Conspicuous by Their Absence
Page 1 of 58 1234567891151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 1443

Thread: Conspicuous by Their Absence

  1. #1

    Conspicuous by Their Absence

    Hello Folks,

    Which aircraft do you all think should have been in CFS but aren't? This is a slightly different twist on the question "What would you like to see?"

    Personally, I find the Halifax and Stirling under represented. I know there is at least one of each, but am surprised there are not more. The Japanese Type 5 fighter and F4U-4 Corsair are also under represented IMO.

    - Ivan.
    Last edited by smilo; November 25th, 2014 at 09:04.

  2. #2
    I do agree with Halifax and Stirling, but I will surprise you with my own discovery; the AVRO Lancaster!

    Turns out that all versions being used in CFS are FS98 vintage a/c, even those we used from RAF662. The latter were «upgraded» to CFS standards, but are still basically old revamped a/c.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  3. #3
    Hi Hubbabubba,

    I thought there were quite a few good Lancasters out there which is why I didn't list that aircraft. I have also found a Stirling and a Halifax, but both are really POOR models. I don't think FS98 origins are all that bad because we still build aircraft using FS98 tools.

    The -4 Corsair is the REAL surprise to me. Pretty soon, I'll be building one of those. I am just debating on putting my current Corsair on diet first. It is too fat.

    - Ivan.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan View Post
    Hi Hubbabubba,

    I thought there were quite a few good Lancasters out there which is why I didn't list that aircraft. I have also found a Stirling and a Halifax, but both are really POOR models. I don't think FS98 origins are all that bad because we still build aircraft using FS98 tools.

    The -4 Corsair is the REAL surprise to me. Pretty soon, I'll be building one of those. I am just debating on putting my current Corsair on diet first. It is too fat.

    - Ivan.
    I do remember some Alain de l'Homme Corsairs that were good looking. I do agree that Stirling and Halifax are not as well represented as the Lancaster, but I'm convinced that the latter would benefit of a CFS overhaul, and would certainly be a more popular pick for MP games.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  5. #5
    Alain L'Homme's Corsairs are very good, but they are post-War F4U-5s. The recognition feature is the gerbil-like cheek pouches which I believe are oil coolers. The Dash-4 is quite a nicer looking plane and was probably the ultimate development of the plane.

    My original Corsair was done just to prove a point. I didn't much worry about where the wing bend was and used drawings that I later found out were not very good. I have since fixed the wing bend and found a much better set of dimensional drawings done by Paul Matt. I have looked at Corsairs in photographs and at the actual plane for hours and still am amazed at the overall shape of the plane.

    Just out of curiosity, where is the Lancaster lacking? What would you do to improve it?

    - Ivan.

  6. #6
    Just out of curiosity, where is the Lancaster lacking? What would you do to improve it?
    Kill all the bleeds, especially around the tail, the wings roots, engines nacelles and props. Redo the transparency textures, especially the bomber aimer bubble canopy. Make an internal cabin and a virtual cockpit without jitters, place the CoG within the fuselage so TG2 could be aimed without too much visual interference. That's only a start. Don't take me wrong, this is a fine aircraft (the RAF662), but it could be better.

    I recently read "Whistling Death - The Test Pilot's Story Of The F4U Corsair" by Boone T. Guyton, one of the main test pilot at Vought Aircraft. No two aircraft were identical as modifications were constantly made on the production line. Workers could tell when an a/c was made simply looking at, and into, them. This was not unique to Vought, but the Corsair would set records for the number of mods they had.

    Not all changes were readily visible, but many were. So beware of «rivets' counter»:mixedsmi:.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  7. #7
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,645
    I would consider conspicuous absence
    to mean absent from CFS.
    my candidate would be the Do 17.
    other than the obscure variant offered as an AI,
    I have never seen one offered.

    I could go on about the lack of quality medium bombers,
    but we have been through that before.
    ah, what the heck, B-25, B-26 and of course the A-20.
    the lack of a quality A-20 is especially bothersome,
    since a picture of one is on the CFS installation menu.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  8. #8
    Hi Smilo,

    Yes, Conspicuous by their absence. I never thought about the Do 17 but you are probably right. I also find the absence of a good Ju 87 Stuka rather surprising.

    The other stuff seems to be in some process of development among present company:

    YOU are working on the A-20
    I am working on a B-25
    I WILL be working on a B-26 at some point.

    There are rather mediocre versions of all of the above that are available though. Of the three US Mediums, the B-26 probably has the best example available for CFS in my opinion.

    - Ivan.

  9. #9
    The AAC occasionally fly a Ju 87 that has been, if memory serves me, repainted by Paul Dubart.

    I do agree that medium bombers are scarce to come and of general poor quality. So are support a/c (trainers, transport, reconnaissance...) and «civilian-turned-military» stop gap aircraft.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  10. #10
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,645
    the A-20 is currently on hold.
    I ran into a couple barriers
    and decided to take a break.

    I have a pretty nice Stuka
    that I would be happy to send.
    just let me know.
    true, repaint by Pol.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  11. #11
    Hi Hubbabubba, Smilo,

    The only decent Stuka I have ever seen for CFS has been a G model with 37mm cannon under the wings and that model wasn't a dive bomber. Smilo, if you believe you have a good one, please email me.

    Hubbabubba, can you give examples of the stop-gap aircraft you mentioned? One civilian aircraft I was thinking about building was the Beech Staggerwing. One of those made the rounds in pre-war China.
    Regarding your mention of Boone Guyton, I came across that book many years ago. It is an excellent read. Regarding differences in the production Corsairs, Most of those differences are not visible in the CFS scale of modelling. I called my released Corsair a F4U-1A because of the fuel tank arrangement, but except possibly for canopy braces and a slightly different flight model, it could be a F4U-1D. There are also differences in the bomb racks and pylons for drop tanks and mine doesn't have either.

    Smilo, what kind of hangup did you hit with the A-20? Anything I can assist with? If so, email me.

    - Ivan.

  12. #12
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,645
    it's on the way,
    minus PJs textures.
    will send them tomorrow.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  13. #13
    Thanks Smilo. I picked up the pieces you sent. Now I just need to load on my game machine.

    - Ivan.

  14. #14
    Hi Smilo,
    The Ju 87B Stuka is beautiful. I believe the textures that came with the thing WERE the PJ Dunbar textures. I never did see a yellow nose version.
    I don't believe I had seen this particular model before.

    The flight model seems a little weird though. Do you happen to know what the procedure is to execute a divebombing attack? I tried using spoilers, but nothing much happened. Also, I can only get 175 mph max speed at 3500 feet. I am going to check out the flight model a bit. I have a pretty good description of the Ju 87 (I don't know if it is a B or D model) in a Luftwaffe aircraft book by Eric Brown.

    This is a pretty good addition to the Hangar.
    Thanks again.
    - Ivan.

  15. #15
    Hubbabubba, can you give examples of the stop-gap aircraft you mentioned?
    Quite frankly, I didn't gave it much thoughts. The Australian Boomerang comes to mind. Many civilian aircraft went to war out of necessity, not necessarily as fighters. The Jungman, the Stinson(s) and all these «grass hoppers» that did such a splendid job as «hacks» and recon.

    The reason they haven't been modelled for CFS1 is all too human; they're considered «targets» rather than full-fledged war participants, as they should be.

    When, in the movie «Battle of the Bulge», Henry Fonda has the pilot cut his engine to listen to the advancing tigers tanks under, masked by heavy clouds crawling low, you have an aircraft doing more to the ultimate victory than a 500 bombers formation clubbing for the tenth time the same oil refinery.

    Not enough credit is given to these «targets».
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  16. #16
    Hi Hubbabubba,

    I believe we actually have representatives of some of those aircraft. The Boomerang is out there. The little tail dragger Pipers do well enough as a general representative of the Liaison types and can easily be found in the FS98 Golden Age aircraft. There are a few trainers I have come across but never bothered to install. They may not have great flight models, but that isn't all that hard to fix.

    I don't think in the Henry Fonda action in the Battle of the Bulge movie that it was the aircraft that was the hero but the pilot. In my opinion, that is true the majority of the time there is a heroic action. The Stuka in the prior discussion is a good example. Most were vulnerable. One flown by a man named Rudel proved that they were not always vulnerable.

    - Ivan.

  17. #17
    OK Ivan...

    I went to check my own Stukas and it appears that I have two versions; one has turning vanes on the two gear legs and was most probably painted by PJ (JG57 markings). The air file let me dive from 3,500 feet to ground at 45-55° and reach ±320 mph. Aircraft container's name is Ju87B_JG57. The POV is about 100 ft over the plane, but it could be me tinkering with it.

    The other is a «twin-pack» with two paint job called Ju87B-2 10_LG1. I can easily reach 320 mph in a dive under the same circumstances as above. I do prefer its handling but it has no turning vane. One of the paint job is a yellow nose a/c. I don't think they are PJ works.

    Both have bleeds, but the latter has less than the former... but less details too.

    Which one do you have?

    P.S.- As I'm writing these lines, radio is announcing a load of white stuff about to drop on your front yard.
    I'm dreaming of a white Chrismas...
    Just like the ones I used to know... (you know the rest)
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  18. #18
    If you know of a Boomerang worth downloading, show me the way.

    I agree; pilots were the real heroes, but I don't do pilots...

    I think that FS98 a/c could be, in general, done better now. Just compare my Taifun with the previous one. Parts limitations, paint with half a palette, AF99 «patch» release... a lot of bettering is possible!

    Have to go now:salute: (it does salute with the wrong hand!)

    P.S.- Come to think of it; many FS98 a/c were in fact FS95 or FSF5 made with AF5, the forefather of AF99. Precision to the first decimal only. Pegasus Taifun is one.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  19. #19
    Hi Hubbabubba,

    Sorry it took so long to respond. Snow disrupted a lot of things.

    The Plane that Smilo sent me was the Ju87B-2 10_LG1. The model is fairly pretty. It does have a fair number of bleeds, but none that do much to disrupt the display.

    There IS a FS98 or earlier version of the Boomerang. I don't remember if it was any good, but since it isn't active on my development computer, I must not have liked it much.

    Regarding flight models, I believe that a CFS plane should be at least capable of executing its typical mission profile. In the case of the Stuka, that would be something like coming over the target at 15,000 feet and doing a VERTICAL dive onto the target and pulling out at abou 2,500. With the dive brakes (Spoilers) on, it should never exceed 350 mph even while vertical.

    My Dauntless can do a pretty fair approximation of its mission profile with a dive that looks to be pretty close to vertical but because of the extra flap lift, it doesn't really go straight down. Probably moves more like 70 degree angle like the real ones did. My issue is that I can't write up how to set up a bombing attact because I haven't been able to consistently set up attacks and be able to hit anything.

    - Ivan.

  20. #20
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,645
    it has been a while since I used the Stuka,
    but as I recall, I had pretty good luck with it.
    lets see if I can remember....
    flying toward the target, I would use padlock mode,
    when the target was between the gear,
    (almost at the bottom of the screen)
    I would nose forward into the dive
    back out of padlock
    release at about 2,500 and pull up hard.
    I was never able to accomplish
    the wing over into the dive
    and still maintain target visual orientation.
    so much for doing it like in the movies.


    the model is the Junkers Ju87B-2 10/LG1
    given to me by PJ Dunbar.
    it is a reworked Junkers 87/B 'Stuka'
    from the Just Flight FSClassics package.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  21. #21
    Ivan,

    With my new method of modelling through SCASM, bleeds are a thing of the past (mostly). The jeep and St-Leu church are two example of that. I can also adjust vertices to a refpoint precision. In a scale 7 model, this is 13th of an inch precision!

    I do remember the Boomerang you're talking about, but it was not what I would call "CFS1 standard".

    I have read Rudel's book «Stuka pilot», but I don't remember him saying it was common practice to go vertical. I know that the Ju 87 had a special bomb release system that would push on the bomb to get it out of the propellers disc on its way down, but vertical dives were seldom practice.

    smilo,

    If you're stuck on your A-20, I have a cure for the headaches; why not come back to AAC games. You can always return to your baby later, and with a bit of sanity restored. I know that it works on me...

    We have been missing you a lot, and our recent attendances do reflect that. Call it mutual assistance.

    So, aparently, I have PJ's stuka without PJ textures then. I do remember having enabled TG2 for Hank on one of them, probably the one with the vanes.

    One thing we will never be able to model is the ability of the Ju 87 to climb up and return to horizontal flying, even if the pilot is unconscious!:isadizzy:

    Unless Ivan could pull something out of his magic hat.

    Joyeux Noêl à vous deux.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  22. #22
    Hi Smilo, Hubbabubba,

    A little digression first: The SBD-3 Dauntless was the premier ship killer in the Pacific theater. The typical attack was a near vertical dive at about 70 degrees from horizontal with dive brakes deployed. The airspeed could be held down to about 350 mph in this attitude and configuration.

    Unfortunately in CFS, I don't know that I can animate the same control surfaces with two controls (Spoiler and Flaps). My choice was to leave the Flaps on the Flap control and use the Spoiler control to raise the upper surface of the wing trailing edge. I don't know that the Dauntless required two controls to configure for a dive, but mine does.

    What I also found out from working on the flight model was that the typical flap drag for most CFS aircraft is way too high. The SBD actually has lower drag in the dive configuration than many CFS planes with flaps down. (Perhaps we should sanity check this area for other CFS planes?)

    While the SBD wasn't a true vertical diver, according to Captain Eric Brown, the Stuka WAS. "It felt natural going straight down", which means that its drag was even higher. As such, it needs a higher effect spoiler / dive brake than it currently has. I will check out the flight model and see what I can do. Rudel flew on the Eastern front where some of the Ju-87's didn't even have dive brakes (the cannon planes). I figure that a true Sturz Kampf plane needs them though. They are already animated in the model, they just have no effect.

    Perhaps something can be done about auto-pullout with the auto pilot? I don't know that I will spend much time experimenting with that.

    - Ivan.

  23. #23
    Unfortunately in CFS, I don't know that I can animate the same control surfaces with two controls (Spoiler and Flaps).
    SCASM

    Go look at Bretoal's Bréguets, the broomstick is following roll and pitch axis. With SCASM, you could build flaps that are specific to flaps commands but are invisible when spoilers command is used. It depends on what you're looking for.

    Eric "Winkle" Brown was a class all to himself. Hans Ulrich Rudel was an authority with the Ju 87 and only dived once vertical to deliver a death blow to a Soviet battleship with a heavier-than-normal bomb down one of the funnel. I doubt that Brown experience included a bomb drop as he probably only flew her after war.

    I know that P-47 pilots had to bail out after releasing their bombs right into their own props! Was the Dauntless equipped with a special bomb rack like the Junker?
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

  24. #24
    Hi Hubbabubba,

    Yes, the Dauntless did have a swinging arm to make sure the bomb cleared the prop.

    Yes, I know: everything can be done in SCASM.

    I have never read Rudel's book. From your description, it sounds like he was an attack pilot but not a dive bomber pilot. A vertical dive is THE standard attack profile.

    Just to give you an idea of what a Dauntless attack using my plane would look like:
    1 Fly until you are almost directly over the target at perhaps 15,000 feet.
    2 Bring throttle to idle
    3 Open Dive Brakes. Nose will drop through loss of lift.
    4 Open Flaps. Speed will climb gradually to around 350 mph
    5 Roll or otherwise line up on the target. (Line up slightly below)
    6 Release bomb at about 2000-5000 feet
    7 Close Dive Brakes, Roll to clear any pursuers
    8 Advance to full throttle
    9 Pull Out and Close Flaps
    10 Confirm Dive Brakes Closed, Flaps Closed, Throttle Open and Level Flight

    I generally can't hit much from a dive bombing run. The biggest issue is step 1.

    - Ivan.

  25. #25
    I still do not understand why you need double control over flap-spoilers. Is it the same moving part(s)?

    Unless you have a view under you, I can't see how you can drop straight down on a moving target that is zig-zagging from 15,000 ft.

    Rudel started as a dive bomber pilot, and a good one at that, but moved to 3.7 cm kanonboot Stuka, killing hundreds of Russian tanks. During his training, he learned to dive-bomb «up to 90 degrees», but, as far as I can remember, only went vertical while attacking the Marat, an old but sturdy battleship at berth, with a specially designed 2,000 lbs bomb.

    It is the only time he mentionned going vertical, without dive brakes BTW! He released his bomb under 900 feet and was able to pull out and away from the target skimming the waves at 10-12 feet.
    Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


    Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

Similar Threads

  1. Apologies for the absence!
    By crashaz in forum FSX General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 16th, 2010, 21:15
  2. Apologize for the absence gents!
    By crashaz in forum Landscapers & Architects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 16th, 2010, 16:46
  3. speaking of conspicuous absence...
    By smilo in forum CFS1 General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 10th, 2010, 12:59
  4. Excuse my absence...
    By Tango_Romeo in forum CFS2 General Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: December 17th, 2008, 16:33

Members who have read this thread: 27

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
  •