Project Martin A-30 Baltimore - Page 10
Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 355

Thread: Project Martin A-30 Baltimore

  1. #226
    Hello Ivan,
    I hope the university year went well for your daughter. The drives to leave mine in the mornings are about 7 minutes... and they come back by tram in the afternoon... Here on the island distances are often short...

    Once more, thank you for the additional details and balancing criteria suggestions and corrections! Very nice!
    I´ll try some more things out and see how it goes.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  2. #227
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    My daughter just went to a rowing camp for a few days. She will be a senior in high school next year.

    No university yet.

    - Ivan.

  3. #228
    Hello Ivan,
    I thought I´d got something wrong there... Anyway, rowing and camps are nice, so both together is even better! I´m sure she enjoyed it.

    I´m doing the balancing act on the Mk.IIIA now. Thanks for the clarification on preferably using the non-WEP S.L. power as a guide-line. If the R-2600-13/29 gave 1700/1500 WEP/non-WEP Horsepower at S.L., then presumably its R-2600-19 not-so-powerful predecessor rated at 1660 WEP Hp would possibly have given about 1470 Hp non-WEP. At the moment I´m at 1450 Hp, so I seem to be quite near, and I am trying a Boost Gain increase to get critical altitude a little higher.

    I adjusted the Ceiling following your tutorial and got it more or less around 800 Hp there, which gives a RoC of about 100 fpm, which should be OK, but as you say, it may get a little higher after increasing Boost Gain, so I won´t worry too much about that, the importance lying in the elimination of the low altitude bulge in the curve.

    It´s interesting to see how different the adjustments for the older -19 are turning out, compared to the improved -13/29. It must have had a completely different blower - and perhaps slower cams?

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  4. #229
    Hello Ivan
    After all this time asking you questions and receiving your patient replies, I´ve begun to see how the engine parameters interact. It needed time for the things that you said over and over again in different ways to make sense and to fit into the whole picture, and also for the reasoning behind your recommendations to become clear.

    I´ve been experimenting with the already quite acceptable Mk.V .air file from a few weeks ago, trying to marginally improve it. I tried out different friction/torque variations (same S.L. power), and also Boost Gain settings, to see their effects on performance at Critical Altitude and Ceiling.

    The effects of all this are of course visible, but perhaps not entirely obvious, although one does see that certain possibilities of maneuvering are granted, especially as regards your recommendation for reducing S.L. power to get more correct readings below critical altitude!

    Also, I was going to ask upto what extent one can increase friction/torque, but it is now quite obvious how altitude performance starts waning if the increase is too strong!

    What is definitely remarkable, is the degree to which the workings of .air file parameters have been decyphered by different people over the years, while on the other hand, it is completely obscure why CFS was made to handle these parameters the way it does in the first place.

    Anyway, your patience is commendable!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  5. #230
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I am glad you understand what I have been trying to tell you.
    I don't know that everything I tell you is correct, but it is what I currently believe to be true AND
    it seems to work in a predictable enough fashion.
    Hopefully somewhere along the way, some of what I have been doing actually qualifies as a new discovery rather than just a simple refinement of what was already known.

    I don't know how good my patience actually was. At times, I wasn't very patient at all.

    Regarding the less than optimal way Superchargers are handled in CFS, just remember that before CFS, there was FS98 which didn't handle Superchargers at all. Think about how you would build the Baltimore's AIR file for FS98 and perhaps then you would appreciate CFS a bit more.

    Looking back at Flight Simulators, I think I would have been much more satisfied if I had started building for CFS2 instead of CFS.
    It is a much more full featured simulator for WW2 era aeroplanes.
    Then again, with CFS2, there would not have been the drive to prove that a nice looking model with minimal bleeds could actually be built.

    - Ivan.

  6. #231
    Hello Ivan,
    Oh, but I do very much appreciate CFS, especially because of AF99 - otherwise I wouldn´t use it or build for it - even if I do get frustrated from time to time. I could also build for FS2002, without so many the bleedthrough problems, but lacking the game-feature, there is less motivation, even though the .air file does include superchargers...

    Of course, with FS98´s simpler engine parameters, sophistications like superchargers could perhaps at most be emmulated to a limited extent by adapting a jet engine .air file (with prop sounds). This would require eyeballing the mandatory Hp-to-flb thrust conversion, and one would end up with a power curve that compensated power loss with altitude - upon which one would have no control.

    Just like the drive to prove that AF99 can make a nice looking model for CFS, we have the drive to prove that a reasonably accurate supercharger can be made for CFS!

    An interesting thing would perhaps be to alter the .AirEd info/help files with the new data you have found out, and publish it somewhere...

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  7. #232
    Hello Ivan,
    In view of my (or our) achieved success in my understanding CFS supercharger intricacies, I have managed to come up with the following results for the lower powered engines of the Baltimore Mk.IIIA/IV, which apparently gave a maximum of 1660 Hp at S.L., and 305 mph max. speed with 1275 Hp at 11500 ft.

    Test: 100% fuel, 0% bombs, 100% ammo

    __500 ft: 44.0 Hg 1571 Hp, 286.0 mph >>>> Optimal estimated WEP Speed: 289 mph
    __500 ft: 42.0 Hg 1475 Hp, 280.1 mph >>>> Non-WEP Hp/mph base setting
    _4500 ft: 44.0 Hg 1632 Hp, 299.0 mph >>>> Allow WEP for intitial climb perhaps?
    _4500 ft: 42.0 Hg 1533 Hp, 294.1 mph
    _6700 ft: 42.0 Hg 1567 Hp, 300.6 mph
    _8000 ft: 42.0 Hg 1587 Hp, 305.5 mph
    _8500 ft: 42.0 Hg 1594 Hp, 307.7 mph
    _9000 ft: 41.8 Hg 1595 Hp, 309.4 mph >>>> Speed peak here
    _9500 ft: 41.0 Hg 1560 Hp, 308.9 mph
    10000 ft: 40.2 Hg 1525 Hp, 307.3 mph
    10500 ft: 39.4 Hg 1491 Hp, 306.7 mph
    11500 ft: 37.9 Hg 1429 Hp, 304.4 mph >>>> just under specified 305 mph
    12500 ft: 36.4 Hg 1364 Hp, 302.3 mph
    15000 ft: 32.9 Hg 1216 Hp, 297.4 mph

    Ceiling:
    23250 ft: 23.3 Hg _791 Hp, 267.2 mph
    RoC: 92 fpm, 263.3 mph TAS / 184.6 mph IAS

    Well, I just thought I´d ask you what you thought of these results.
    I have tried to fir the curve as best as possible, using 2.0 Boost Gain so that critical altitude wasn´t too low.
    I wonder...

    Thanks in advance for your time and answer! Remember... No hurry at all!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  8. #233

    Spanner in the works!

    Hello Ivan,
    I had come accross the following technical details in the .pdf I mentioned a while back, and didn´t notice some rather obvious performance details (typical...). The hydra should bite my head off.

    (The "MkIV" must refer to the aircraft, not the engines).

    Engines: 2x1660 hp Wright R2600-19 Cyclones MkIV - 14 cylinders (2 banks of 7)
    Revs:
    Taxiing - 1000 rpm
    Take-off - 2400 rpm
    Normal Cruise - 1850 rpm
    Economical Cruise - 1750 rpm
    Speeds:
    Stall - 95 mph
    Approach - 110 mph
    Cruise - 220 mph

    The given RPM indications show the lower power output of this engine, a design prior to the improved -13 and -29 series.
    This, together with the article you pointed out on the initial R-2600 problems, ties in with your idea of limiting maximum power output.

    The 1000 revs for taxiing ties in with the fact that prolonged idling below 1000 rpm fouled up spark plugs.
    Take-Off power is at 2400 RPM instead of 2600
    Normal Cruise is at 1850 RPM instead of 2400
    Economical cruise is 1750 rpm instead of 2100

    Stall would be clean stall, as landing speed is quoted elsewhere as 87 mph, and must have been with flaps.

    I suppose this really puts a spanner in the works for the -19 engine, as I´ll have to lower RPM significantly, although the power curve should stay the same with a lower RPM setting and corresponding adjustments in the torque graph.
    Never a dull moment...

    Update:
    I´ve just done it: Increasing the torque graph, RPM are down to 2400, and HP is the same throughout the curve, but I´m 3 mph slower at 500 ft, 0.6 mph faster at the 9000 ft peak, and 2 mph faster at 11500 critical altitude. Not really distressing, and probably quite forseeable I suppose, as the slower revs with the same power react differently to the changing air density.

    If instead of increasing the torque graph, the friction graph is reduced, Hp falls a bit, so speed increases at altitude are a little lower, but speed loss at 500 ft is a little higher, so even with Drag compesation we end up the same as before.
    Sixpence of one, and half a shilling of the other...

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; July 3rd, 2016 at 23:33.

  9. #234
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I was just about to tell you that your numbers for the Mk.III / Mk.IV look pretty good.

    If I were in your position right now, I would first reset the RPM limit to 2400 and then do a quick power test at the three points:
    Sea Level,
    Maximum Speed Altitude (Note I did not write Critical Altitude),
    and Service Ceiling
    to see which direction things needed to be adjusted.

    My initial guess would be that you tend toward the Torque values you had for the Mk.V though the real choice depends on whether your how low your Service Ceiling power has become.
    In other words, my guess would be to increase the Torque values to match the Mk.V. If you find that your power at the service ceiling is too low, then you might have to reduce the Friction instead.

    If you are getting power output at about the correct values, then you MIGHT want to adjust Propeller Efficiency in Table 511 so that the values at the advance ratios at Maximum RPM at Sea Level are slightly increased.
    To me, this is a last resort because if you do it badly, then performance starts to get very confusing.
    It will almost certainly change your climb rate as well.

    - Ivan.

  10. #235
    Hello Ivan,
    First of all, thanks for the positive reinforcement on the numbers that look pretty good! At least the basic shape of the curve is there.

    Another good thing is that at least there seems to be some tangible information available on the obscure R-2600-19 engine.
    I was thinking whether one could interpret the 1660 Hp as being a factory maximum with 2600 rpm that was never used in practice because of engine damage, so a 2400 rpm maximum was standard, and possibly therefore not with 44 Hg either, only 42 Hg. Would you think that was a more or less accurate guess?

    After the RPM thing, with 2400 now, I thought the Torque adjustment behaved better as SL speed didn´t go down so much and the speed increases at altitude were only slight, where in fact, they were still within the 5-6 mph range over specified speed that we had discussed as acceptable a while back.

    I was trying to avoid working on the propeller efficiency values... Instead, I thought of asking you whether to try changing the maximum and minimum pitch settings in Prop Parameters 510.

    Here´s the new test result for the 2400 RPM corrections.
    It looks much better than I´d initially feared, and you are quite right about the Torque Graph being very similar to that of the Mk.V - and for the moment I´ve left Friction unchanged.


    __500 ft: 44.0 Hg 1571 Hp, 283.0 mph >>> Optimal WEP Speed: 289 mph
    _9000 ft: 41.8 Hg 1595 Hp, 310.2 mph >>> Speed peak here
    11500 ft: 37.9 Hg 1429 Hp, 306.4 mph >>> Just over specified 305 mph (this just by the by)

    Ceiling: This is MUCH better than expected!!
    23250 ft: Level flight: 23.3 Hg _821 Hp, 267.5 mph TAS 187.5 mph IAS
    RoC: 818 Hp, 103 fpm, 258.9 mph TAS / 180.9 mph IAS

    Possibly it looks like one should leave it this way, wouldn´t you think?

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; July 4th, 2016 at 10:37.

  11. #236
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I have a silly and possibly deadly question for you:

    Why do you think the manifold pressure settings are the same from the R-2600-13 to the R-2600-19 engines?

    - Ivan.

  12. #237
    Hello Ivan,
    A silly and deadly question... Oh dear! But I still don´t get it.

    There is no manifold pressure data available in the .pdf on the African Baltimores, so, what Hp came out of the 2400 rpm, and with what MP? Quite frankly, I haven´t a clue, and I can only speculate.

    In the .air file, the MP settings are the same because of the data inherited from the -13 engine - the same blower used the same way for both engines with the same cylinder capacity and aspiration volume.

    In this case it is just a matter of the engine not giving 2400 rpm and hence not 1660 Hp to avoid damage, but OK, then MP stayed at 44 Hg for take-off the same as for the other engine.


    The engines were basically the same, but improved over the years. How? Perhaps compression, minor changes to cylinder capacity, cam-angles, and perhaps blower efficiency? I really don´t know. The -19 was in turn better than the 1600 Hp GR-2600-A5B predecessor. Did that other one have still lower RPM? Was the blower even more primitive, or was it the same? Could it handle 44 Hg too?

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  13. #238

    Baltimore Tail

    Hello all, hello Smilo, hello Ivan!
    So we are building again, after the .air file success (Thanks, Ivan!).
    Now the tail section components and structures are ready, including the tailwheel and its struts.

    Horizontal stabilizers are components, glued to the aft-fuselage component with Ivan´s Conga (!). The aft-fuselage top is rounder at the top than at the bottom, as per Smilo´s Plan. This can be seen from the joint to the mid-fuselage which is still a crude oval-cross-sectioned template structure.

    Fin/rudder is in two structures: The top one with triangle-bulkheads is in Tail-Upper (this seemed to be cleaner than glued to the aft-fuselage in Tail, where tailplanes bled through the fin/rudder momentarily, most probably because it is so long and reaches beyond the fuselage end), and then, the bottom rudder structure with vee-bulkheads, is in Tail.

    The lower rear part of the aft fuselage component shape matches the Vee of the lower rudder structure.

    Bleedwise it is very clean (no moving parts for the time being, as I´m quite envious of Ivan´s clean building-style!), except for the fact that viewed from below, the tail-wheel and its struts sometimes get rubbed out by the aft-fuselage, but I fear it is unavoidable.

    More later or tomorrow!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Balt-tail2.jpg   Balt-tail3.jpg  

  14. #239

    Better shape

    Hello again!
    I found a better shape for the lower rudder structure, matching the aft fuselage component, i.e. the keystone bulkhead.
    This way, although the difference is not really too noticeable, it is planwise more correct. (Using 2 structures for the upper and lower fin/rudder will save components that will be needed elsewhere in the future).
    Here´s a postcard with Tower Bridge... and blueprint screenshot.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Balt-tail5.jpg  

  15. #240

    Fuselage done

    Hello!
    Now the fuselage is done - in components, including a basic try for turret, guns (sructures here), cabin and forward glazed nose.
    The Baltimore is making the latter quite complicated, and of course bleeds are to be taken into account too, but that will have to come later.

    Interesting is the use of the AF99 Transparency Option Speed Below 180. Glass is coloured with a darkened transparent version of the colour of surrounding parts. If that is wantewd or not, is another question...

    The question is whether there is some standard procedure for window struts when there are so many, if it is good practise or not to use lines instead of solid parts in some cases, and also if it is preferable that the inside be hollow or solid. With hollowed insides, parts may have to be duplicated or at least used individually, and in some cases designated as insignia. ...or does that just depend on the designer and/or parts limit.

    Parts count is still at 124.5%, but wings are still 2D, and main engine nacelle structures habe to be converted to components (except probably for forward engine nacelles). Once crew´s heads come into the scene, there may be a parts count problem.
    We shall see...

    Anyway, progress is not being too bad for the moment.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails fusedone4.jpg  

  16. #241
    Hello Aleatorylamp.

    From my point of view, it seems like you do not have enough resources left to build this model entirely in AF99.
    Perhaps it is time to build pieces in AF99 and do the final assembly in SCASM?
    I don't know if one of your requirements is to keep the project entirely within AF99 at least from the external view.
    Most of my projects do have that requirement, but obviously there are a few things that AF99 cannot do.

    I am debating on doing that with the somewhat incomplete but promising Lockheed Orion.
    It seems a shame to just leave it incomplete though I have no idea how to go about building the AIR file for it.
    Perhaps this will be a piston engine Orion?

    - Ivan.

  17. #242

    Getting the look!

    Hello Ivan,
    It´s progressing slowly, as you can see from the screenshots. The basic structure is done: fuselage, tail , wings, wingtips, engine nacelles, propellers, undercarriage, glass nose… Parts Count is at 132.4%, but there´s no crew yet.

    What is still very problematic are the engine scoops. Structures with rectangular bulkheads are no good because their base bleeds through the top of the forward nacelle despite glue, but I still have a couple of components left over to make them.

    Flaps, wheel doors and wells are not there yet, but they should be no problem.

    Initially there was a lot of bleedthrough with the glass nose, but I got that sorted out quite well, even though as yet there are dark grey floor and wall panels covering the otherwise empty spaces, and the windw struts are still too thin and simplified. I turned away from the coloured transparencies and opted for the alpha one, which is softer. I still have to see about how to hollow out the glass nose better, without the inner stepped panelling.

    Then, the main engine nacelle body has to be made into a component, because the shape looks terrible, especially at the back.


    This will be my first model without moving control surfaces – and it is definitely less of a nightmare thanks to this, and looks a lot cleaner.

    I hadn´t thought as yet of doing anything with SCASM except for the virtual cockpit, but now that you mention it, this would absolutely be a good candidate for some extra features which will be impossible without SCASM.

    I was thinking of attaching the model and the AFX if you would like to have a look, so that we can discuss the SCASMing possibilities. Would you be so inclined?

    As regards your Lockheed Orion, I´m sure it will come out very nicely because of the cleaner build resulting from lack of moving control surfaces. As regards the CFS engine .air file, I suppose it would be no problem for you to use the Turbo-Supercharger to emmulate the turbine section of the turboprop! The prop blades are there in CFS, which is better than the FS98 jet .air file, and the Power can be graduated correctly and not ad-libbed with a 2.5 times conversion to foot-pounds thrust...

    Anyway, p
    hylosophically speaking, a Turbo-supercharger does have a turbine inside, doesn´t it?… so at least it belongs to the family... Then it is justified! It counteracts power loss with altitude like a jet engine does, and there is a compressor section, and an impeller… so it´s all there, even if slightly different!!

    The fact that CFS provides a single-stage, single-speed supercharger could propbably be good to make a nice, uniform emmulation of a turbo-prop´s performance curve as regards altitude.

    Idea:
    A possible engine candidate for the Orion´s 4600 Hp Allison T-56-A-14 Turboprop engine emmulation could be a hypothetical souped-up version of the 28-cyl, 4300 Hp Pratt&Whitney R-4360-51-VDT radial engine (155.8 cu.in. per cylinder, 6:7 to 1 compression ratio), with 2 more cylinders (3 rows of 10 cyl instead of 4 rows of 7), so that you could almost exactly get the 4600 Hp out... The Orion´s Props did 1020 rpm, so you could gear down the props to that, from an engine RPM of 2500 or 2800 RPM or so.

    Such an .air file could be a nice experiment, don´t you think?


    Ok then. More later!
    Cheers for now!
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Progress2.jpg   Progress5.jpg  
    Last edited by aleatorylamp; July 13th, 2016 at 15:46.

  18. #243

    Now with the scoops

    Hello Ivan,
    More progress, to see how it looks: I managed to fit in upper and lower scoops, provisionally as structures, just to see how they look, although they may have to stay like that because the only 4 components I have left over will be needed for mid and rear engine nacelles.

    The lower scoops have Keystone Bulkheads for want of anything else, and the 4 scoops are done in forward and rear structures, conveniently grouped and glued, which works from most viewing angles.

    The "look" is there! ...And, as parts count (as yet without crew) is only at 145.5%, once I get the nacelles into the 4 components, there should be enough free parts for crew heads.

    Let´s see how it goes... even if the lower scoops aren´t round...

    Then, I´d be very curious as to the results of how a CFS1 Turbo-Supercharger driven engine can be turned into a CFS1 Turboprop! If it works, it would deserve a medal!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Scoops1.jpg   Scoops3.jpg  

  19. #244
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    Your project is looking like it is coming along just fine thus far.

    I am willing to take a look at your project, but at the moment, I can't promise any response time.
    My mom is not doing well and there are other health problems in the family as well, so they must take priority.
    My projects are also getting no attention at the moment.

    The difference between working on a project and checking out the model and just responding to flight performance tuning is that I know the tuning steps well enough and have data on this laptop. The model examination requires CFS installed and SCASM and of course AF99.
    None of these are installed on my laptop.

    - Ivan.

  20. #245
    Helo Ivan,
    Thank you for your motivating comments on the Baltimore project!
    There is of course no hurry for any SCASMing assitance or model testing, and we can come back to that at a later point when you have some more time on your hands.
    Meanwhile there´s plenty on the model that I still have to do.
    I do hope your Mom and other health issues you mention get better. Thanks, and good luck!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  21. #246
    Hello all,
    The Baltimore project is still on the conveyor belt, no fear!

    Here´s a picture of the also as yet untextured MkV version (in Khakhi greens instead of the MkIIa´s Khakhi browns) with the better engines. The higher performance comes through very noticeably in the .air file!

    Do you remember the "Matchbox" plastic model kits that came with their plastic parts in different colours, allowing quite attractive un-painted models to be built even by modellers who were too lazy to paint them properly?

    I´m currently trying to figure out the best way of getting the glass nose better, without the inside steps. Hollowing it out completely involves putting parts into Nose left/right, but I wonder if there will be display interferences with props and engines that are also grouped there.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Baltimore MkV model.jpg  

  22. #247
    Hello Ivan, hello all!
    The completely hollow step-less nose was much easier and straight forward to make than I had feared, and now looks correct, except for all the window-struts that would really have to be a little broader, and possibly more numerous.
    Next step is getting the wheel-doors right. This is always a bit tricky because of interferences with landing gear and nacelle display, depending on the grouping of parts - and then the wheel wells, which also add to the complication.
    Here´s a picture showing the improved nose section.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Glass-nose.jpg  

  23. #248

    Back on the conveyor belt!

    Hello Folks!

    Now that I´ve managed to correct the bugs on the He-162 jet, I can get my teeth back into the Baltimores. It always happens, doesn´t it? You think it´s going to be an in-between quickie to get an already done FS98 plane ready for CFS1, and it turns out to be a major job with lengthy modifications and takes several months instead of a week. But... this way there are more planes getting uploaded. If you think too much about whether or not to stick a quick in-between in, maybe you don´t do it and it never gets done.

    So, fortunately the two Baltimores back in production! I had already managed to get them to fly rather nicely with Ivan´s help, and the difference in power is noticeable! Now I´m putting on preliminary textures.

    A quick summary:
    There will be the earlier Mk.III with desert livery in brown-light brown with the normal engines, and the later Mk.V with the souped up powerfull engines, in khakhi dark/light green. I´m just adapting the camouflage pattern, and there will be screenshots to see in a few days.


    Then, as soon as I finish the wheel-doors and the underpart of the nacelles, that still need the panels to match the underside of the wing, I´ll have a first version ready to post as a preview on the thread for any of you who wish to have a closer look and try them out.

    There will still be a few issues on the transparent glass canopy in the front and on the rear turret, but they´re not too bad. I´ll tackle that later, and they probably won´t need any complicated SCASMing.

    The nose is back on the grindstone!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp

  24. #249

    Baltimore Piccys now with textures

    Hello!
    As promised, here´s a piccy of the Mark IIIA in provisional desert colour scheme, and another of the Mark V in khakhi green/green. Cabin bleeds with struts/pilot and then engine intakes/nacelles are not visible because of the chosen viewing angle, but will have to be seen to soon. However, we´ll get there in the end!

    I´ll just finish off the underside of the nacelles these days, and then upload provisional appetizer models of both aircraft.

    Slowly but surely - sans hâte ni pause...
    "Sin prisas ni pausas..." was the sales slogan for the 2-cylinder, air cooled Citroen 2CV car. I had one, they were great! Especially because of their outrageous suspension that made it impossible to overturn the car, no matter how hard you yanked the wheel in a sharp bend.

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Mk3.jpg   MkV.jpg  

  25. #250
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    It obviously looks much better textured than not.

    A couple issues I can see are:
    1. The Framing at the Nose compartment does not appear to share the same texture as the rest of the Fuselage.
    I would have expected a darker shade to continue on to the frame if it was on the adjacent area of the Fuselage

    2. The camouflage pattern does not appear to flow from one section to the next.
    I would expect the demarcation lines between colours to flow across wing / fuselage / fin joints.
    This part is always a tough one for me because the scaling is usually different between the different sections.

    3. The colours look a bit strange but then again, I don't really know what they should be.

    Your simple rework (!) of the Heinkel 162 is very similar to what I am running into with a "simple" rework of a Blohm & Voss BV 141B
    What is ironic is that this already has been released once for CFS and this was just a "slight" upgrade that has spread to everything and still is not done yet.
    Just as you found with your Heinkel 162, I had no idea that this little upgrade would get so complicated..
    Perhaps the BV 141B is worthy of its own thread because it looks like it might run for a while.

    - Ivan.

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
  •