Conspicuous by Their Absence

[Ivan]

Here are a few screenshots showing:
1. What a Virtual Pilot might see when boarding.
2. The Control Panel along with Instruments intended for an auxiliary Console Panel.
3. The initial view from the Virtual Cockpit.

There really should be a Radio Direction Finder gauge at upper left where the two Engine gauges are.
The Fuel Switch should only have two tanks instead of three.
The trick here is to give the expected CFS functionality without all the clutter of instruments that we have no equivalents for but that are found in the real aircraft.

The view obviously doesn't quite match but hopefully isn't so far off.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Recently I have been going through a few of the Aeroplanes I have downloaded over the years.
There are some truly superb aeroplanes in that bunch.
There are lots of nearly complete garbage.
There are some very nice models with horrible flight models or FS98 flight models.

What is the most frustrating thing to see is when an author is obviously competent at building a clean model....
....but failed to do basic research or is careless in the little things.

Here is what I see fairly often:
1. A technically excellent model with few or no bleeds that is poorly shaped.

2. A very nice model that has a prominent feature in the wrong place. The German inline engines tended to have a single supercharger scoop on one side. The Daimler Benz engines typically had the intake on the Port side. The Junkers engines typically had the intake on the Starboard side.
It isn't difficult to figure out whether an aeroplane has simple flaps or spit flaps. Why go through the bother of giving a model the more difficult simple flaps when the real aeroplane didn't have them???

3. There are also models that look good generally but have parts of their landing gear do some strange thing while retracting.
The best examples are struts that come through the upper wing surface. A quick look while animating will tell you if something silly like that is happening.

Basically this is the unwillingness to spend 5 minutes to save a project that must take at least a couple weeks to do.

Oh well, off my soap box now....
<Rant Mode - Off>

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
It is not always easy to find the right solution for an animation with Aircraft Animator. With the gear strut piercing the wing it is difficult to give it a different turning angle as the angle applies to the whole gear. One has to know how to make it disappear in time to solve this, I suppose. It is often not easy. I´ve had that a few times.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

My expectation is that the initial animation would be done by the author.
If the author runs into a problem with an assembly that won't animate correctly, I can't think of anyone better equipped to address the issue.
All the pieces of the landing gear do NOT have to move about the same axis.

A good example of this is the F4F Wildcat. On my version, there are at least three axes for the Main Gear pieces.
Another example of using two axes is the Dive Brake animation for the P-38s (which I eventually had to remove for resource limits.)

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Yes, the axes can be moved around, but it is the angle that is the same for all parts - defined in the motion range menu, which is the problem.
I couldn´t avoid the wing-piercing animations at the time as I didn´t know enough about AA in order to make parts disappear for a certain portion of their rotation, which would have been necessary there, for example. Another more complicated but possible solution is the secondary hinge as in your P-38 air-brakes. I haven´t got round to correcting and re-uploading the old models.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

It seems to me that we are discussing different aircraft.
None of the subjects I had in mind were done by you.
Not to be too specific, I was really discussing a couple different Macchi fighters, Hayabusas and Focke Wulfs.

It seems that you may have some specific project of yours in mind which I have not yet encountered.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
I know you were discussing the different qualities of aircraft in general, and that you weren´t referring to any of my models, and when you mentioned wing-piercing gear struts I remembered how I couldn´t do any better two or three of my old models. At that time I´d also seen the same problem in several other author´s aircraft, and I remember thinking that it seemed to be quite a common animation glitch.
Only recently I realized Aircraft Animator is a more powerful tool, and can curtail that kind of problem.
I´d say that the authors who left in those glitches in their gear animations didn´t know any better, because as you say, it´s neither a hard nor a long job to do if you know how!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello everyone!
I know "jets are for kids", but perhaps if they have absolutely huge contra-rotating props attached, perhaps they would qualify for adults... so I was wondering if anybody could help me out:
I´m looking for a CFS1 turboprop aircraft to download with an authentic CFS1 .air file, to adapt it to a Tu-95 project I´m thinking of resurrecting after many years. I like it because it was the biggest, fastest and most powerful turboporp ever built, with 8 impressive props. Apparently production started in the early 50´s and continued well into the 80´s.
The only .air files I have found so far are all FS98 ones, but evidently, CFS1 supports turboporp engines, and evidently too, one can´t just put one in unless one has the necessary turbo-prop specific code.
Has anyone seen any anywhere? Thanks a lot in advance!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I have a pretty good idea of how I would build an AIR file for this aeroplane but it would be very non-intuitive.
I believe most of the work would be done via some interesting propeller tables.
What visual model are you going to use? I think this model would be complicated with contra-rotating propellers.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Well, I´m building it... for the moment I have all props as components, with their blur parts rotating the way they should. The rest of the plane still has 2D wings and tail, and then structures as fuselage, and no undercarriage. I also found a really cool turboprop sound for it!
I was under the impression that a specific Turboprop .air file would be necessary... because of the N1 and N2 thing and also the props, but now I´m starting to wonder how it´s going to be...
With 15000 Horsepower and two 19 ft propellers per engine this is such a huge, massive mouthfull that I drool every time I look at it!
Apparently the other day two pairs of these were intercepted by Raptors off the coast of Alaska...
At the moment I´m working on the model a little here and there as a secondary project while the Fledgeling slowly gets finished.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi all, Hi Ivan!
As some of you may have already noticed, my planned Tupolev Tu-95 project comes from what was initially going to be a Tu-114 passenger version, whose fuselage was slimmer and shorter, and sat on the wings so that the whole plane stood noticeably higher. To illustrate the future project I hastily put in the a screenshot of the AFX of the similar Tu-114 Rossiya passenger plane, which was derived from the Tu-95 design.
Other than the fuselage, the rest was the same: Engines, wings and tail all retained the same dimensions and positions, which I found rather astounding when I was re-designing the provisional structures for the new Tu-95 fuselage. I didn´t have to re-position any of the propeller blades or spinners, and the 2D wing and tail templates all stayed in the same positions! I could also rename all the files so as to avoid having to redo the complicated Aircraft Animator counter-rotating prop animation!
The model corresponds to the early 1952 Tu-95 (4x12500 shp) and 1957 Tu-95M (4x15000 shp) versions. These were the only ones without the forward re-fuelling probe and the radar-dome bulge in the front (which came in different shapes later). I think they make the design a bit ugly so it´s just as well that there were planes without them!
The design started in 1951 and the prototype flew in 1592. Subsequent models were built until the 90´s, and apparently 500+ units were produced in total. At present there are 50 in service, envisaged to continue being so until at least 2025, so here we have an alive and kicking grandfather which is one year younger than myself... comparable perhaps to the American B52.
So, the attached screenshot now shows the template-aircraft corresponding to the correct model.
I´m still taking holes out of the Curtiss Wright At-9 Jeep, and as soon as I´m satisfied, I´ll upload it.
Then I´ll jump into this one, which no doubt promises a lot of lovely glue sequence complications, apart from an equally enchanting and difficult .air file for its massively powerful four Kutzenov NK-12M turbo-prop engines with 8 props, which are unique in the aircraft world. Also unique is the huge aircraft itself - the only propeller driven plane with 35 degree swept wings!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan, Hi all!
For the moment, the question is merely theoretical, because it will still be time until the Tu-95 starts taking shape, so there´s no hurry at all with this question.

With FS98 there was no doubt as to using an .air file for turboprops. The obvious choice was a jet engine .air file to avoid loss in power due to altitude, and we´re talking about a ceiling of 38,700 ft.

Here, the applied rule of thumb of 2.5 x Hp = flb thrust, seems to work fine, and for the moment I have an adapted Boeing 707 .air file, with adjusted dimensions and weights, translating the 4 x 15000 hp turboprops as 4 x 37000 flb turbojets.

Now, this being a prop-driven aircraft, and CFS1 providing its wonderful turbocharger option, the obvious choice here is a decent CFS1 prop .air file, but the prize-winning question is: What kind of an engine with turbo- or supercharger would have to be implemented in principle, as a starting point?

Would a 15000 hp supercharged radial engine be fitting, with perhaps 36 cylinders and corresponding cylinder capacity, and direct-drive RPM corresponding to the turboprop´s propeller RPM?

Quite a different matter are the eight 18 ft 4-bladed props in contra-rotating pairs - these will doubtlessly require very curious propeller tables.

Anyway, there´s time for this as yet...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

I can tell you that I honestly have not thought about the Tu-95 all that much.
It is an amazing aircraft with some serious performance and a cruise speed about equal to a Boeing 747.
I don't know much about JET Airfiles... Eeek, Jet?!? Did I actually type that word??? They are just a fad I am sure.

I have ideas on how to build such a thing but a lot of it is just guesses at this point.

A few questions for you:
I know the maximum HP is around 15,000 or so per engine.
How does the power curve change with altitude?
Does it coincide with the maximum speed or not?
How much thrust is due to exhaust thrust and how much due to propeller thrust?

How about a P2V Neptune instead?

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan!
That was another fast reply indeed!
Sorry about talking jet... I should have known better, ha ha!

The biggest radial ever built sees to be the Lycoming XR-7755, 36 cyl. in four nine-cylinder banks delivering 5000 hp max., at 2600 RPM, with 23269 cu. in. displacement in total, but I don´t know the compression ratio.

The Neptune P2V engine is a bit smaller - 3700 shp.
...or did you mean why not build a P2V Neptune?

A theoretical emmulation of ONE 15000 eshp Kutzenov turboprop would be THREE Lycoming XR 7755 engines put together: Either 108 cylinders of 215 cu. in. each,
or 36 cylinders of 646 cu. in. each.

Now for your questions:
1) How does the power curve of this turbojet change with altitude compared to a piston engine?
I´ll have to look that up - I have no idea!!
2) Max. speed was 575 mph or 500 kt., only just under that of the big jet bombers.
3) I´m not sure about the exhaust thrust - maybe 15%

Well actually, on second thoughts, there may really be little point in using a CFS1 .air file - it´s a matter of turbine-driven props, so the FS98 jet .air file does seem more logical after analysing this case.

I wonder... Anyway, there´s time to think about it yet!
Thanks for your comments!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
I just checked out the P2V Neptune, and I thought it would be quite appealing to build, preferably the one without the long tail!
We shall see...
Update: I´ve just been reading about this remarkable aeroplane. It appears to have had one of the longest non-refuelling ranges of the time, and was quite heavily armed for a number of different purposes. I´d be very willing indeed to build a P2V-1 (Truculent Turtle, maybe?) or a P2V-2 - one without the jet-pods, long tail or belly-bulge. Would you agree?
Incidentally, I distinctly remember as a kid I had a Viewmaster, with a National Geographic reel on an expedition to the Arctic or Antarctic, showing several impressive views of a Neptune on skis in silver, white and orange!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
On closer inspection, it appears that even the early -1 and -2 Versions had belly bulges, but smaller than later editions, and that will be OK. Anyway, performance and armament of the early design will probably be quite interesting for CFS1 - not so the Truculent Turtle (not even that one had no bulge), as this long-range record breaker had eliminated all armament and equipment in favour of fuel tanks, so perhaps it wouldn´t be a successful CFS1 model.
Perhaps the increased power of the P2V-2 would make it an eligible candidate for modelling.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Don't worry about lack of armament or lack of it.
Hubbabubba's Messerschmitt 108 doesn't have armament either but seems to be a very successful design.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Well, then there´s hardly any doubt to start off with then, if you agree!
The Truculent Trutle - a P2V-1.
Picture:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...a,_Florida.jpg
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Sorry for the distraction.... I actually don't have a lot of interest in the P2V Neptune either.
I just thought it was a more respectable subject for the simulator than the Tu-95.

Incidentally, the P2V often carried a couple jet engines that were on idle power when flying at low altitude and were used to assist on take-off.....

There are plenty of WW2 twins and multis that have never received a proper chance in CFS but of course we all can choose to build what we want. I don't think folks have done many of the Japanese bombers.
Don't let my choice of what to build prevent you from doing the same subject.

Did you notice that there is a Lockheed 188 Electra AFX available? The Electra was the civilian airliner version of the current P-3 Orion.....

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,

No hurry. Sometimes topics pile up and one needs time to treat them all.

Actually I thought from your suggestion that you did have an interest in the P2V Neptune. No problem if not.
Anyway, a P2V-1 or P2V-2 could be my future project building list, as it was quite a meritorious machine for the time - along with the Constellation and the Electra (Orion) it was a plane that kept Lockheed going for years!
I realise a Neptune would be more fitting for the simulator as it was quite manoueverable and had lots of different armament.

The Tu-95 would be rather a target than a hunter, albeit heavily defended... unless a simmer were to use it for altitude bombing... I´ll see. It´s only because of the spectacular looks and performance that I fancy building this monster. I like the feel of big planes on the simulator too.

Re. Lockheed 188: Yes, I re-worked that some years ago to make a better shaped model. I had the feeling that the typical 188 Electra nose on the FS5 / AF5 model didn´t come across so well and I extensively re-built the whole thing. I still have the new AFX as well.

Shall I see if I can convert my L188 re-build to an Orion for CFS1 and upload it? I would actually quite fancy that.

The turboprops (eeeek!) could actually come across quite well in the FS98 .air file. There are some nice sounds available too. With help from one André Léderer I did some PT6A Turbo-prop FD fine adjustments for a Polair and SAR Tri-Turbo Three and a South-African Turbo-Dakota I´d converted from some excellent DC-3 AFX available from Freeflight Design.

So, how about an Orion? With AWAC radar maybe...?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hi all!
So, the Curtiss Wright AT-9 Jeep is finished, and in 2 versions.
Here are 2 links to the new uploads:
Curtiss Wright AT-9:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=20195
Curtiss Wright AT-9A:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=20194
The models themselves have different file and texture names so as not to cause confusion within the aircraft index. I hope you all enjoy them.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

This is the correct link to the AT-9:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=20195
The edited on on my previous post seems not to work.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

I was just going over the AFX of my 2005 AF99 re-build/upgrade of an AF5 L-188 Electra. Mainly it involved a 12-sided fuselage and more accurately shaped fore-fuselage curves from the side-view and movable control surfaces as well as other modifications that improved bleedthrough problems. The 3D .exe of the earlier flight simulators obviously worked differently, and my extensive re-build in no way implies any negative opinions on the original author´s AFX.

So, I was examining the possible modifications for a P-3 Orion, principally a 7 ft shorter fore-fuselage, less blunt nose, and a 17.2 ft aft-extending MAD boom.

However, as the original AFX had its building centre 12 ft aft and 0.5 ft low, the CoG or AF99 Centre of Rotation had been shifted forward and up, and this will be a headache for a modification, unless of course you would be so good as to shift the CoG forward by 12 ft and up by 0.5 ft with your wonderful CoG shifting programme.

If I were to undertake this project, perhaps I could send you the AFX for a CoG shift?
...Which leads me to the next question, if you think that a P-3 Orion will be a nice thing to produce for CFS1.

Incidentally, parts count is at 148.1% so some degree of intelligent resource-scrounging will probably be necessary!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

As I commented earlier, you certainly do not need my approval to build any project you like.
I personally don't have a lot of interest in the more modern aircraft for Combat Flight Simulator.

I like the older machines from between the wars and through the end of WW2.
In some cases, I don't mind building later aircraft such as a Sea Fury, Bearcat or Spiteful even though it was post-war because they were such good representatives of their types, but that is just MY preference.

If you want me to shift the model's CoG, I can try.
I still don't know what happens when the final assembly moves the pieces around as well as setting the center of rotation.
I was thinking of doing the same thing to a PBY Catalina AFX because I KNOW that one has a bunch of pieces moved around.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I see! Well, my line of thought was that if an aircraft I were to build was one that you also liked, then my asking you questions on building technicalities would be less bothersome and probably more fun too. The Fledgeling seemed to fit in nicely there. Of course, the more modern Tu-95 and P-3 Orion belong more to the Cold War period, and the P2V is basically post war too.

Personally, my general preference for aircraft construction is actually prior to WWII, but a few do attract my attention for their special characteristics, e.g. the size and performance of the Tu-95, and the uniqueness of the Electra/Orion, and once it was even the graceful shape of the Dreamliner.

The problem with the Orion is that the Electra model I´d be basing it on has pieces pushed around, made more complicated by the incomprehensible 12-ft aft centre of contstruction offset. This was already a nightmare when I upgraded it, so that alterations now started becoming an even worse pain this afternoon, so I´d rather give this one a miss!!

Anyway, I´ll see what I can find. Maybe for the ´tween Wars period...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp