Chech your mail Smilo, I never said they were great, I find and distribute...
Just may give someone something to start with.
Chech your mail Smilo, I never said they were great, I find and distribute...
Just may give someone something to start with.
Just for grins, I poked around a bit today looking for good drawings of the Ju-87D. I found some really excellent ones for the Ju-87B, but unfortunately not the D model.
- Ivan.
How about this one?Originally Posted by Ivan
Attachment 44513http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vue..._ju87d2_3v.jpg
Why not a B? More representative of the "golden Age" of the Stuka...
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Hi Hubbabubba,
I was thinking more along the lines of something like this:
http://imageshack.us/f/202/page115.jpg/
Careful though. This image is heavy. I even found the book that this came from (published by Kagero in their Monografie series). It doesn't have a D model drawing.
I like building the best version of an aircraft and the D is the better version. There already are a couple B models out that are quite reasonable.
- Ivan.
Junkers Jumo 211J-1
1420 HP @ 2600 RPM 1.35 ATA
I believe the prop is 3.3 meters diameter.
D-1 through D-3 used the same wing as the B series.
The D-5 had a longer wing which I believe comes to a sharper point at the tip.
I am still trying to figure out which of the D models was the best. If I were to build one, it would have the dive brakes even though most were removed in the field.
- Ivan.
hello Dave, just checked this one out.
low and behold, it's the James Elwood model.
one of my all time faves to fly.
hello Ivan,
long ago, you gave me a link to a site
that was dedicated to unfinished models.
by chance, do you still have that link
and would you please share it again?
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
http://www.freeflightdesign.org/military.html
Hi Smilo,
Is this the place you were thinking of? I generally find lots of good stuff here. I linked to the Military Aircraft which is generally what I am interested in.
The dive speed of the Stuka B is 600 kph (375 mph)
The dive speed of the Stuka D is 650 kph (400 mph)
Bomb release is around 1500 feet.
- Ivan.
yup, that's the place...thanks
______i'm off to double check.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Does that Lysander AFX have a 3D Cowl Ring and Engine? Many years ago, I modified a version I downloaded to add those features and sent it back to Mr. Elwood. I also changed the Propeller on that plane.
- Ivan.
Is there any interest out there for a Ju 88 Night Fighter? I don't I have ever seen one for CFS. I am not proposing a project. I am just curious. BTW, this was a plane that was capable of just over 400 mph at 30,000 feet which is pretty hot stuff if you aren't a Mosquito.
- Ivan.
Of Course there is Ivan, we will take anything you release, again release!
Luva dude
Dave
the only decent Ju88 i know about
is an A-4 by Mike Lowery.
it's available over at the RAF662.
there is always interest in a new release,
but with the current list of projects,
i don't see it happening anytime soon.
or, for that matter, even later.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hey Guys,
Since we were discussing the Heinkel 219 Night Fighter, I just thought I would ask about the Junkers 88 Night Fighter. Remember the subject of this thread? I am just a bit curious as to why certain "Popular" aircraft have just never been built for CFS.
We have zillions of Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Warhawks and Kittyhawks, Zeros.
I don't think there is always interest in a new release. I thought my Fokker Eindecker was a very cool plane, but I don't see that many others see the same.
- Ivan.
Regarding WWI aircraft and CFS1, I think that the game was ideally suited for that. But designers would spend hours and days making swell models only to slap on WWII DP and AIR files. Pity really... :toilet: Something in the style of "Fields of Flanders" would have been welcomed in CFS1.
As for WWII releases, it follows the simple rule "What can I build that will get the other guys?". This probably explains why Me 262 are over-represented while aircraft considered as "targets" aren't. Human nature I guess...
I basically follow three rules when making my decisions for future projects;
1- What has not been build yet?
2- If it exist, could I do it better?
3- Will it enhance our "gaming experience"?
The last criteria came with my multiplayer short experience. What these guys will like will probably be liked by others as well. That's what led me to build the refueling stations and land-sea vehicles with the capacity to "return fire".
The first criteria explains why I build the Taifun. The second explains why I will build the Harvard MkII and the Boston MkIII.
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Hi Hubbabubba et al.
I saw your post a while back, but had to do a lot of thinking as to how I pick my subjects to build. The simple answer is that there really isn't a systematic, reliable answer to that.
*I* tend to like to build the hunter rather than the target as you already mentioned, but that doesn't quite explain the BV 141B or the Dauntless or the B-25. In general, I build whatever interests me at the time. I often don't care if there already is a good example of the type already out there, because although there may be a good example, it isn't mine and I want to OWN a copy of the plane. Sometimes it is because I think I can do better. Sometimes (as in the case of the Me 109 I am planning, I probably won't do as well. I also fairly easy to convince in taking up new projects. The big trick is keeping the interest to completing and releasing a project. I like to solve problems and to experiment. Often the completion of the experiment is the only goal for me.
I like to build aeroplanes that were recognised as good examples of their type. This is probably why I probably would never bother with the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver even though I have lots of data for it.
Now back to the topic of this thread. For all 4 of you out there who are still reading this thread: What are the Top 10 aeroplanes you would like to see for CFS? I am a bit curious.
- Ivan.
You already have my list Ivan, any you would consider?
Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com
What are the Top 10 aeroplanes you would like to see for CFS? I am a bit curious.
- Ivan
I would consider a revamp of some of the aircraft still doing the rounds that were direct decendants of FS4 creations. Also there is a deficit of decent trainer aircraft, ie Avro Anson, Airspeed Oxford and suchlike. Seaplanes are only represented by a Sunderland (also include the Shorts Empire flying boats), PBY Catalina/Canso, a couple of Dorniers and my Shorts 184. The Flying Boats from between the wars are decidedly lacking in number (please read that as non-existant) as are decent fighters, bombers, transport and training from that period. These are what decides for me what my projects are and hopefully some will be released as soon as the bleeds and colours are finished. In a nutshell only the very famous have been modelled leaving the ordinary workhorses to linger in the sidelines until the true value of the "also rans" is realised.
Hello No Dice,
Hope you don't mind my posting of your list here:
Arado Ar 196
Breda Ba 88
Bristol 156 Beaufighter
Caproni Ca 133
Caudron 714 Cyclone
Curtiss Hawk 75
Hawker Typhoon Mk.Ib
Vultee A-35B Vengeance
Westland Whirlwind
P-47 Submarine
I believe there are a couple of these out there already. I know Piglet built a Westland Whirlwind. There are Zillions of Curtiss P-36 / Hawk 75s. I am pretty sure there is a Arado 196 also. I probably have a couple Beaufighters already installed on my machine.
I will check....
- Ivan.
Hi Womble55,
I believe I have a pretty good PBY Catalina installed on my machine. I can't remember the source though. There is an AFX that is available though I can tell you that I have tried to work with it and it is kinda rough. I know I was working with the JG57 folks on a Dornier 18 and I believe it is downloadable though I don't know where at the moment. I still have a copy on my machine.
I believe Hubbabubba has it in his plans to do some early war Trainers and such starting with the AT-6 Texan.
Although I didn't mention it in my last post, I do have plans to rework the P-40C into a P-36 at some point. That was a consideration when I was reworking the P-40E into the P-40C.
I believe you are right, the also-rans don't get much attention, but don't you think that is the way things should be? The stars should get more attention?
My original thoughts when starting this thread were that there are quite a few "Stars" that haven't had proper treatment. The list has changed a bit because of recent discussions:
Mitsubishi J2M Raiden - (on my very short list)
Handley Page Halifax
Mitsubishi G4M Betty
Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden-KAI
Nakajima Ki-43-II Hayabusa
Chance Vought F4U-1 Corsair - I have a couple awaiting service testing.
Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien (Tony) - I have one awaiting camouflage before delivery.
Smilo's gonna hate this:
Ju 87 Stuka
Dornier Do 17Z
North American B-25 Mitchell - Mine is failing flight testing at the moment.
These are all fairly famous planes but with the possible exception of the Betty and the Oscar, none are well represented.
- Ivan.
As far as I have found, "maybe I am missing something", nothing on my list is out there
that compares to your quality.
and a P47 on floats......well you asked.
Dave
I DID include the P-47 Submarine!
- Ivan.
Here's a Dornier 18 and a PBY-5 Catalina. Both could use some improvement, but the Catalina isn't all that bad.
- Ivan.
Is that "Your" Catalinia?
Dave
No, It is not mine. I downloaded it from someplace. I have the AFX for a Catalina, but the AFX has lots of problems and fixing them is almost as much of a pain as building a new one.
The issue with most AFXs that I have found is that the shape looks good from a distance, but when examined up close, the shapes are weird and assembly sequence is weird. With the Catalina, the most objectionable thing is that the Center of Gravity is VERY far off in the actual model and it was "Fixed" at the very end by moving the center of rotation. I tried just moving the raw parts and the result was that all the textures are now misplaced. I can write a program to fix that but just haven't gotten a Round Tuit yet. Making the changes by hand is way too tedious and time consuming to do for a plane that isn't mine.
This is the reason that for my Tutorial, althought it is possible to move a piece from where it was created to the place where it will be in the assembly, I discourage it
- Ivan.
Here is a project I have had in the works for a long time. I am somewhat surprised no one else ever built one for CFS.
- Ivan.
Members who have read this thread: 22
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks