Hey Womble55,
You asked about the statistics from AF99 with the patch installed. Here is a shot of what I get with the old P-40E project.
- Ivan.
Hey Womble55,
You asked about the statistics from AF99 with the patch installed. Here is a shot of what I get with the old P-40E project.
- Ivan.
I don't know howOriginally Posted by Ivan
you can live
with those bleeds.
they are just awful
and their distractions
completely ruin the model.
really?!?!
are you kidding me?
I have looked at the shots
three times and don't see them.
of course, I'm old and blind,
but, in my opinion,
you are nit picking.
they maybe there,
but 99.99% of us
would never know it,
except, that you pointed them out.
reminds me of a conversation
I had with my wife years ago.
I was doing a home project
and was uptight about a few minor flaws.
she basically told me to shut up.
they were not noticeable
until I showed them to her.
of course the difference is
you are doing this for yourself,
not your wife
and it's a hobby,
not a honey do.
by the way,
for what it's worth,
and all kidding aside,
that is a fantastic model.
you workmanship is impeccable. :salute:
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Thanks Smilo,
As the person putting the plane together, you build a part and then attach (Glue) the part to the rest of the model. After that, you flip it around a bit in the simulator to see if your expectations of the results are met. That is when you notice that there is a slight bleed somewhere.
I am sure you have run into this situation yourself. What isn't so obvious is the hours spent in lining up the contour lines and panels to optimise the shape. I figure I have rebuilt the nose in sections about 15 times or so. The last change was to make all the pieces "Sharp" so I could see how well things lined up from the simulator itself.
- Ivan.
actually, no, I have not run into the situation.
I have never made it that far into the process.
BUT I must say, judging by the quality of your work,
it is more than obvious that you have spent
countless hours perfecting the model.
would that I had the skills and the patience...
there would be an A-20 for others to play with.
instead, right now, on another machine,
I am flying into a cloud bank
at the west end of the Straits of Juan de Fuca
at 1100 feet, heading 262, 152 knts, real time, real weather
in a Short Sandringham...FS9
BLASPHEMY!!! I know.
want to see a picture?
now, that's what we call high-jacking a thread!
sorry.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
smiloI am flying into a cloud bank
at the west end of the Straits of Juan de Fuca
at 1100 feet, heading 262, 152 knts, real time, real weather
in a Short Sandringham...FS9
Watch-out smilo or your Short may get shorter. Trees are huge over there (I've actually seen them with my own eyes while aboard a ferry). You don't want to finish as a tree-top ornament!
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Regarding Hijacking of threads, I don't believe I am staying on topic either. A blow by blow account of building a P-40C has only a marginal relationship to aircraft missing from CFS.
Smilo, I had to look up the aircraft you are flying to find out it is basically a Sunderland. Put some guns in that thing!!!
Here's a status update anyway:
It took about 3-4 hours in all to build a canopy frame for this plane. Putting in the glass panels between the frames took about 3 minutes. There is still a pretty serious bleed of the canopy frame through the front fuselage area, but that should only cost a single component and about 10 extra polygons.... AND yet another reworking of the nose contours.
The P-40C is supposed to have a sheet of armour glass in front of the pilot. I am basically going to ignore that fact for this model.
Good Night, All.
- Ivan.
I ended up deciding to hug the coast line
and take a tour around Vancouver Island.
even though I live in the area,
I have never gone down the inland passage.
it was a very nice trip,
although, I had to cut it short.
(no pun intended)
my wife and I met the inlaws
at Jefferson County Airport
for the annual Fly-in.
it was the best turn out I have ever seen there.
yeah, well, at least when you hijack a thread,
you talk about CFS related subject matter. :salute:
and it's not like this forum is a hot bed of activity,
filled with people that get uptight about such things.
--------------------------
you are absolutely correct.
the Sandringham was a pre-war passenger version
of the Sunderland.
...and no guns.
I have been getting into flying boats and float planes lately.
...not so much combat.
living in the Pacific Northwest,
there's a hell of a lot of water and islands to explore.
Hubba calls it "lazy flying",
but it sure is fun.
not to mention,
there is an outfit called Kenmore Air
that flies DeHavilland DHC-2 Beavers right over here
from Seattle to Victoria and back every day.
I love the sound of those things.
sorry, I can't resist.
I've got to post a screen shot...
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hey Smilo,
I remember a group of posts not that long ago regarding Anna Honey's business trips, so perhaps not all the messages were about CFS....
- Ivan.
yup, so there were.
you've got me on that one.
it's a good thing we are among friends, huh?
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hey Smilo,
I figure this is a pretty generic FS discussion. Now if you will just break out the old CFS1 CD and download a Short Sunderland to do some "Lazy Flying", the CFS planes here won't feel so bad about looking inadequate next to that Sandringham of yours.
Yet another status update:
I added a small component under the canopy frame and changed the glue sequence of the yellow forward fuselage section to be AFTER the canopy frames. Bleed looks to be gone. I spent the last couple hours (after blow drying my daughter's hair) building the keel of this plane. Things started getting complicated around the junction of the fuselage and cowl until I flipped the model around a bit and saw how simple the solution could be.
The plane is still missing a frame on the quarter windows and I am debating on making that section of the fuselage concave as on the real plane, but as you can see, the model is pretty near done. The shape of the carbureter intake bothers me a bit, so I may rework that to put more of a bulge on top.
Folks who don't build planes for FS98 or CFS may be wondering why there are all those weird colours on this untextured model. The adjacent pieces are coloured differently so that when the wrong part shows in the foreground (bleed), it is visually more obvious. The parts are set as "Sharp" to emphasize the vertices and edges of each part to show up any panels that are concave and in shadow when they should not be.
It's almost ready for the paint shop at this point.
- Ivan.
first, the CFS1 CD has not left my disk drive.
it's always there.
after an hour or so of searching my backups,
I was unable to find the CFS Sunderland
I know that I have, somewhere.
not to be thwarted,
I went to flightsim and downloaded it
along with several others
in short order.
(no pun intended)
some worked, some didn't,
some panels worked, some didn't.
par for the course, really.
the models are FS98,
so the quality and detail is as expected.
BUT, I do have the Sunderland installed, again.
now if I could only find
some decent Pac NW scenery.
I know I have some Aleutians...
...somewhere.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Folks who don't build planes for FS98 or CFS may be wondering why there are all those weird colours on this untextured model. The adjacent pieces are coloured differently so that when the wrong part shows in the foreground (bleed), it is visually more obvious. The parts are set as "Sharp" to emphasize the vertices and edges of each part to show up any panels that are concave and in shadow when they should not be.
Its amazing that threads like this can solve problems you have experienced, done it your own way, usually struggled. Then some smart alec comes along and says the blindingly obvious.
Thanks Ivan, life should be a bit easier now and in the words of that great sage homer......DOH!
Womble55
Hi Smilo,
If I were do to a flying boat, it would be either a PBY Catalina, Sikorsky, or a H8K Emily. It probably would be the Emily since I have never seen one for CFS before. No, it isn't on the build list yet.
Hey Womble55,
Which idea was the "Great Revelation"? The clown colours or the shadows? I am guessing it is the odd colours idea.
BTW, Attached is an updated model. Added were Exhausts, Wing Guns, and the brace on the quarter windows.
- Ivan.
I'm also curious to know what made you "tick", womble
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Next Steps:
Rebuild the Carbureter Scoooooop.
Adjust the width of the Canopy. It is too narrow and tapered toward the top. The front windshield supports are 0.35 wide and should be 0.55 wide (roughly). This is from putting a dial caliper on drawings. If someone knows the actual dimension, please let me know.
Add Cutouts under the quarter windows.
- Ivan.
I got lazy and decided not to modify the canopy. These are views from the Virtual Cockpit fore and aft. Note the cutouts in the aft view. The cockpit aft wall is now three pieces to avoid concave polygons. The Carburetor Scoop has also been modified but it is barely visible from this angle.
- Ivan.
Here are a few exterior views. The model is basically done and ready for the paint shop. The cutouts behind the cockpit are quite visible here as is the slightly lenghtened and reshaped carburetor scoop. The contours of the aft fuselage were also reshaped.
My son wants to fly this thing, so I guess he will take it up unpainted for the maiden flight.... But he has to finish his homework first!
- Ivan.
My son had issues finishing his homework. He also decided he wanted to fly a TIE fighter instead. My daughter asked if she could take the first flight and with a little instruction, took the plane up for a short hop. The first attempt at a take off ended with a ground loop. Second attempt was successful. She rolled, looped, flew above the clouds, Split-S, and buzzed the runway. At her request, I landed it. The only minor glitch was a bleed of the flaps underneath. That bleed was a consequence of my "improved" assembly sequence and took about 10 minutes to fix.
Now for the DP and flight parameters. Surprisingly, for this aircraft I already have most of the information I need.
- Ivan.
[QUOTE=Ivan;450015]Hi Smilo,
If I were do to a flying boat, it would be either a PBY Catalina, Sikorsky, or a H8K Emily. It probably would be the Emily since I have never seen one for CFS before. No, it isn't on the build list yet.
Hey Womble55,
Which idea was the "Great Revelation"? The clown colours or the shadows? I am guessing it is the odd colours idea.
The vast variety of colours (colors) to help in the eradification of bleeds, I used to do a basic paint of say Red for the port wing with the words 'left wing' to help with this. The new method is easier toconcentrate on an idividual part or component.
As to a Flying boat what about a Blohm and Voss Bv222....
or one of the excellent examples from WW1 like the Hansa Brandenburg W29...
Keep up the good work
womble55
Hi Womble55,
It looks to me like you already have a pretty good start to both the BV 222 and the H-B W-29.
I see you have what looks like a pretty decent lozenge patern on the W-29's wings. I need to do the same for my Albatros D.5A but can't find a good pattern to work from. Have you thought of making your components "sharp" so you can see all the edges?
I am just of the opinion that the Pacific Islands make great locations for operating Flying Boats and like the look of the H8K Emily, China Clippers, and perhaps even the Catalina.
If I were to build a float plane, it probably would be a Supermarine S-6, A6M2-N (easy considering I already have a pretty fair Zero), or a Kawanishi N1K1.
I don't know if you already have done AIR files for your seaplanes, but if you haven't, you might want to do what I did and use the Ground Effect Graph to kick the plane out of the water to break friction.
- Ivan.
Hello All,
I have been working on a Damage Profile for the P-40C and hit something very unexpected. Generally, I use an existing Stock DP file and edit the boxes and values to match the plane I am working on. Thus far, just about all the weapons have had stock equivalents.
With the P-40C, I have lots of data regarding the weight of the ammunition. I believe the weight unit in a DP file is an ounce (1/16th of a pound). When I plugged in my values, I found that the weight was roughly three times what the stock values were for the .50 caliber Cowl Guns. The .30 caliber wing guns should have been somewhat similar to a .303 or 7.92, but was also much higher.
In checking the stock values, I found that the weights as specified in the DP file were just about a perfect match for the PROJECTILE weights of each weapon. I had always assumed that the values were the Per ROUND weight which would determine the weight of the load on board the aircraft. Seems like this is not the case, so.....
Where the heck is the weight of the ammunition (and links) load taken into account????
Any Ideas?
- Ivan.
I had always thought that the weight figure at the end of the guns row was for the consumable - link and round. The guns themselves were entered into the air file as part of the general weight. Not knowing my way round the airfile I haven't paid much notice where it is entered. Looking at the 1% website I looked at the values they recommend for the ammo weight. .303" is given as 11.3g or 0.399oz. US .5" is given as 48.5g or 1.711oz. These are the bullets themselves, not the complete round. A complete 6.5mm round is about 400gr which is 26g or 0.9oz (6.5mm is the nearest thing I have - 180gr case, 44gr powder, 140gr head) If someone weighs a link then all the components could be added to give the weight in ounces that is taken off the plane each time the gun fires. This is what the last figure should be.
Thanks Dave,
I was also thinking consumables. I have some pretty good weight figures for the P-40C:
The two .50 caliber cowl guns had 380 rounds per gun.
Total weight of .50 caliber ammunition is stated as 228 pounds.
The four .30 caliber wing guns had 490 rounds per gun.
Total weight of the .30 caliber ammunition was 104 and a fraction pounds.
Like you, I also am fairly familiar with small arms ammunition. A .308 Wincheter round has a case that weighs around 170-190 grains. The bullet is typically 150-170 grain. The powder is around 40-45 grains, so the complete round should weigh around 360-380 grains. A .30-06 round has a heavier case (Ballpark estimate would be 200 grains) and a slightly heavier powder charge, so 410 grains would be about right.
I just don't understand why the values in the stock DP files are all projectile weights because I don't see how that value would be useful.
BTW, Can you send me a link to the 1% site for aircraft armament? I would like to look at some of their tables also.
Thanks.
- Ivan.
And I don't understand how it was overlooked for so long. I always assumed DP was giving the hole expendable weight. Nice find Ivan.I just don't understand why the values in the stock DP files are all projectile weights because I don't see how that value would be useful.
I was waiting for Dave's comments, which I was sure were forthcoming (thanks Dave).
I will now go have a look in my DP profiles. Have to go. A giant thunderstorm is approaching... it's scary!
P.S.- False alert. The skies turned pitch-black in minutes, but it passed away.
I was trying to say that I will look into my DAT files which I got from Simviation here
I'm no expert in ammo, but I will do my best to find informations on hole rounds-shell + links.
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
The weights of a complete shell and link are not easy to find, but not all that impossible either. I rounded up 19 .50 caliber links at a local gun show (all the fellow had) and added one of my own for a total of 20 which I summarised in a spreadsheet a while back. I believe I have a couple WW2 AP .30-06 rounds someplace. For rifle calibers, these are not illegal. For pistols, they are illegal.
Hubbabubba, I tried to download the DAT file from your link. I was not able to. Does anyone have the 1% spreadsheet for aircraft guns?
BTW, now that we know what the weights should be, what do we do about it???
- Ivan.
Members who have read this thread: 22
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks