Printable View
What can I say - Wow! And Thank You to Aeroplane Heaven!
Here is a little video of my first look at this new aircraft in my hanger.
Again I have not read the manual before starting so I mess things up a bit but I get it sorted (mostly) in the end.
And a great, beautiful little plane she is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXimGEI34Q0
Enjoy!:mixed-smiley-010:
A gift for sure - however, the aircraft.cfg file says this is a GC-1A, but that horsepower and weight are for a GC-1B. The FAA technical certification data sheet A-766 shows a -1A with an 85hp engine and max weight of 1570 lbs. A GC-1B has 125hp and max weight of 1710 lbs.
Nonetheless - a fine piece of work!
That is quite a discrepancy! I have not looked that closely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike71
But I am not one to look a gift horse in the mouth - especially if I notice it is a race horse I am getting when I was told it was an old nag! Ha Ha!!
Not really an issue. The aircraft.cfg file lines replicate a 1B, and the air file seems to replicate 1B performance from what info I can find.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce66
Problem is, when it was designed, manuals were not required so info is informal from pilot reports, etc. No graphical data, and notional opinions on the web are just that. The TCDS has a million different props that can be installed, which is another factor.
In addition the airplane has numerous Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) that approve, as examples, different size wheels (not tundra), some with a steerable tail wheel which all affect takeoff and landing impressions.
Aaah the ye -olde compromise chestnut.
So this is free now but it was a commercial product. as such if you were to buy it for 17.95 ( social media discounted ) and got home and unpacked it and it was a super difficult and slow (ish) plane to fly there would be disappointment. So we felt that goosing the power just a little to make it "funner" than real life was a better option. Most devs I think would take that option. Well at that price point and target market point.
The good news is if you are the type to poke around in the airfiles and cfg files you can bring it back... but I'm just not masochistic enough to do it ! :biggrin-new: Glad you're enjoying the swift.
Many Swifts have since been upgraded to much more powerful engines including re-powering with Continentals and the like. We have retained the original look and feel of the original aeroplane but added more power to simulate the bigger powerplant and later mods. If you want to "down-grade" the performance, go right ahead. You may have to get out and push her uphill....:engel016:
Don't take me wrong - this is a great piece of work, and my comments are not criticism, just some insight into information for those, like myself, who like to dig into the inner details of certain aircraft.
If anyone REALLY wanted to see a hair-pulling exercise, research the Boeing 727-200! More variations in engines, weights, fuel, etc than you can count, so we all have to settle for "the best that can be done".
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepSwift.html
Interesting read on flying a Swift, but upgraded. I have applied AFSD to the model & found HP is about 95 but weights are for a 1B so take off sluggish. Yet to try my adjustments. Initial flight she seems nose heavy, but as reported above the rudder pretty well ineffective! Going to enjoy it though, modelling superb & of a similar era to most of my models. Think quoted speeds in .cfg are the MPH values not knots as supposed to be as stated in the FSX instructions.
Thank you AH
Keith