Re-discovering Flying Stations's Sea Fury

[fleurdelys]

I don't know if other simmers are doing the same as I do when I buy a payware aircraft, but after flying it for a couple of times, I tend to put it back in the hangar and just seem to forget about it to go back to flying those very exclusive planes which catch my attention in a special way... :kilroy:

Until something wakes me up and I get a good second look at it... :applause:

After hearing about Razbam's Tempest project, I went looking for something close to it just to wet my appetite and ease the strain on my patience. It turned out that I had the Flying Stations' Sea Fury (payware) tucked away somewhere and started looking for a paintkit, repaints, info and updates, if any, to get the most out of my second look at it.
As it turned out, there weren't many repaints done for it (a pity as there are many options to choose from) but the ones that were available are very good and with Nigel Richard's awsome sounds, it was just begging to go flying...

This plane just took a big step on the ladder of most appreciated planes in my hangar !

There is a paintkit available and it is easy to use, which is not necessarily true of most planes that I would like to repaint.

This is my first repaint of this beauty. I have reduced the reflectivity a bit as I prefer my planes less glossy but for those who like to be blinded by the sun shining on the skin, it is easy to revert to the original gloss by discarding the two specular files that will be enclosed with the repaint. The file should be ready for download soon.

Cheers,

Fleurdelys

[Dumonceau]

I agree, this model is just magnificent! I've always loved the SF!!

[modelr]

I have it, but have yet to fly it. Trying to find a big memory leak in my setup. :censored:

[delta_lima]

I have it, but have yet to fly it. Trying to find a big memory leak in my setup. :censored:


Yikes, M, I hope that get's sorted ...:icon_eek:



Fleur - thrilled to see this bird get some much-needed attention. Even just within the RN FAA, there are numerous schemes apart from the Korean Warversions - and yours is a perfect example. Looking forward to it for sure, especially in a non-gloss rendering. Here's a few reminders that it served before - and slightly after - Korea ...

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1002180M.jpg

http://www.royalnavyhistoricflight.org.uk/images/b&W-Fury.jpg




http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac6/Hawker%20Sea%20Fury%201.jpg


Addditionally, I some raised a few issues with the panel in another thread, particularly around gauge clarity - curious if as a repainter, you have seen this and have any thoughts beyond what the Flying Stations crew pointed out .... here is the the thread:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?65917-Flying-Stations-Sea-Fury-released(payware)-17May12/page3&highlight=sea+fury

cheers,

DL

[fleurdelys]

Yikes, M, I hope that get's sorted ...:icon_eek:



Fleur - thrilled to see this bird get some much-needed attention. Even just within the RN FAA, there are numerous schemes apart from the Korean Warversions - and yours is a perfect example. Looking forward to it for sure, especially in a non-gloss rendering. Here's a few reminders that it served before - and slightly after - Korea ...

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1002180M.jpg

http://www.royalnavyhistoricflight.org.uk/images/b&W-Fury.jpg




http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac6/Hawker%20Sea%20Fury%201.jpg


Addditionally, I some raised a few issues with the panel in another thread, particularly around gauge clarity - curious if as a repainter, you have seen this and have any thoughts beyond what the Flying Stations crew pointed out .... here is the the thread:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?65917-Flying-Stations-Sea-Fury-released(payware)-17May12/page3&highlight=sea+fury

cheers,

DL

Bonjour DL,

As most of you who have read some of my posts in the past already know, I'm really more an ornithologist at heart than a pilot which means that I fly mostly outside the plane, watching it and all of its intricate beauty and only sit in the cockpit on take off (to get the engine started, when necessary) and landing to watch my speed, operate the flaps and landing gear... :icon_lol:

I don't mean to say though that I don't appreciate a beautiful VC, on the contrary, but I'm not the one who might notice such differences as you pointed out in the first place.I did notice on the Flying Stations Forum that someone had mad a lighter set of VC textures for the Fury (http://z13.invisionfree.com/Flying_Stations/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=22017860) which might address your concern, and then, it might not if this is not what you're referring to...

Think I will go sit in the cockpit for a while and ponder on the question... :kilroy:

Cheers,

Fleurdelys

[Stickshaker]

Much as I like the Flying Stations Seafury, I do not seem to be able to land it on a carrier without putting it on its nose. It seems very odd to me, since the hook would pull the tail down I would think. Other planes, like the Aircraft Factory Corsair, work fine....

[fleurdelys]

After some pondering and installing the lighter VC textures, I think that I prefer the lighter ones as they do definitely improve on the overall clarity of the cockpit and gauges ...

On the subject of the VC, I've noticed that the flaps readout or panel seems to suggest that the pilot could apply flaps incrementally by 10 degrees at a time (see pic and corresponding red rectangle). As this was not programmed in the aircraft cfg, I'm wondering whether this was the case or if the programmer made the 3 points increment so that simmers would not have to work too hard at applying different degrees while getting ready to land...?

It could be also that increasing or decreasing by 10's would not make any difference due to FSX limitations ?!?

Anyway, being a bird watcher, I made up new flaps coordinates just to be able to see the flaps working by increments of 10. For those that might want to try them out, these are the flap settings that I use (remember to keep the disabled originals, just in case, as I did) :

[Flaps.0]
type=1
span-outboard=0.500000
extending-time=5.000000
system_type=0
flaps-position.0=0.000000,0.000000
flaps-position.1=10.000000,0.000000
flaps-position.2=20.000000,0.000000
flaps-position.3=30.000000,0.000000
flaps-position.4=40.000000,0.000000
flaps-position.5=50.000000,0.000000
flaps-position.6=60.000000,0.000000
flaps-position.7=70.000000,0.000000
flaps-position.8=80.000000,0.000000

//[Flaps.0]
type=1
span-outboard=0.500000
extending-time=5.000000
system_type=0
flaps-position.0=0.000000,0.000000
flaps-position.1=26.666667,0.000000
flaps-position.2=53.333335,0.000000
flaps-position.3=80.000002,0.000000

Fleurdelys

[DaveQ]

Much as I like the Flying Stations Seafury, I do not seem to be able to land it on a carrier without putting it on its nose. It seems very odd to me, since the hook would pull the tail down I would think. Other planes, like the Aircraft Factory Corsair, work fine....

Moi aussi. It was OK when I first had it but mine's doing the same thing now. Which is a pity because this is a really great plane. Anybody any ideas??

DaveQ

Note to self - must put that early all-grey RCAF paint I did for the Mustang on it!!:icon_lol:

[SkippyBing]

If it's tipping onto it's nose when landing you're too fast, you want to be about 5kts above the stall and then pull the stick back on landing. The physics of an arrested landing would tend to have the aircraft tip nose forwards, the hook is on a hinge which allows a pitching movement in the same way your car will dip down when you break heavily.

On the real aircraft the flaps could theoretically be left in any position between 0 and 80 degrees, with Up, Take-Off, Max Lift and Down being marked on the selector. The operating procedures in the Pilot's Notes only call for those four positions to be used and as you can't have infinitely adjustable flaps in FSX it seemed the most useful option.

[delta_lima]

Fleur - the lightened panel really looks nicer. You don't seem to have the funny white bleeding edges around the gauges that I have - maybe that texture would fix it - the link you have bring up a corrupted zip for me, though. I seem to recall a lighter texture a while back - maybe it's the same one - would be nice to double check, though - if this texture can be re-uploaded, that would be great.

I don't have the issues that Dave and Stick report, landing on any carrier (Late War Vic, or my new favourite straight deck boat, Laz' Ocean conversion) - I get a very nice landing. Moving carrier, 8 kts headwind, 20-40% fuel max, full flap, curved approach, no issues. What carrier are you guys using?

Have the tailhook settings been adjusted at all? I'll post mine up later - but I'm pretty sure I didn't alter them ...

DL

[fleurdelys]

OUPSsss...

While going over some references and profiles for the Fury, I realized that I had erred in selecting the top colour of the plane. Another reminder that colour pics and profiles should be approached carefully...

The top colour should be "Extra dark sea grey" whereas the one that I mistakenly selected, based on the profile and picture, is closer to Navy blue. I have consequently reverted to my old favorite colour picker selector (IPMS Stockholm) which gave me the choice that I've used in the update and even another one that some modelers seem to consider as more appropriate for this scheme (wee bit darker).

Sorry for this unfortunate situation. For those who already have the first iteration, just replace the textures with the new ones as the entry remains the same.

Fleurdelys

[Stickshaker]

Well, I already fly really slow, but I'll try a bit harder still. Thanks for the advice.

[CWOJackson]

While I'm positive the new Tempest package will be excellent, this is why I'll wait to see if it ever evolves into the radial version. It's amazing how the different engine changes the aesthetics so dramatically.

[noddy]

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4853/hk2lb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/hk2lb.jpg/)

Lovely job

[DaveQ]

Well, I already fly really slow, but I'll try a bit harder still. Thanks for the advice.Again, thanks for the advice and so will I....!


DaveQ

[fleurdelys]

A little bit of history ...

(Based on Mr.Leo Pettipas, Associate Air Force Historian, Air Force Heritage and
History, 1 Canadian Air Division, Winnipeg, Canada, historical paper).

"On 24 May 1948, 27 Hawker Sea Fury FB 11s were taken on strength by Canada for use
by the Royal Canadian Navy. This was the first of six batches of Sea Furies scheduled
for delivery to the RCN between 1948 and 1953". "One of the aircrafts carried the
serial number TG117; and both in the task that lay ahead of her and in her outward
appearance, she was markedly different from the 26 other machines that formed that
initial batch of Sea Fury 11s acquired by the RCN".

Contrary to the other SF, TG117 was of the pattern 2 finish (top fuselage and wings
were in dark sea grey while fuselage sides, bottom and bottom of wing was of sky
colour). "In Britain, where the colour assignment to the term originated, "Sky"
denoted a very pale shade of green. But contrary to their own specifications, the
Canadians did not intend their aircrafts to be painted green; rather, the light
colour was to be a variation on light grey" to which the term "Sky" referred...
Instead of correcting that error at that point, it was intended to change this colour
to light grey, as intended at first, when the aircrafts would come up for
refurbishing at Avro Canada.

A few days after arriving in Canada, she was flown to the Winter Experimental
Establishment (WEE) at RCAF Station Namao, near Edmonton, in preparation for cold
weather trials. Although meant to be used exclusively on a land base, she still
retained her landing hook at that point.

"As scheduled, TG 117 underwent her first phase of cold weather testing at RCAF
Station Watson Lake, Yukon Territory during the Winter of 1948-49. By that time, a
standard annual routine had been worked out that saw the unit's test aircraft moved
to Watson Lake from Edmonton in late October or November. Except for a two week break
during the Christmas holiday period, the test season ran until about mid-March, at
which time the aircrafts were returned to Edmonton and work began on a detailed
report on the winter's results. The summer was devoted to comparative temperature
tests, training programs, public relations events such as airshows, and getting the
aircraft ready for the upcoming winter season".

"TG117 was a participant in the June 1949 Edmonton Airshow. Her contribution involved
a demanding aerobatic manoeuvre that resulted in pulled rivets in the wheel wells; a
6" wide, 2" high ripple running the full length of the chord on either side of the
cockpit; and wing tips several inches higher than normal due to main spar distortion.
This damage necessitated a visit to the Avro Canada plant at Malton, Ontario which
had been contracted to repair and overhaul the Navy's Sea Furies".

"We can safely assume that the repairs effected in the summer of '49 justified a
repainting of TG117 overall in the Navy's standard two tone grey scheme in place of
the original EDSG/Sky. Black and white photos show that the original EDSG on the
spinner was replaced by a lighter shade, probably a continuation of the light grey
that now covered the fuselage sides and undersurfaces. Since the aircraft was
scheduled to continue functioning as an experimental machine in a winter environment,
the tailplanes and outer mainplanes were once again painted red".

A major change was also made on the positioning of the letters applied to the
fuselage sides (see each rendition for comparison). It is probably also at that point
that the tail hook was removed since it no longer appears on the pictures taken at
the crash scene...

"With the necessary repairs and new finish in place, TG117 was returned to WEE for
her second year ('49-'50) of tests. According to her Record card, she went into "S.R.
from WEE at an undisclosed location on 1 May 1950, and was back on 17 November for
the 50-51 test season. It was during this final phase of her tour, on 30 January
1951, that she was destroyed in a fatal crash at the hands of an RCAF pilot. She was
officially struck off strength on 12 February 1951".

First version as received from Britain...

[fleurdelys]

Second version as refurbished by Avro Canada in 1949...

Both textures will be uploaded shortly.

Fleurdelys

[DaveQ]

Great paints Fleurdelys for a great add-on!!:applause: Just doing fly-by's gives me goose bumps with that incredible sound set!!

I think I've cracked the nose-over problem. For some reason I had a tailhook section in the aircraft.cfg file despite the hook configuration being hard-coded (or so I believe). Took it out and things are much better.

DaveQ

[delta_lima]

Great paints Fleurdelys for a great add-on!!:applause: Just doing fly-by's gives me goose bumps with that incredible sound set!!

I think I've cracked the nose-over problem. For some reason I had a tailhook section in the aircraft.cfg file despite the hook configuration being hard-coded (or so I believe). Took it out and things are much better.

DaveQ

Thanks Dave - and apologies for not writing earlier - I had earlier promised to post the "hook settings" - but when I went to get them, realised they weren't there - and for the very reason you described - and forgot to post that. I believe the stock MS F-18 is similiarly done, as are some native FSX addons.

Now fly the pants off her!

DL

[Flyboy208]

I love this aircraft, and have it in my FSX Hangar. Anything by Flying Stations is a real gem in my opinion. I have read all of the manuals .... I still can't get her to go over 200 KIAS at any altitude. I do not have FSX Acceleration ???? Hmmm .. perhaps an issue for the fine folks at the Flying Stations forums ... Mike :salute:

By the way, excellent repaints Gentlemen!

[SkippyBing]

I love this aircraft, and have it in my FSX Hangar. Anything by Flying Stations is a real gem in my opinion. I have read all of the manuals .... I still can't get her to go over 200 KIAS at any altitude. I do not have FSX Acceleration ???? Hmmm .. perhaps an issue for the fine folks at the Flying Stations forums ... Mike :salute:

By the way, excellent repaints Gentlemen!

Without Acceleration you won't have the supercharger, hence the engine won't produce full power. If you have a look round our forums one of the support threads for the Sea Fury has an alternative aircraft.cfg which substitutes a turbo charger to make it compatible with non-Acceleration FSX.

[Flyboy208]

Thanks very much for the help Skippy ! Mike :ernae:

[alehead]

...
On the real aircraft the flaps could theoretically be left in any position between 0 and 80 degrees, with Up, Take-Off, Max Lift and Down being marked on the selector. The operating procedures in the Pilot's Notes only call for those four positions to be used and as you can't have infinitely adjustable flaps in FSX it seemed the most useful option.

With all due respect, I must disagree... The A2A P47 Thunderbolt has exactly this. Though, it could of course be part of the black magic they call accusim :)

A


Andrew Entwistle

[Stickshaker]

Great paints Fleurdelys for a great add-on!!:applause: Just doing fly-by's gives me goose bumps with that incredible sound set!!

I think I've cracked the nose-over problem. For some reason I had a tailhook section in the aircraft.cfg file despite the hook configuration being hard-coded (or so I believe). Took it out and things are much better.

DaveQ

Only saw this post now. Thanks so much, going to try this out this weekend!

[SkippyBing]

With all due respect, I must disagree... The A2A P47 Thunderbolt has exactly this. Though, it could of course be part of the black magic they call accusim :)

A


Andrew Entwistle
Actually good point I could have done that with SimConnect, but after getting the throttle and supercharger working to spec it didn't occur to me!