If I remember correctly, don't you have a float plane in your collection? Maybe you can dig it up.
Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com
If I remember correctly, don't you have a float plane in your collection? Maybe you can dig it up.
Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com
This one by any chance ???????
Hi No Dice,
If that question was addressed to me, I have never BUILT a float plane or flying boat though I have worked on a few. Mostly I have been working on flight models for them. A Kawanishi H8K Emily is on my build list, but not very high in the list of priorities.
- Ivan.
Problem is, I have the plane but the airfile is terrible, Hubbabubba pointed me to a replacement airfile but its not much better, Have you been able to fix it? I am big into floaters, bush planes and seabases in my scenery.Originally Posted by Seagull V
This one by any chance ???????
Dave
www.thefreeflightsite.com
Are you sure you have downloaded the proper airfile? It is the Fairey Seafox. I had no problem flying with it. It's no Extra 300, but it flies reasonably well and will T/O within a thousand feet.
FS98 - FS98 Aircraft FS98 EYA Air File For Fairey Seafox
[ Download | View ]
Name: eyaseafx.zip Size: 36,774 Date: 04-13-2004 Downloads: 120
FS98 EYA Air File For Fairey Seafox. EYA (Enjoy Your Aircraft) .air file for Fairey Seafox floatpane, in production from 1936 to 1938, FS98 model by Bob Wening (SF1.ZIP) ready to be moved into the FS98 aircraft. Well balanced flight dynamics for smooth and exact controlling with a force-feedback joystick allowing manual coordination in turns. By Christoph Ruhtenberg.
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Thanks for the links Hubbabubba,
I can't remember my password out there, so I won't be downloading it. If this thing is repainted, it could pass for a Douglas World Cruiser.
- Ivan.
Here is the current Project. The way I am building it is too much for a single AF99 Assembly, so it will have to be a SCASM aircraft. At the moment, the component count is 26 but 12 are due to considerations for moving parts. It looked more complicated than the B-25C, but for resource count, it is actually MUCH less because there aren't any turrets, anhedral on the wings, transparent blisters, etc. The shape is incredibly complicated though.
Need to take a break to figure out how to complete this thing.
- Ivan.
Didn't you said not so long ago that you had found the login password?
Apparently, easy comes, easy goes!
The aircraft, you can find at Simviation HERE, the corrective AIR file; Attachment 24916
Smilo will certainly like your flying pencil. You're experienced enough to know that, in CFS1, "easy project" is an oxymoron?
BTW smilo, your "archives" sticky as outlived its usefulness. All your links are dead or pointing to the new "Warbird's archives".
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Hi Hubbabubba,
I downloaded the aircraft but haven't done anything with it yet. I will try it out tonight. Thanks.
As for easy CFS1 projects, I believe it is possible. The AIR file for this Dornier wasn't hard except that I am also using it to experiment with a few ideas that are more educational to me rather than necessary for the aircraft. The assembly of the Dornier is relatively easy. It is the complex shapes and cross sections that makes this plane hard.
My intended next project was the J2M Raiden and that aircraft has no complex shapes that I can recall. I don't know about the flight model though. That is a chance thing. Some need a lot of tuning, some do not.
- Ivan.
Hello Hubbabubba,
I finally did a quick check of the Fairey Seafox first with its original AIR file and then with the replacement. The original is pretty poor and nearly unflyable. The replacement is better, but still has some serious issues:
1. It is a float plane but can't take off from water.
2. It doesn't have enough rudder authority to fly a level turn; The nose keeps going high.
3. The roll stability or damping is way too high to the point of eliminating any dihedral effect.
There are also bleeds in lots of places with the worst being of the float through the nose from above.
- Ivan.
Привет! Ivan,
I'm a bit surprised as I had no difficulty to T/O on water. Maybe we're using different classlist "grounds"?
Level turns are slow but feasible. It probably depends on what you consider a "level turn".
It is certainly not an aerobatic a/c, but it flies! Remember that the replacement AIR file was addressing the "feedback" shaker controls, but was still a FS98 file. Granted, the AIR file is not great, just good enough.
BTW, as a matter of coincidence, I fell on these pages at FLIGHT archives recently;
HERE and HERE. At the same period, all major European nations were contemplating the creation of "navy fighters" that would be equipped with floaters! What were they thinking?:isadizzy:
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Hi Hubbabubba,
The Sea Fox even with floats takes off from a runway. It does not even start moving on the water at least not on my CFS installation. There IS rudder control, but just not quite enough. I was also flying about a 45 degree bank during the turn. Now considering the direction that nose went, it seems like the center of pressure is also in front of the CoG.
As for floatplane fighters, the Japanese produced a few such as the A6M2-N "Rufe" and the N1K "Rex". Their rationale was that there were only 4 fleet carriers at the time and they would not be available to provide air support on remote islands. The carriers would be required for the principal military operation. The Japanese never were able to build island airfields all that well, so floatplanes supported by seaplane tenders (of which they had a few) would do until airfields could be (slowly) constructed.
Interestingly, the A6M2-N didn't lose too much in maneuverability but top speed was only about 300 mph or about 35-40 mph below that of the A6M2 carrier fighter. Naval fighters of the time were really not much better. The Blackburn Skua and Roc come to mind.
- Ivan.
Hello Ivan,
I'm pretty much convinced that your classlist.bgl is different than mine. Try this one; Attachment 25979
Here is proof that it can t/o from water;
Attachment 25980It was done in front of Ripe, one hand on the stick, the other on the keyboard taking pictures. Take-off speed is reached around 60 knots.
Concerning fighters with floats, it's a bit like a ballerina with snowshoes...
They are only up to it as long as no land-borne fighters are around. The Fleet Air Arm Swordfish attacking the Bismark would have been wiped-out if a schwarm of 109 had been around.
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
The Graf Zeppelin never got finished, so your Schwarm of Hundert Neuns would have had a hard time getting to where the Bismarck fought her last fight. Even land based bombers could not make it. The 109 would never have made a good shipboard fighter. It didn't have the range and endurance at the time and never did for any version that was built. It also apparently didn't have the nice low speed handling that is needed for deck landings. Consider how many landing accidents happened even on regular air strips.
The Convair Sea Dart might have been competitive.... Actually one on one, I believe a A6M2-N would have given a F4F Wildcat a pretty good fight. My pick would be the Rufe over the Wildcat.
I have been able to use other flying boats in my CFS installation. I worked on a Dornier 18 a while back. I have also flown plenty of Catalinas as sea planes. I will test again. I believe I did the minimum modification to my classlist so that water was landable. I don't want to change any more than I need to.
- Ivan.
Actually, the only change is to water tiles surfaces. Your own modified classlist.bgl is probably using "bumpy grass" surface. Mine is using "concrete", that's all. The problem with "bumpy grass" is that it increases friction, hence the difference in t/o ability.I don't want to change any more than I need to.
My point was that, facing "real" fighters, navy varieties (USN, IJN or FAA) were at a serious disadvantage, especially early in the war. Incidentally, you are probably aware that a "T" (for traeger = carrier) version of the Bf 109 was build, incorporating longer foldable wings? They were deployed on short runways in the Frieseland archipelago and performed remarkably well.
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
I use the SeaFox in CFS2, it is definately "sluggish" and I have been considering looking at the airfile when I get time. Performance figures from "Aircraft Archive - Classics of World War Two" give the following:-
Weights:- Empty - 3805 lb / 1726 kg, Loaded - 5420 lb / 2458 kg, Max Catapult - 5650lb / 2562 kg
Powerplant:- One Napier Rapier VI sixteen-cylinder, H type, air cooled engine rated at 395 hp
Performance:- Max Speed - 124 mph / 199.6 km/h, Initial climb rate - 420 ft/min / 130m/min,
Service ceiling - 9700 ft / 2950 m, Range - 440 miles / 710 km
In comparison, the de havilland DH-9 of WW1 vintage had a Max speed of 116 mph / 187 km/h.
Weight empty 2193 lb / 995 kg.
The SeaFox also has 2 large floats to assist all that wire bracing in providing additional air resistance.
The Seafox was slow and clumsy but, during the River Plate battle, it was the only aircraft aloft, making it the best aircraft around!
Had the Graf Spee been able to launch its own observation plane, the pocket battleship may have sailed to nearby Argentina coast where it would have received a more amicable reception.
I wonder what an Arado Ar 196 versus a Fairey Seafox air combat would have looked like...
My money on the Arado.
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
There is a fair amount of evidence that the Graf Spee could NOT have sailed a whole lot further without some serious mechanical overhaul which is one of the reasons her captain chose to scuttle her. He wasn't going home regardless of whether he could win the second surface battle. It wasn't battle damage that finished her. It was mechanical unreliability of her large diesels. BTW, her Arado seaplanes were casualties of the first gun battle and could not disprove the British claims that there was a larger surface fleet outside Montevideo.
- Ivan.
Diesel engines were fine and running at their full regime. It is the raw fuel filtration system that was damaged beyond sea repairs. With 16 hours of diesel fuel, captain Langsdorff could have reached the Argentinian side of the River Plate, but he was convinced that a larger British force was waiting for him beyond the horizon. Had the Ar 196 been launched before the aircraft was damaged, he would have known that only two light cruisers were in pursuit, the HMS Exeter out of battle order.
This is a lot of "if", "but" and "maybe". But the fact is that Langsdorff taught he was engaging the Exeter and two destroyers probably escorting a convoy. A simple reconnaissance flight would have changed all that.
On that;
A Merry Christmas to all
and to all
Peace on Earth
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Yes, Merry Christmas Everyone!!
The Exeter was done and was headed to the Falklands, but by the time Graf Spee was due to leave, a heavier unit (I believe it was a County Class Heavy Cruiser called HMS Cumberland) was there to replace Exeter. I don't believe Graf Spee could have beaten a fresh CA and two CLs and still have been in a condition to sail anywhere. I still think it was his obligation to make a fight of it even though it would have been a losing one.
The reasons I believe Graf Spee would have lost are the following:
All of the British units were faster. Graf Spee could not run.
The Cumberland was almost as big as Graf Spee and had 4x2 x 8 inch guns (Two more guns than Exeter). I believe County class were about 9800 tons standard and Graf Spee was about 12,000 tons standard.
Graf Spee didn't have any heavier armour than a typical Heavy Cruiser, so any of the cruisers could hurt her.
The big bluff was that Langsdorf was convinced that a Battlecruiser (I think it was HMS Renown) was also around and that was definitely not the case. If that were the case, Graf Spee would have stood NO Chance whatsoever.
- Ivan.
This project is being done a little differently because of all the wacky shapes. Because the shapes kept needing to get changed to fit together properly, I figured it would make more sense to just show the reference parts and templates until everything was final. (No, it is not even close to final yet.)
- Ivan.
very nice...smilo is happy boy!
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hi Ivan,
Your Dorniers looks a lot like mesh terrain before texturing. Do you do that often?
Hi smilo,
I think Ivan has awaken the child in you, not that he was much asleep...
Concerning the Graf Spee, I read KM Admiral Graf Spee / Pocket Battleship 1932-1939 (Kapitän zur See Gerhard Bidlinmaier, (Ret'd) Profile Warship 4) while digesting Christmas Eve's supper. Very instructive.
The Ar 196;
It was the first production aircraft from Arado and, like all first-production, it was plagued with teething troubles. Although having provision for two aircraft, the Graf Spee only carried one. The first engine developed cracks in the cylinder-block on 7 October and had to be replaced by the spare. That engine also developed cracks on 24 October and the flying personnel made a makeshift repair with metallic sealing compound, strapping the cylinders with a steel band. On 2 December, the Ar 196 had to make a rough sea landing, but was recuperated just before capsizing. But on 11 December, the engine finally broke down at the end of its last sortie and. after salvaging useful equipment, it was jettisoned. Two days later, the River Plate battle was to start.
The KM Admiral Graf Spee;
The ship had six 28 cm (±11 in) guns housed in two turrets 3 by 3 fore and astern. Secondary armament was made of eight 15 cm (±6 in) housed in individual turrets, four on each side. Six 105 mm and six 37mm guns (originally eight, but two were transferred to the Altmark) were there for anti-aircraft protection.
Langsdorff was convinced that it could out gun anything the Admiralty could bring him, except the Renown.
The HMS Exeter;
Six 8 in guns in three twin guns turrets, two fore, one astern, as main armament. Secondary armament(also used as AA) consisted of eight QF 4 in guns in four twin turrets. Anti-aircraft weapons were two 20 mm Oerlikon single gun mounted aft and fore on the main turrets and two quad turrets with QF 2 pounders "pom-pom".
The HMS Ajax and HMNZS Achilles;
Main guns; eight 6 in guns in four twin turrets, two fore, two astern. Secondary-AA; 4 QF 4 in in single turrets and 12 QF 0.5 in Vickers in quad turrets.
Langsdorff was right in his appreciation; his secondary armament was equal to the main armament of the Ajax or the Achilles, although it could only point half of his secondary guns in a broadside attack.
His main guns were far superior to those of the Exeter, not only in caliber but also in range and precision. It registered 11 hits against only 2, transforming the Exeter in a very large pontoon.
Had the two other ships been, as he taught at first, escort destroyers, the matter would have been settled short n' sweet.
With 16 hours of diesel and 40 minutes of main guns ammunition, the Graf Spee could have turned for the Argentinian coast rather than Montevideo. The HMS Cumberland would only arrive on the night of 14/15 December.
While Uruguay was leaning towards the British, Argentine was showing signs of pro-Germany feelings.
With a reconnaissance aircraft, Langsdorff could have made better choices.
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Hi Hubbabubba,
There seem to be quite a few subjects raised. Hope I can remember to cover everything.
The Framework view of the Dornier 17Z is mostly for Smilo's benefit. From inside AF99, I can see most of these relationships without having to bring them into the simulator though it doesn't hurt to be able to spin things around a bit. I haven't done this before because there generally the shapes of an aircraft haven't been quite so complicated for any of my previous projects. One new technique I am using is to arrange all of my reference parts for a particular section of the aircraft into a component so that I can set all the references with just one command. That is saving me a fair amount of time because setting the component as reference clears out all prior references.
The Arado 196 is a strange one. The issues you are bringing up seem to mostly involve the engine which was a fairly proven design. The BMW 132 was also used in the FW 200 and the DORNIER 17.... One of the photographs I saw of the battle damage on board Admiral Graf Spee showed the remains of a burnt out seaplane which would suggest that the Arado was aboard during the battle.
Discussion of the Admiral Graf Spee will be continued on the next message.
- Ivan.
The Battle of River Plate.
Aftermath:
HMS Exeter: All guns unserviceable. She has suffered severe damage but is hardly a pontoon. She sails for the Falklands under her own power.
HMS Achilles: No Significant Damage.
HMS Ajax: Both Aft Turrets unserviceable. One gun in a Forward Turret disabled.
DKM Admiral Graf Spee: One 5.9 inch gun disabled. All Range Finders disabled. Oil Purifier destroyed. Desalination plant destroyed (Apparently this was also required for operation of the diesels. I am not sure what the purpose of clean water was. Perhaps it was for coolant, perhaps it was for anti-detonant or for cylinder cleaning.) The Desalination plant apparently was the most critical loss and reports sent to Germany were only revealed in 2000.
Most of AGS's main armament ammunition was expended. In the prior battle, her secondaries landed absolutely ZERO hits on any of her opponents.
The ship that replaced HMS Exeter was a County class Cruiser: HMS Cumberland. Cumberland was a ship that was nearly identical in dimensions to Graf Spee (20 feet longer but 3 feet less beam). The German 28 cm gun threw a 660 pound shell. The British 8 inch gun threw a 256 pound shell. The British gun had about twice the theoretical firing rate, but for practical purposes, the firing rates were close to identical. Not that it was important (because either ship's main armament would have blasted through its opponent), but except for the conning tower and turret faces, the armour was fairly similar with belt thickness going to Cumberland.
If both ships were healthy and fighting one on one, Graf Spee should win but not without sustaining crippling damage. As the fight stood with two other hulls, I can't see Graf Spee surviving such a fight. Should couldn't even target all of her opponents at the same time. There would always be one opponent unengaged.
- Ivan.
Members who have read this thread: 22
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks