Project Martin A-30 Baltimore

[aleatorylamp]

Hello all, and Smilo and Ivan!

Smilo has given me the necessary prod towards deciding my next project, this will be the Martin A-30 Baltimore.
Thanks for the extra high-detail drawings, Smilo!

I also remember Ivan mentioning this model as an interesting one which indeed is conspicuous by its absence!

I was initially planning on doing the GR.V version with the stronger 1700 hp engines and the extra guns.
There are a few different and quite appealing colour schemes, so different versions will be possible.
See attached photos. The colour schemes are quire appealing.

Well, so let´s see how it goes!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

here are the MK V fore and aft views;

[smilo]

and top and bottom views;

[No Dice]

Great choice,

Should be fun to watch its progress.

Dave

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,
Thanks for the extra drawings. It´s amazing how slim this aircraft was. I bet that helped with the performance it was famous for.

Hello No Dice!
Thanks for the moral support!
I hope to be able to post progress as it goes along. Ivan is much better at that, but I´ll try!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Thanks for the compliment, Aleatorylamp.

I am also a bit curious about how you will go about building this aeroplane.
James Ellwood started on a Handley Page Hampden a long time ago but didn't complete it.
He did make its AFX publicly available though.
The Hampden has a pretty good resemblance to the Baltimore in my opinion.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

The Hampden has a similar layout to the Baltimore although the shapes are a bit different.
(I found lots of pictures, but not James Ellwood´s AFX).

It is peculiar to see how a lot of English twin-engined designs are quite ugly. It appears that American designers came out with sleeker and more elegant designs all round. The Germans also had some quite ugly twins.

Anyway, I was thinking of building it using the distribution and grouping of parts that I used for the Curtiss AT-9 Fledgling for a start, and see how it goes.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello all,
I think I´ll take back my comment about ugly English or German designs, because thinking about it a little more, there are also some beautiful English designs, i.e. Spitfire, Wright Whirlwind, Bristol Beaufighter, amongst others, and German ones like the Me-109 and many of the Focke Wulf ones.
Anyway, I hope I didn´t hurt anyone´s feelings - I just spoke too hastily without thinking!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

i'm chuckling...sorry.
i was thinking about chiming in,
regarding the ugly aircraft comment,
but, to be honest, got distracted
and promptly forgot about it.

i wouldn't worry about offending anyone.
you are entitled to your opinion
and others are entitled to theirs.
it's okay to disagree
as long as it doesn't turn into
a shouting match or pissing contest.
besides, there aren't enough of us here
for it to get too far out of hand.

i do like the ju-88, he-111
and the do-17....
BUT, not the monstrosities
offered by cfs as stock ai's.
the do-17 is especially hideous.
maybe, the original developers
made them that ugly,
so we would want to go out
and kill the damn things.
fortunately, there are decent
add on replacements,
except for the do-17,
which is still,
conspicuous by it's absence.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I have trouble grouping beautiful or ugly designs by nationality.
Each country seems to have had its beauties and everyone had their ugly designs.
The Westland Whirlwind was a very nice looking design but then you have the Skua....

Hello Smilo,

Eventually I may get back to the Dornier 17Z-2..... So many worthy subjects and so little time in the day....
Not to mention a somewhat uncooperative PC.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo, Hello Ivan!
Ha ha! Maybe we should have an "ugliest designs" vote! Apart from the ones we have mentioned, I could include the B-10 bombers both by Martin and Boeing, the Boulton Paul Overstrand... and we could see who can come up with the most hideous ones!! ...or maybe not, for aesthetic reasons...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

going "ugly" is an option,
but, as Ivan has said,
"So many worthy subjects
and so little time in the day."
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Smilo,

Yes, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder... For example, I personally don´t think the Stuka is really that ugly (although I don´t know why...), or the insectoid Friesler Storch, but many do find these terribly ugly!

Besides, apart from the occasional fun to drag ugly designs through the mud, it is as you say, much more pleasurable to enjoy the more beautiful ones.

I could hardly imagine building a model that I thought was hideous!! It would qualify as working in a job you hate!

Anyway, the Baltimore at any rate has an attractive, no-nonsense, down to business and sturdy look about it, so it´s going to be fun to build!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

exactly....
a perfect description
of a quality workhorse.
none of the notoriety
and glory of a thoroughbred,
but, gets the job done
when called upon to do it.
same goes for the a-20,
but, that's another story.

i'm anxious to see your first "draft".

[Ivan]

Hello Smilo,

Not meaning to start an argument here, but I have always wondered about the term "Thoroughbred" in the context of aeroplanes.
Yes, some companies have a history and sometimes there is a lineage in a particular aeroplane, but I believe that each new design needs to be judged on its own merit and perhaps in the context of its contemporaries.

I find it difficult to find any real commonality between the Supermarine Spitfire and its predecessors such as the S.5 and S.6 / S.6B Floatplanes.
The Supermarine Walrus comes from the same lineage but no one ever calls it a "Thoroughbred".
The Messerschmitt 109, FW 190, and P-51 Mustang are other designs that came from companies without a history of fighter aircraft and yet each one was a great design. (Yes, I know Focke-Wulf built a few fighters before the 190 but I don't think they made any real impact.)
On the other hand, the Hawker Hurricane was the latest in a long line of elegant fighters, but I can't remember anyone ever calling that aeroplane a "Thoroughbred".
Is the P-40 a Thoroughbred??? In combat it served more as a plow horse but it certainly was the final evolution of a long line of fighters.

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Sturz Kampf Flugzeug??? I still think it is quite ugly.

- Ivan.

P.S. After about 10 Disk verification runs and even more reboots, I FINALLY got the P-40N through a AF99 build and a Aircraft Animator run. Having extra CPUs is not the problem. Finding the room to set one up and installing software is the problem.
I don't have a lot of spare video controllers or monitors....

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Hmmm... Possibly some kind of charismatic quality that stood out in certain fighters, in their design or in their performance, brought about their being occasionally labeled as "thoroughbreds" by some. I suppose this expression served as a contrast to others being labelled with the more generalized expression "workhorse".

Now, why others were "plough-" or "workhorses", remains a mystery to me. Perhaps it was their being used en-masse without really any spectacular performance or manoeuvering capability, (although this would also be debatable).

The two you mention - i.e. Hurricane and P-40, in my opinion have a charismatic enough design and performance to deserve the title of "thoroughbred" along with other famous ones...

As regards the Stuka, possibly the large fixed landing gear fairings could make it look ungainly, but on the other hand, its gull wings (like on the Corsair), give it quite an impressive look.

Your Stuka has the typical clean-built "Ivan look" - well worth finishing and uploading! But possibly, if you think it´s an ugly duckling, there´s not enough gumption...

As regards spare video controller cards:
I have a couple of old PCI and IDE ones stashed away at my in-laws old house. If you like I can go and make a list to tell you the details, and then perhaps send you a couple by post. No hassle for me, and post is inexpensive for small parcels!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

For the Hampden AFX:

http://www.elwood.freeserve.co.uk/

I found it last night. I always have trouble remembering the spelling of the fellow's name.
Mr. Elwood is quite a nice fellow. I emailed him a few years back when I did some modifications to his Lysander.

The Ju 87B was a possible candidate for a texturing tutorial as was its American counterpart, the Dauntless.
I have many of these aeroplanes stuck in various stages in the Workshop.
The Ju 87B is actually quite a clean build but is at the resource limits as usual so my idea of building the follow on Ju 87D needed some re-thinking. (The underwing oil coolers needed two more Components I just did not have.)
As usual, I looked over many photographs to build the Ju 87B and it is quite an angular and crude looking aeroplane.
The B was the model that made the aircraft's reputation when it was actually a viable warplane. The D was better and much more refined, but by that time, it was basically a target.
This is the same issue as with the P-40s. The B through F models were not the best performing but they were the versions that were the equals of their contemporaries. By the time the improved N model came out, its days as a fighter were done.
This is one of the considerations I make when choosing a particular version to build.

Don't worry about the computer equipment. I can probably find it cheaper around here than you can send it for.... or the prices would at least be comparable. I actually even have another fairly hot Windows 98 machine already assembled. I just need to find the space to install it which is why I was thinking about a KVM switch to minimize the desk space. After several more disk verifications, the old Pentium 233 seems to be more stable but the problem is that sometimes the fault in the model is not easily visible. What I really need is something to check the integrity of the Operating System without having to reinstall and reloading all the drivers.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Thanks very much indeed for the Hampden AFX on Elwood´s page. I had a look at the model, and the invitation to a Baltimore modification seems quite enticing. It looks like less work than a scratch build: The workmanship is clean, and the CoG is reasonably placed, so there shouldn´t be any problems.

Incidentally, on Elwood´s page I saw the very unusual looking Focke-Wulf Eule (Owl)! It appears as though they completed a Blohm&Voss BV-141 to make it symmetrical!

I have an idea for the Baltimore´s transparent nose, using a structure with Aircraft Animator´s Alpha transparency option, something I´d already experimented with domes on a kind of spaceship. It looks better than the different transparencies offered by AF99. Then some strut pieces can be added on top of that.

As the Stuka was not very clean aerodynamically, it wasn´t very fast, so it appears that it was only successful in the early stages of WW2 before fighters got faster. Also, the idea of aiming the bomb by diving towards the target to line it up and then releasing it sounds simple and effective! I´ve also heard that they had sirens that gave off a scary schriek which gave it a psychological warfare aspect, although perhaps it was only the sound of the fan-driven hydraulic pumps on the wings.

OK on the computer hardware then. Good luck! I have similar trouble with space for my machine - I´m cramped into the under-staircase space, right next to the dining-room table that I systematically invade, much to my wife´s getting disgruntled at my misdemeanour.

OK then, cheers and thanks again,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Personally, I would not try to change the Hampden into a Baltimore.
I was only suggesting that you look at it for ideas as far as assembly techniques.
I downloaded it long ago but have never done anything with it.
The Hampden is an interesting bomber much like the Baltimore, but I have never really liked the idea of building bombers.

At the moment, I believe I have a pretty decent combination with the Transparent textures from AF99 in combination with the Alpha Transparency from Aircraft Animator.
I know Hubbabubba used some kind of transparency via tagged parts for his Jeep and for the landing gear on his Messerschmitt Taifun.
I did something pretty similar with the dive brakes on my Dauntless because I needed them perforated and did not have nearly enough resources to do it any other way.
The effect isn't bad but only works for COMPLETELY Transparent which is not how I want canopies to look.

As evaluated by the recently deceased Captain Eric Brown, the Stuka was a true vertical diver unlike some of the other dive bombers such as the Dauntless. He comment was that the Dauntless dived at about 70 degrees and my flight model reflects that.
I believe that the dive bombers were useful when the targets were small such as naval vessels. I believe they were much less useful if the target were an area target and weight of bombs had more effect.
The Stuka got substantially more horsepower with the D variant with a pressurized cooling system for the Jumo but the basic airframe was so draggy that it didn't make much difference in straight line performance. Payload was increased but that is meaningless in CFS.
I have heard about wind driven sirens on the wings, but have never heard of wind driven hydraulic pumps.
Perhaps I need to go review the schematics again.

Last night, I bought a 16GB Flash drive to use for backups on the old machine. The problem is that there is about 5 GB of just development files and aircraft that sit on that machine and the system will not stay running long enough to transfer large portions at a time.
We shall see where it goes. The drive is USB 3.0 but the machine only supports USB 2.0 so it still works but is not fast.
So far with all the SCSI disk verifications, I have not had another Video issue though Explorer still crashes without warning and previously reliable programs still terminate with illegal access for no apparent reason.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Thank you for your comments and recommendations about the utility of the Hampden AFX.
After inspecting them, I noticed all components, parts and structures were grouped into Body-Main, so this will not help for grouping techniques. On the other hand, how the different components are built up with their individual parts, could well suggest some building techniques.

I then drew up some comparative 3-view drawings of the 2 planes by scaling them to the same scale, to get a general guide line for a possible modification. From this I saw that although the planes are quite similar, all elements are different in size and shape, so I doubted whether turning the Hampden into a Baltimore would really save any work, and finally got the feeling that it would be easier to scratch-build the Baltimore. Now with your comment, this feeling is confirmed!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[smilo]

my apologies for the poor choice of words.
i used "thoroughbred" only as the opposite of workhorse.
there was no comment about performance implied.
more that thoroughbreds get the press
and workhorses get the job done.
for example, the B-17 and B-25,
both excellent aircraft,
got most of the press coverage.
where as, the B-26, A-20 and A-187
are rarely mentioned...almost to the point
that one would hardly know they existed.
yes, that's an exaggeration, but,
i think you get my point.

i still find it amusing to watch a show
on the history or military channel
and hear the narrator speak
of one of the more glamorous aircraft,
only to see a group of A-20s or some such.

in the end,
we are fed stories about thoroughbreds
and little or nothing about workhorses.
why?
thoroughbreds are exciting.
workhorses, not so much
and there is a limited
amount of space
to write the story.

so much for the horse analogy.

oh wait...one more...
i think we've finished
beating a dead horse.

[Ivan]

Hello Smilo,

Sorry if this looks like I am trying to revive the dead horse....
I have always had issues with analogies where the characteristics really don't match well or seem somewhat meaningless.
Perhaps that is why I had only fair grades in English classes even though my technical English is quite good.

Analogy of Thoroughbreds, Race Horses, Plow Horses, Cavalry Horses and the like is interesting but as I see it is pretty much a compliment that has no real meaning as far as technology goes. Genetics and heredity is how I interpret the terms and the only thing that I see that can carry on from one design to another is the design staff and that is no guarantee.

If you think about it, a True Thorougbred would havd been the Grumman Wildcat and Hellcat. Both were successful designs and both evolved from the ideas of a naval aviator and his company. Both came from long lines of similar designs....

We all like to think that past performance is an indicator of future results, but there are as many cases where that was not true and ones in which it was.

Another strange comment in my opinion is an analogy between the A6M Type Zero being a proper high class lady while the N1K2-J was a horny downtown girl. The image is vivid, but I am still at a loss as far as being able to put some kind of meaning to this in the context of aeroplanes. How do the characteristics translate between the two???

- Ivan.

[smilo]

the real question is,
should i keep this to myself?
apparently, not....

well, so much for trying
to gracefully back away
from a semantics debate
that i'm not interested in.
what more can i say?

flog away...if you must.

what i am interested in
is the forward progress
of the baltimore project.

i will now withdraw
back into my lair
and observe the show.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan, Hello Smilo,

Yes, we still haven´t killed the horse...

It´s funny, the human trait of insisting on assigning human attributes to things. Perhaps it comes from the English habit of calling ships "she" instead of "it", which then extended to aircraft and then even cars.

In my opinion it´s OK calling a pet a "he" or a "she", and adding human behaviour descriptions when talking about it in the park with other people and their pets, after all they are part of the family.

However, comments about a ship or a boat like "she rides the waves like...", or about one´s car such as "she´s ticking over nicely" sound rather affected. Is a captain married to his ship? Does a car substitute a woman? It sounds a bit wierd, to say the least, I´d say. But then, it´s so widespread, that talking like this is normal and everybody accepts it.

How is a high-class lady fighter going to behave differently from a downtown horny girl fighter? And worse, what do horny downtown girls or high-class girls have in common with certain fighter planes? I remember reading a comment about the Curtiss AT-9 beind compared to Jane Mansfield.

Then, even worse is the other way round, where the downtown horny girl would be described as "she goes like a sh**house door in a gale", or like being a dog, especially if she´s not too beautiful. What´s a dog supposed to think about this?

Popular expressions often completely lack in taste, I suppose, and some people have no remedy, but the origin of such expresions is of course, anonymous.

Anyway, at least, calling a plane a thoughrobred or a workhorse, are both compliments! ...and it won´t offend the horses.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,

As usual there is possibly incomplete or conflicting or contradictory information, in this case referring to the performance of the Baltimore. One thing is clear, that the first editions Mk1 to 4 had 1600 hp engines, whereas the 5th one had 1700 hp ones. Then, they got heavier with each edition, so the performance also changed.

For the Mk5 I have several different pieces of data which you may be able to clarify:

Engine:
a) Wright R-2600-29, some say R-2600-13,
1700 hp at takeoff, 1450 hp at 12000 ft (the latter also at max. power?)
b) Wright Cyclone GR-2600-A5B, 1660 hp, (geared), but most probably this was only Mk1 to Mk4.

Fuel tankage:
a) 407 USG
b) 490-1449 gal. (English gallons?) ...(some models had extra tanks?)

Top speed:
a) 305 mph at 11600 ft
b) 308 mph at 11500 ft
c) 320 mph at 15000 ft

Perhaps you have more reliable information at hand?
Thanks in advance for your efforts!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp