Thunderbolt
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Thunderbolt

  1. #1

    Thunderbolt

    Hello All.

    Attached is a fairly major update of my Republic P-47D-27 Thunderbolt that was released a few years ago.
    Since then, the original seems to have disappeared from the libraries.
    The version here has had a few improvements from the last (and possibly only) release but really needs a few more checks and updates before it meets current standards.
    A re-release is in the plans but all the other changes that are needed may take a while.

    The most obvious changes are
    Textured Engine
    Improved shape of the Canopy Frame

    and of course the Alpha Transparent Canopy Glass needed by Aleatorylamp and his friend Udo.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Thunderbolt.jpg  
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    my old copy is on a now defunct hard drive.
    am happy to have this updated version.
    thank you, Ivan.

    am now looking forward to Udo's shiny textures.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  3. #3
    Hello Smilo,

    I believe I might still have a copy of "Smilo's Hammer" on a flash drive somewhere.
    I will send it to you if I find it.
    Just keep in mind that although this is better than what I released years ago, it has a lot of little things wrong with it when compared to the information that I have today.
    It is just a SCASM update of the version that was sitting on my Game Computer because Aleatorylamp and Udo needed one really badly. The updates for CFS would not even show up in FS 98, so I didn't think it would matter to them.

    From what I can tell, the first version was released in 2003 and I did some updates in 2011 and that was probably the last time I touched it.

    From what I have been reading recently about the differences in propellers, there are probably a few things that need reviewed.

    - Ivan.

  4. #4
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,775
    understood...
    i'm still happy to have the visual update
    and will wait for the air file improvements.
    as you said, it's been a long time.
    so long in fact, "smilo's hammer"
    has left my memory banks.
    sorry, i don't remember it.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  5. #5
    Hello Ivan,
    Thank you very much for your efforts, but it still didn´t work.
    The problem persisted, and apparently it is MY fault for not having
    fully examined the FS98 transparency display possibilities.

    What I had reported for the Ju52 Canopy windows was correct. They
    were displaying correctly in FS98 as Smooth Components tagged
    with
    AA´s Alpha Transparency 179.


    However, not in this case - I don´t know why! As soon as the component
    is tagged as Smooth in AF99,
    with or without AA Alpha Transparency 179,
    it shimmers opaquely in FS98
    (although it´s OK in CFS1, of course).

    The only way it works is with a REGULAR Component WITHOUT Alpha Transparency!

    Anyway, with MDLVUE.EXE I saw that the P47D-27 canopy component had 48 parts,
    and I built a similar one with AF99, (it had 50 points), tagging it with all possible
    transparency options, and SCASMed the lot.

    So I easily found the canopy in the SCASM listing, and I found one with 51 points,
    whose position looked OK, and I put in the correct colouring options and turned the
    ShadedPolys to just Polys.

    It worked JUST FINE!! Here are 2 Screenshots taken from the Win98 computer with
    FS98! Absolutely wonderful!


    With reference to what you commented on the other thread, I´ll respect copyright
    (and I´ll write in the line at the beginning of the SCASM code), and tell UDO he can
    get on with the new textures.

    Thank you very much!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails GoodCanopy1.jpg   GoodCanopy2.jpg  

  6. #6
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I am glad you got it working.
    I never would have tried "Regular" Components because they will cause a slight bleed problem through the Canopy Frame.
    With "Sharp" or "Smooth" Components, the inside polygon are not displayed, but they are with Regular which means the inside of the opposite side of the Canopy would show through a few things....
    I can't see it in your screenshots though.

    I also would not have done it because a Regular Component will be visible from inside the Cockpit, but I suspect this is not a great concern with FS 98. At some point, I will probably need to set up FS 98 for better display options as you seem to have done on your machine.

    With all the reviews of Propeller Designs for the Thunderbolt, I am starting to think that the shape of the Asymmetrical propeller on my version could use some improvement. The tips look a little too broad in comparison to the others.
    From further reading, there appear to have actually been 5 different propellers used.
    1. Curtiss Wright Low Activity Factor
    2. Hamilton Standard Paddle Blade
    3. Curtiss Wright Paddle Blade
    4. Curtiss Wright Asymmetrical Blade
    5. Curtiss Wright Paddle Blade with Tapered Propeller Cuffs.

    I don't know yet if the last version was just a change in propeller cuffs or in the entire blade.
    These were apparently fitted to the P-47M and P-47N and I was planning on building a couple of those eventually.
    (I get distracted easily!)

    For what it's worth, there were apparently two different P-47D-28's.
    The Farmingdale version apparently used the Curtiss Paddle Blade propellers while the Evansville version used the Curtiss Asymmetrical Blade Propellers.

    I would like to find a few tech drawings of the blades to do a comparison.

    - Ivan.

  7. #7
    Hello Ivan,
    Yes indeed, I´m glad as well! ...and thanks for the coaching! With your comments
    I was able to search for the right solution! The machine displays perfectly in FS98 now!

    I used the original P47D-27 from the Freeflight Site, because my FS98 won´t
    work with the .bmp textures on the model you included in the previous post.

    It is extremely strange (but also interesting and noteworthy) how many unexpected
    differences and restrictions there are in FS98 display characteristics. They seem to
    be inconsistent and don´t always happen!

    All the different possibilities offered by AF99 and Aircraft Animator for components
    always work perfectly in FCS1, but not so in FS98. Only one always works with this
    model. For others, another combination also works, but only sometimes!

    Anyway, I have written in your name into a Copyright line at the top of the SCASM
    listing, which is present in the Model Directory. I have also used your Readme.txt to
    include a short note relative to my FS98 Cockpit Glass adaptation, and have instructed
    Udo accordingly.

    Well then! As soon as Udo does the new textures, I´ll be very happy to provide them!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  8. #8
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I don't know if you noticed, but I included the R8 .?AF files in the texture directory of ZIP file attached here.
    I don't think the simulator cares what the files are actually called, so if you rename the .?AF files to their equivalent BMP names, it should have worked just fine.
    Alternatively, a trip through a Hex Editor would have cured the problem with File Naming if you absolutely wanted to have them in the typical PITA FS 98 naming convention.
    The CFS model doesn't need those files, but I thought you might be able to use them.
    The model attached here is better than what is on the FreeFlight site, but it is your choice which to use. Neither one is perfect.

    My approach to finding the Canopy for reworking in SCASM was a much lower tech approach than yours.
    The Windscreen / Fixed glass sections at the front look a bit strange in your screenshots.
    There should be no differences between that and the glass in the sliding section because all of those pieces are the same Component.

    I guess with all this attention and review, the Thunderbolts will get a rework and possibly a couple brothers and maybe a even a brother that could have been.

    Many years ago, someone asked for a P-47D-30.
    The earlier P-47B would help us use up the supply of early Curtiss Electric propellers....
    I was already thinking of a P-47N and the Hotrod P-47M.
    I have always liked the look of the XP-47J that never made it to production.
    It reminds me very much of the Mitsubishi J2M Thunderbolt.

    - Ivan.

  9. #9
    Hello Ivan,

    OK, very good! I´ll go over the steps you mention so as to get the
    model you posted yesterday to work perfectly too!

    For one, it has the cylinder texture on the engine, and then, I noticed
    the difference with the windshield transparency that you say.

    I´ll let you know how it goes with the SCASM correction to turn the
    ShadedPolys to just Polys.

    Update:
    OK, I found the Canopy Code - it had a few more points, and I only had
    to change the
    Shadedpolys to Polys. The canopy is fine now on the new
    model, and the windscreen
    is the same shade as the rest of the canopy!
    Now I just have to sort out the Textures.

    Let´s see! Thanks a lot again!

    Update 2:
    I renamed all the instances of the bitmap textures in the SCASM code
    to .Xaf
    textures, and also renamed all the .bmp textures to .Xaf ones,
    with the same
    numbering (because the textures on the older model are
    numbered differently),
    but unfortunately the texture spread is all wrong,
    and that´s something I´m afraid can´t fix
    from my end.

    Anyway, I corrected the colour shading on the aft canopy of the older
    model. Now there´s no difference with
    the windscreen, so at least that
    one´s fixed. Here I have did two tries: The normal more milky white shading
    and a softer one, which I think I prefer. as the pilot is more clearly visible.

    I´m very satisfied how this model has turned out, even if it is the older one,
    and I don´t want to bother you with any further texture spread fixing on the
    newer one, so I think we can leave it be now!

    Thank you very much for your consideration and help!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails softer uniform shading.jpg   uniform shading.jpg  
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; April 11th, 2018 at 16:20.

  10. #10
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    The numbering of the .?AF files has always annoyed me.
    It is pretty much unpredictable. I believe it comes from the order the textures are used in the model.

    What I have chosen to do is to name the BMP files in the same order as I did the PCX files so that finding them is easier.
    Converting them to the .?AF files would have been easy.
    Find ...0.BMP - This is usually the Pilot.
    rename it to ....0.R8
    or
    rename it to ....something.0AF

    Do this about 10 more times and that should be about it.
    I do something pretty similar the first time I edit the SCASM code for a MDL.
    With Find / Replace in a Text editor, it should take under 5 minutes.

    Are there any good FS 98 Thunderbolts out there?

    - Ivan.

  11. #11

    New model working well!

    Hello Ivan,
    Regarding FS98 Thunderbolts out there, I have only found one at Simviation
    with octagonal fuselage cross-section and rather triangular, non-transparent
    canopy. I suppose it is an FS5 style model. Then there´s a CFS1 camo RAF
    model with uninhabited transparent canopy, but rather angular cross-section
    fuselage. Probably an early FS98 model.

    Well, back to business: I had done it and got the numbering ordered correctly
    alright, but
    renaming the bitmap files to .Xaf files didn´t cure the spread.

    However, following your comments just now with a bit of lateral thinking,
    I decided to re-convert the .Xaf ex-bitmap files into real .Xaf texture files,
    with the same names, and it worked perfectly!!

    See attached screenshot. It IS an impressive looking model indeed!
    It has a real "no messing about" look to it, doesn´t it?


    Now the only thing to take into account is to watch out that one doesn´t
    load the new model into FS98 right after the old one: It has identical texture
    names, and will mess up the textures because it uses the ones from the
    previously loaded model
    . It needs to have a different model loaded in-between,
    to avoid
    this extra idiotic FS98 glitch!!

    WOW! So now I have two... I think I prefer the new one with the textured engines,
    so I´ll send it to Udo as well.

    Thank you for your prolongued help. I hope it has not been too much of a bother!

    I bet Smilo will be glad! As soon as I get the new "Dottie Mae" textures from Udo,
    we´ll have to decide on
    how to go about it for the release of the CFS1 version,
    but there´s time for that.


    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Screenshot.jpg  
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; April 12th, 2018 at 00:55.

  12. #12
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I am not sure if you figured this out, but the earlier Thunderbolt ALSO has a textured Engine.
    I just never put in a detailed texture at the time.

    At least one person out there figured out that the Engine face was actually a textured Part and created a set of textures for it based on a photograph. I did my own version a few years later.

    I am telling you this because all you really need to do is to copy the relevant section of the texture image from the new P47D27 to the old aeroplane and everything should display correctly. I don't believe I altered the texture mapping between them.
    As I was hinting at earlier, the texture mapping on this model seems to work pretty well, so unless there is some radical change, I do not expect to change it. Thus, if a texture set works on one model, it will work on all of them back to the version from 2003.
    (I may try to sneak in the mapping for the interior Canopy Frame if there is room in the existing files though.)

    The Thunderbolt was quite sturdy.
    Sometimes it was silly how strong they made things.
    As an example, on most aeroplanes, the landing gear cannot be lowered above about 120 MPH because aerodynamic loads may damage it. On the Thunderbolt, the limit is more like 250 MPH.

    Post some screenshots of the other Thunderbolts if you have them. I am curious what the competition is.
    I know there is a pretty well made version of the Razorback Thunderbolt out there but it does not load on my Game machine at all. Presumably the model is too complex. I like mine better but that is mostly because it is mine.

    - Ivan.

  13. #13
    Hello Ivan,
    I like your models more too. All the existing ones are more primitive, being built some years ago.

    I don´t know about the other razorback models. I can´t get into Flightsim, who usually have lots of stuff, so there may be more there. However, probably it will be the same as with the bubbletops.

    To be more detailed for these: Unanimated propellers, some with only circles, dirty-looking used, stained textures (there was a fashion at the time, so as not to make them pristine factory-new), and debatable .air files. One even had 4000 Hp...

    I had found two old P47d´s, and didn´t like any of them, so I deleted them. If you still
    want screenshots, I´d have to download them again. I got both at Simaviation, the FS98
    one and the CFS1 one.


    I had trouble adapting the CFS1 .air file to FS98, so I used the 4000 Hp one, putting in all the text files that yours had, and altering the MOI´s a bit, as well as toning it down to 2300 Hp.
    At the moment it is giving me a maximum 420 mph at about 1000 ft. I suppose this would be a bit much, because it should be the performance for about 20000 ft, I suppose. And, taking into account that FS98 won´t accept superchargers, higher up it will go down.

    Of course, I did notice the black oval of the front-interior looking at the texture bitmaps - and it would have been a piece of cake, of course, to slip in the piston textures you had on the new version.

    I saw that the recently posted new version has been updated because the name of the -zip file his a different number, the hour on the .mdl files differ. Anyway, I used the first posted one which ended up displaying very well. I like the sturdy looking design! It seems to have been the heaviest fighter around.

    So, now the question is: Which one shal I tell Udo to use?
    The older model I got displaying properly, or the newer one I also got going well?
    Personally, apart from the different engine texture, I really can´t tell the difference.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  14. #14
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    Actually my Thunderbolts are pretty old too. I probably did the Razorback version first and then the Bubbletop.
    The first was done in late 2003 and other than SCASM stuff and minor detail such as the engine texture, BMP textures and such, it hasn't really been changed to any great extent.

    The only real visible difference I can remember is the Canopy Frame by the Pilot' Shoulder.
    It is way too low on the first version and the shape isn't quite right. I don't know that it is correct even now, but it is better.

    I don't know much about adapting a CFS flight model to FS 98.
    I suspect there are a lot of things that won't translate well because I don't believe the two simulators handle Stability and Engine Torque in quite the same way. You obviously already know about the lack of Superchargers.
    Note that P-47 that are flying today generally do not have the Turbocharger operational, so you would really be dealing with a Single Stage supercharger anyway and would not be hitting the typical 430 MPH at around 30,000 feet if it had the "Auxiliary" blower working.

    On a non-release archive, I put the date it was created as part of the file name.
    The MDL differs because I had to SCASM it to put in the Alpha Transparency feature you were looking for.

    When I download stuff, I generally store the ZIP files as they came.
    When I find that an aeroplane isn't quite what I want to keep using, I don't actually delete it.
    I just change the name of "AIRCRAFT.CFG" file to "AIRCRAFT.Disabled". and leave it in place.
    There are occasions in which I may want to look at it again and most of them don't take much space.

    I wanted to do a comparison between the Me 109E TROP that I edited and some of the other versions that were based on Richard Osborne's AFX a while back and that is when I re-enabled the fidgety 109E that I posted in a screenshot.
    I was actually looking at the model to see if the "Original" had as many bleeds and weirdness on the underside as I remembered.

    If a MDL is generally pretty good but for one or two really goofy features, it is quite possible to go in and replace the objectionable piece as you just did for the P-47D-27. That is what I did on a few MDLs as practice in moving around in SCASM code. I figure this isn't breaking anyone's copyright as long as the result is not publicly distributed.

    I do find this shimmering effect on the Canopy in FS 98 quite puzzling.
    Note that the Propeller Blurs also have the equivalent of "Alpha Transparency" and do not show a shimmering effect.

    - Ivan.

  15. #15

    The competition...

    Hello Ivan,
    Here are the screenshots of three old P47D´s I found again.
    Quite OK for the time they were made, I suppose.
    BTW, the first one should read "4000 Hp", not "400", and the last
    one has an .air file for fun - it´ll take off in 2 seconds!

    Re. FS98 Shimmering effect:
    ---------------------------
    Actually, the shimmering is caused by a smooth component.
    Sometimes it can be eliminated by applying Alpha Transparency,
    but not always, as in this case.

    So Transparent components for FS98 (not so CFS1) must always
    be defined as regular, and then can have Alpha transparency, which
    gives a softer shading, like on the newer model you posted.

    Without Alpha Transparency, the Transparent colour 1D 68 is a bit milkier
    than 15 68, which is softer, but Alpha Transparency is the nicest. Thus,
    I think I´ll settle for your newer P47D-27 model.

    Regarding Propeller blurs, they don´t shimmer because they aren´t defined
    as Smooth Components.

    Interestingly enough, the Official Original AF99 Manual Booklet mentions
    specifically that if a Structure in AF99 is given an "x" Colour (Transparent),
    it shimmers, and that the effect that can be used on canopies!

    Then, it also expressedly says that in order to give a component a surface like
    a structure, it has to be defined as smooth - deduction: It shimmers too if defined
    as transparent!


    Strangely enough, structures can be made transparent with Alpha
    Transparency 179 with no shimmering!

    So, that´s my dissertation on the shimmering!! Now I need another cup of tea...
    or maybe better a nice black beer!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails P47D-1.jpg   P47D-2.jpg   P47D-3.jpg  
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; April 12th, 2018 at 11:50.
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  16. #16

    Old Thunderboilts

    Hello Smilo, Aleatorylamp,,

    I did a little poking around for a copy of "Smilo's Hammer" but didn't find it yet.
    I found a lot of other stuff but there are a lot of old flash drives floating around.
    I also tried to check my old email for an attachment but instead I found a message from the AAC fellow who repainted one of my P-47's to get Smilo's Hammer.

    One of the big surprises was that Smilo's Hammer wasn't a Bubbletop. It was the Razorback D-23 version.
    Apparently this was available for download from AAC, so other folks may also have it.
    This email exchange dated back to 2007, so I suppose it is rather hopeless to contact the author.
    I will keep looking but it would also help to know what the name of the archive is.
    So far, all I have to go on is that it carries the name "Smilo's Hammer" probably where the "Anna Honey" marking was originally.

    I found another old Thunderbolt that I thought looked fairly good.
    It does have a few bleeds though and the model takes a very long time to load on my old Development Computer. I thought my Thunderbolts were heavy for visual resources, but this one is heavier.
    I have not yet tried to check out the flight model for quality but I do have certain expectations because of the author.

    This check was after a fairly long session last night in preparation for a Propeller Construction Tutorial.
    Is there any actual audience for such a tutorial?

    One of the things I came across with attempting to rework the Propeller and associated pieces for a Hamilton Standard Hydromatic Propeller was the need to remap the Propeller Hub and Fairing because they were too close to one of the Underwing Pylons. That will probably also carry over to the Curtiss Electric versions as well because it allows more flexibility in textures.
    I need to check whether it works across all versions of my P-47's before proceeding.
    The idea is to have textures that vary as little as possible across different models.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Zombie1.jpg   Zombie2.jpg  

  17. #17
    Hello Ivan,

    Nice looking textures and transparent cockpit on the example you found.
    I don´t know how long Udo will take for the Metallized "Dotie Mae" textures,
    as he´s been very busy lately, but sooner or later, he´ll do it.

    Regarding your Propeller Tutorial: Yes! I´d personally be very interested!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  18. #18
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I believe you already have the Propeller Building issue managed. I was just wondering if there was anyone else who might be interested.
    One of the side effects of collecting screenshots is that I now have a plausible though not quite optimal H-S Propeller for a P-47D-25.
    The problem though is that I had to relocate a texture because there the H-S Propeller Hub is wider than the C-E Hub and although it doesn't interfere with the textures for a Bubbletop, it WILL interfere with textures for a Razorback.

    Back in 2003 when I first built this project, future project considerations just were not there.
    The idea of having a series of different variations on the basic Thunderbolt did not really come up.
    What I am thinking about now is building quite a few variations such as:
    The P-47D-30 which would need space for a Fin Fillet.
    The P-47N which would need space for different Wings.
    The XP-47J which would need more room in the texture files for a Spinner

    In addition, one of the updates will be an Internal Canopy Frame which needs room in the texture files as well.
    The basic idea is to figure out a way to have just minimal changes between texture mappings between the different versions.
    I went through the same exercise with the P-40 Hawk 87 series a few years ago and came up with a fairly workable solution.

    - Ivan.

  19. #19
    This is what the Hamilton Standard "Paddle Blade" Propeller looks like.
    This is actually the second attempt. The first attempt was based off dimensions scaled from a photograph.

    The actual diameter of the Propeller is 13 feet 1 7/8 inches.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails P47D25_Propeller.jpg  

  20. #20
    Hello Ivan,
    I wonder whether the broad blades with straight edges actually
    transferred more engine power, or it was rather more a cheaper
    propeller-construction method.
    They certainly look less delicate and more imposing!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  21. #21
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    History tells us that overall, the higher activity factor "Paddle Blade" Propellers improved relative performance at least from the Pilot's point of view. That sounds like a qualified statement and it is because a full discussion of what the differences were would take a LONG time.
    Consider how one would go about simulating the differences accurately with the CFS Propeller Tables and you will get an idea.

    Only the Hamilton Standard Hydromatic Propellers had relatively straight leading and trailing edges and those really were not nearly as straight as it would appear from a distance. Compare the pictures attached. Note that there is also a twist along the length of the blade that I do not model at all.
    This is one of those cases when I had to choose between following what I could find as the blade planform or making it look correct from different angles.

    The prior screenshot was version 1. This screenshot is version 3.
    I believe that version 2 is actually closer to correct dimensions but just didn't look quite as nice without the twist that is in the real blade.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Photo_Compare1.jpg   Photo_Compare3.jpg  

  22. #22

    Reality Check

    Tonight I decided to do a few checks to see why the Thunderbolts all look just a bit off to me.
    First was a check against overall dimensions.

    The references don't seem to agree too much in detail:
    Wing Span is sometimes listed as
    40 feet 9 inches,
    40 feet 9.25 inches, or
    40 feet 9 5/16 inch.

    The last number comes from a 3 view drawing from Republic and I am most inclined to trust it.

    Length is usually listed as
    36 feet 1 inch, or
    36 feet 1.75 inch.

    however, the Pilots' Manual lists it as 35 feet 7 inches.

    In Aircraft Factory 99 I checked the Wing Span and Overall Length and got
    Wing Tips at +- 20.39 feet, so Wing Span is 40.78 feet.
    Nose is at +11.97 feet and Tail is at 24.17 feet for an Overall Length of 36.14 feet.

    40 feet 9 5/16 inch works out to be 40.8021 feet so Wing Tips should be +- 20.40 feet.
    Not much difference, but this means that I probably used a reference that stated Wing Span was 40 feet 9.25 inch or 40.7708 feet.

    Length of 36 feet 1.75 inch would work out to be 36.1458 feet which is pretty cloe.

    Next, I decided to overlay my model's Wire Frame over a P-47D-40 profile from the Detail & Scale book.
    In comparison (The Wire Frame is in Red), the Longitudinal match is pretty good, but the D&S image is noticeably thicker from top to bottom. I wonder if this is worth fixing?
    A correction would mean rebuilding the entire Fuselage which does not look like much fun.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails WireOverlay.jpg  

  23. #23
    Hello Ivan,
    Differences between specifications quoted by different sources are very
    annoying, as one never knows if a different variant of the same model
    did have different dimensions or not.

    Then, it can be worse with drawings. It always amazes me how inaccurate
    some artists can be, even if their work is found on reputed internet pages.

    Usually the differences are very small and do not not warrant a rebuild, for
    example in this case, the entire fuselage - I´d say it´s just too much work!

    In the case of your posted drawing: How reliable is it? It also has a fin

    extension leading to the cockpit, which is perhaps quite unusual.

    Another thing to take into account on photos, is the camera distance-setting
    with which the plane was photographed. Wide-angle or tele-objectives, I find
    can often distort the image enough to cause differences in appreciation on some
    dimensions. Setting for closer-taken photos make things look bigger and fatter.

    Lighting can also have some influence. In the case of the comparing photo and
    screenshot you posted,
    perhaps this Thunderbolt looks a bit fatter because of the
    extended flaps,
    that combines with the strong shadow on the fuselage undersurface.
    Taking
    that into account, I can´t see any difference between the two.

    Anyway, at the end it depends on one´s personal preferences, and the
    patience on can have with repeated corrections, which may or may not even be
    necessary on a build.

    Cheers,

    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  24. #24
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    The dimensional differences appear to be mostly an issue of rounding.
    There is also the possibility that the Length was taken with the Fuselage level in one case and at a three point attitude (12 degree inclined) for another dimension.
    The Length while sitting on its wheels is not useful to a modeler, but might be very useful for someone who is trying to determine how much space is necessary to park the aeroplane.

    Considering how closely the longitudinal dimensions match, I am pretty sure I had some kind of reference drawing, but I am also pretty sure there was some element of eyeball measurements which is why there are so many discrepancies. There is also the possibility that the drawing that I was using as a reference was just not good, but I have not yet located the book where I believe the drawing originally came from.
    I also know that sometime there are issues with the Detail & Scale drawings, but I am pretty sure they are closer to the real thing than my model is.

    I have a lot more reference data now than I did back in 2003. The next step is to check dimensions against the Station Diagram attached below.

    Another item worth mentioning is that the Hamilton Standard Propeller Hub is noted as being shorter than the Curtiss Electric Hub though I have not found a source that lists the exact difference. I am finding both 36 feet 1 inch and 1.75 inch as pretty common measurements for overall length and will interpret the difference as due to the difference in Propellers.

    Regarding the Fin Fillet extension to the rear of the Canopy:
    The loss of keel area from going to a razor back to bubble top resulted in some loss of directional stability.
    This was addressed in the last of the D series (D-40) by adding a Fin Fillet.
    This Fillet was often retro fitted to earlier Thunderbolts just as Propellers were.
    The Fin Fillet was changed in shape with the M and N series Thunderbolts.

    Some sources also list the M and N as being about 2-3 inches longer and some do not, so that will need to be resolved if those models are to be huilt.

    Although the shape is a bit incorrect, it isn't too far off and is a pretty clean build, so I will most likely just continue with the series without major modification to the Fuselage.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails StationDiagram.jpg  

  25. #25
    Hello Ivan,
    Interesting information, indeed!
    Station diagram are not easy to come by, and would obviously be more reliable.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

Members who have read this thread: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •