, 14:52
Pant, Pant, Pant, Drool, Drool, Drool!!!:jump:

peter12213
April 13th, 2010, 15:06
Great stuff mate, can't wait for this now!

warchild
April 13th, 2010, 15:37
So far, i have the roll and pitch accurate, as well as take off and landing speeds etc.. Braking is now closer to something reaalistic and even though you can still nose her over if your a major screw up like i am, you can steer her.. I've also come somewhere in the ballpark for the adverse yaw as well, and spins can get pretty nasty. She feels light, but then i remember she only weighs in at 5000 pounds soaking wet and i dont feel so bad.. you can hamfist her if thats your style, but she responds to your thoughts practically and moves with barely a touch of the fingers.. I'm realy proud to be a par of this tam and to not only participate in making it, but watching it come alive.. I hope you all enjoy it..
Pam

Cag40Navy
April 13th, 2010, 20:04
Pant, Pant, Pant, Drool, Drool, Drool!!!:jump:
You drool is peeling paint!

huub vink
April 14th, 2010, 14:17
Thanks for the pictures Dean! Can I ask you to post a few more from the bare metal liveries?

Thanks,
Huub

Deano
April 14th, 2010, 14:34
your more than welcome to we're entering into full beta this evening, so the guys whos on our Beta team email me please.

warchild
April 14th, 2010, 16:53
OK.. Beta team guys.. theres going to be more updates coming to you in a few days on the flight model, so please concentrate on what Dean needs you to concentrate on.. dont worry about the flight model ( though i do hope you enjoy the hell out of it :) ) ... Oh yeah, on your flight moderl, the tail wheel doesnt sit right and there is a steerable rear wheel.. Not to wory.. I'm on top of it..

Cleartheprop
May 7th, 2010, 10:36
Here are some pics of the Curtiss H-75 that have been found in the french magazine "Avions" of this month. I thought future repainters might be interested in those pictures.
Can't wait to fly this beauty in FSX.
http://www.cleartheprop.com/curtiss/Image7s.jpg
http://www.cleartheprop.com/curtiss/Image1s.jpg
http://www.cleartheprop.com/curtiss/Image3s.jpg
http://www.cleartheprop.com/curtiss/Image4s.jpg
http://www.cleartheprop.com/curtiss/Image5s.jpg
http://www.cleartheprop.com/curtiss/Image2s.jpg
http://www.cleartheprop.com/curtiss/Image6s.jpg
Full size pictures are HERE (http://www.cleartheprop.com/curtiss/)

Deano
May 7th, 2010, 11:27
Theres something about those French liveries that are good to look at.

doublecool
May 7th, 2010, 15:18
This is a great thread. The P-36, People, and so much more...:salute:

Looking forward to the release

and Thanks for the great read everyone

warchild
May 7th, 2010, 21:13
Welllllll, i turned in the Final FDE to Deano a week ago, And he's having his crew do the once over and final adjustments on it so it wont be long i dont think.. :)..

Cleartheprop
May 7th, 2010, 21:32
can't wait for the "accusimmed" P-36 ! (expansion pack I mean...) :ernae:

Deano
May 9th, 2010, 15:17
Heres a quick dev screenshot of the P36.

http://www.vertigostudios.co.uk/files/P36_pics/P36-30.jpg

Sphinx_58
May 9th, 2010, 15:51
Beautiful Dean!

Deano
May 9th, 2010, 16:12
The P36 is basically ready, we're just putting together the new sound files and the manual translations to German and also French.

Deano
May 9th, 2010, 16:26
Heres another sneak preview..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqtBQZ2UQLs

PRB
May 9th, 2010, 16:37
Speechless. Fantastic. We likes it. Must ... have ... precious ...

skyblazer3
May 9th, 2010, 18:58
Wonderful. If your video is that good, I can't wait to see the kind of love put into the aircraft.

SolarEagle
May 9th, 2010, 23:57
That's one very impressive video.

noddy
May 10th, 2010, 02:35
Looks mighty impressive.

Deano
May 10th, 2010, 11:45
Our final implementation is a configuration panel which allows you to remove the pilot, place chocks, open the rear hatch and also canopy cover.

letsgetrowdy
May 10th, 2010, 12:02
Sweet! I guess I'm gonna be flying that Fighter Collection varient 24/7!

Deano
May 12th, 2010, 07:52
Do we have any French speakers here that would like a free copy of the P36 once released, all that I ask in return is to translate our English word doc manual to French, obviously this will be on a first come first serve basis.

Cheers Deano

HundertzehnGustav
May 12th, 2010, 20:00
*raises hand*
have no use for a Curtiss, but if i can be of some help, please feel free to drop me a line.
that lil fellow was, is, and will always be beautiful.

gajit
May 16th, 2010, 13:45
Looks great

PRB
May 16th, 2010, 13:54
The P36 is basically ready, we're just putting together the new sound files and the manual translations to German and also French.

Tap...tap...tap... (insert foot tapping icon here) ...

:icon_lol: :monkies: :d

Milton Shupe
May 16th, 2010, 14:48
Deano, absolutely stunning work. My hat is off to you and the crew. :applause:

Skittles
May 16th, 2010, 15:00
Guys can I ask a question?

I'm currently trying to get decent material settings for my external bodywork. What kind of material properties do you use on the more matte finishes (anything but chrome).

MDIvey
May 20th, 2010, 22:32
The Vertigo site said on Sunday(16th May) release was due in 6 days which means it is due very soon... is that still so?

Matt

Deano
May 21st, 2010, 01:59
No Im afraid not matt








it should be released today :-)

skyhawka4m
May 21st, 2010, 03:03
At the beginning of the Hellcat video its says "Realflight" is this company working with the Realflight who did the Spitfire, SF260?

noddy
May 21st, 2010, 03:07
Can't wait.

Deano
May 21st, 2010, 03:12
RealFlight is VertigoStudios, we changed our name.

RealAir did the spitfire.

skyhawka4m
May 21st, 2010, 03:22
ahh ok....got another question. I just ordered the
Hellcat...paid using paypal....but I got no download link. How long does that usually take?

Deano
May 21st, 2010, 03:28
all orders are manually processed, all sales are monitored 16 hours a day - please check your mailox ;)

skyhawka4m
May 21st, 2010, 03:34
got it...thank you sir!

skyhawka4m
May 21st, 2010, 04:05
well got the hellcat and love the model, lfys great and isn't a FPS issue. My only concern is the sound, is there a better sound I cna use for it? I am thinking that the Dauntless and P-36 will soon be in my hanger also. :salute:


How do I get the bombs to go away. I figured out the rockets.

alehead
May 21st, 2010, 04:54
Just thought I would add my 2 cents here... read through the entire thread. A real testimony to the community the sim-outhouse is, and why I love to drop in here again and again!

A piece of aviation history, I like many others here, have seen the H75 flying in Duxford, a wonderful sight as all will probably agree. Now, we have the opportunity to take her up ourselves, and wow, what a great looking model it is too!

Congratulations on putting such a beautiful addon together, and thanks to the sim-outhouse forum members for the constructive input in making this what is will be! A great addon...

Andrew

Can't wait to see the pictures and videos...

Matt Wynn
May 21st, 2010, 05:24
on Vertigos homepage theres a P-36 video... which i've become addicted to :icon_lol:

BOOM
May 21st, 2010, 06:18
No Im afraid not matt








it should be released today :-)

WHAT??????? Today??? Fantastic!!!!!!!!! Can't wait!!!

MDIvey
May 21st, 2010, 08:24
Good news

Matt

Cleartheprop
May 21st, 2010, 09:18
No Im afraid not matt








it should be released today :-)

Great news ! Will the expansion pack be released at the same time ?

Deano
May 21st, 2010, 10:30
Unfortunately the expansion pack wont be released for a few weeks as we're pressing on with the F8F at the moment.

RobH
May 21st, 2010, 10:39
My only concern is the sound, is there a better sound I cna use for it?

I Highly recommend this set http://www.irissimulations.com/product-audio-f6f.php :salute:

However, if you want freeware, this soundpack by Lawdog is great too! http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/page.php?lloc=downloads&loc=downloads&page=info&FileID=5966 They just wont be configured for all FSX sounds have to offer, but they should work ok.

skyhawka4m
May 21st, 2010, 11:27
ya...gonna go with the IRIS sound pack.

DX-FMJ
May 21st, 2010, 17:13
it should be released today :-)

When is today? What timezone? :salute:

BOOM
May 21st, 2010, 17:45
I think they [Vertigo] are working on some last minute language translations for the manual,hopefully not to much longer.

Deano
May 21st, 2010, 22:24
Sorry for the delay I was awaiting some last minute translations. The release is set for today around 1600 hrs GMT.

letsgetrowdy
May 22nd, 2010, 00:42
OMG!!!!

SUBJECT - soiled trousers.
REASON - excitement!!!
lol

Deano
May 22nd, 2010, 06:54
uploading the installer as I type this...

When making the purchase via PayPal, please await PayPal to send you back to our site, thanks :-)

Deano
May 22nd, 2010, 08:44
Shes finally released, please see the following forum post for details : http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=37042

Ken Stallings
May 22nd, 2010, 10:42
OMG!!!!

SUBJECT - soiled trousers.
REASON - excitement!!!
lol

LOL!!!!! :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol: