Conspicuous by Their Absence

[Ivan]

Hi Smilo,

Where can we get the Burnage Mosquito B.IV?

The Spitfire was built a couple years ago and still remains unpainted. There was a discussion about 3D models of Spitfires at another forum, so I got a couple screenshots. Not really related to this thread, but I just like the look of the plane.

I did some more flight testing of the P-40C this morning. The initial climb rate is around 2800 fpm at around 185 mph. The actual climb rate should be 2690 fpm at about 165 mph. I can adjust it, but this isn't too bad. The P-40C seems to work rather well with a P-47D propeller.


- Ivan.

[smilo]

flightsim;
http://www.flightsim.com/file.php?cm=INDEXCALL&sPos=290

actually, I am one of the lucky few
to have a copy of your spit mk ix
it is a truly fantastic model.
does need paint, though.

the P40 seems to be in the ballpark.
close enough for government work.

I just finished my mk iv endurance test.
like I stated above,
the AP Airspeed hold does not work.
consequently, when I would step away,
the AS would change radically.
I ran at 44-47% throttle
and the speed would fluctuate from 245- up to 295+ mph.
I never let it get past those points.
anyway, I ran out of fuel 1076 GPS miles from the start point.
needless to say, this is a disappointment.
I was hoping for a range of from 1500 to 2000 miles
as is mentioned in a book I have.
oh well, so it goes.

of course, if the GPS is reading NM
then I went 1238 miles,
but it's still short.

[Ivan]

Thanks Smilo,

As with all the other unfinished projects, the Spitfire will get finished eventually. I just realised at the time that I did not know enough about tuning climb rates to really do it justice. Almost two years later, I believe I know enough to try another attempt at it. P-40C comes first though because it just happens to be what I am interested in at the moment.

I know the US Navy calculated what it called "Yardstick Ranges" which didn't really map to an operational radius, but rather to how much fuel the aircraft carried and how far it could fly at cruising speeds without taking into account take-off and climb expenses or loitering over the target.

I found that I already had the Mosquito FB version installed on my computer. I downloaded the B.IV version last night but didn't have a chance to do anything to it. I can tell from the FB model (if it is by the same author) that his philosophy and mine differ a bit.

Now that you opened this rather large can of worms, I guess we will all need to check the fuel consumptions of our aircraft. I will check out the Mosquito Bomber some time today hopefully.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

Hi Ivan, smilo,

The FB6 type pilot manual states that the aircraft had 10 standard tanks! The "outer-wing" tanks (2 per wing) had 116 gallons capacity. The "main inner-wing" (2 per wing) had 286 gallons. The "main fuselage" two tanks carried 50 more gallons for a total of 452 gallons. These were "Imperial gallons", in US gallons, it was almost 543.

An additional "long range" fuselage tank could carry 63 gallons and two dropable 100 gallons wings tanks gave the total of 715 Imperial gallons (858.6796 US).

In some types, fuselage capacity was increased to 63 gallons and dropable 200 gallons tanks were also used.

...

apparently, a long range mosquito with external tanks
has not been modeled.
attached is a copy of a document included with
the RAF662 Mosquito FB.VI by Roger Lowery
I believe this is where Hubba got the information stated above.
works for me, although, it would be nice
if there was a long range version.
that said,
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion
that this is the case with most,
if not all, CFS models
and that it is a little late in the game
to start worrying about it too much.
so it goes.

Ivan, from my searching,
there are other mosquitoes out there.
no small wonder...it's a great plane.
my visual favorites are
the RAF662 by Roger Lowery
and 2 versions by Philippe Burnage.
I especially like the Mk IV bomber
with the plexiglas nose.
there are also versions by Shigeru Tanaka
and RAF 2000 versions that appear to be by Tanaka as well.
at the risk of being overly critical,
I am not fond of these visual models.
consequently, I have not taken the time
to really check them out closely
--------------
speaking of tanks and switches,
(yeah, it's a stretch)
Ivan, as I recall, long ago,
you were looking for a multi-position fuel tank switch
for your Dauntless...or am I dreaming?
did you ever find one?
I may have good news.

-----------------------------------------

as a side note;
asper Hubba's recommendation a while back,
I have been looking at the forum moderation tools.
does anyone object to my running an experiment?
I would like to try copying the mosquito related posts
to a new mosquito range thread.
if it works, I will then delete said posts
from this thread with an appropriate message.
please, please, can I try, please...

as there appears to be only 5 of us
actively using this place,
I will wait for your input
before I do my experiment...

[Ivan]

Feel free to experiment with the posts.

BTW, I just checked out the Mosquito flight model with FDE. The plane has three fuel tanks:
525 Left Tank: 231 gallons
526 Right Tank: 231 gallons
531 Center Tank: 0 gallons

Looks like the attempt was to combine all the wing tanks and half of the fuselage tanks on each side. Doesn't look like the conversion from Imperial Gallons to US Gallons happened, so the numbers are about 20% off.

The Conversion to Imperial Gallons should gain you about 20% range. There are a bunch of other things to try, but that is starting to deviate a bit from real values. I may mess with it a little but won't promise anything. I am fairly sure there are other significant issues with this flight model.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

granted, the document above is for the Mk VI,
but,
Fuel and oil systems
1. Fuel tanks
Fuel is carried in four outer wing tanks, four inner wing tanks, and two centre tanks.
The fuel capacities are as follows:
Main supply
Centre tanks 50 gallons

Inner wing tanks 286 gallons

Outer tanks 116 gallons

Total 452 gallons


The fuel capacities are given in imperial gallons. FS measures fuel in US gallons, so you will see larger numbers in the Engine and Fuel dialog.

In the real mosquito you can switch between main supply and outer tanks, but you can not use both at the same time. While the main supply can feed both engines, the starboard outer tanks will only feed the starboard engine and the port tank the port engine. If one engine fails, fuel left in the corresponding outer tank can not be used so the outer tanks should be emptied first.

interesting.

[smilo]

so why , do you suppose,
he chose a total of 462 instead of 452?
different resource, maybe?

452 IG= 542.829 gallons
462 IG= 554.838 gallons

making the change from Imperial to Standard Gallons
should get the range within the ballpark.
how much work is it to make that adjustment?
if it is simple and you have the time,
I can make the test flight.

any ideas why my AP Airspeed hold doesn't work?

[Ivan]

Hi Smilo,

Check Wikipedia. The Fuselage tanks originally held 50 gallons. In later models, they held 63 gallons, so:
One outter wing tank + One inner wing tank + 1/2 fuselage tanks (rounded down)
58+143+30(should be 31) = 231

I can change the AIR file pretty easily. As I commented on earlier, there are a bunch more bugs than this. Also, I am going to put some capacity into the Fuselage tank. With just the three tanks, the fuel selector for the stock P-51D should work just fine.

BTW, are you using a different panel with your plane? The panel that came with it seems to have some problems also: I tried to switch off engines by just using panel ignition controls and only the left one seems to do anything. Also it switches OFF when BOTH magnetos are selected.

Do you want me to send you just the modified AIR file with the fuel capacity change (quick) or with a few additional checks and probable changes? The problem is that a simple fuel capacity change won't get you the range you are looking for. If you are just looking for the range to fly a mission, let me know what you want the fuselage tank to be set at (conversion says 75.5 US Gallons).

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

If you think THIS is getting screwy, consider that with German fighters, you really can't select the drop tank. There typically is an air pressure line that plumbs into the drop tank and forces the fuel into one of the on board tanks. When you drop the tank, the internal tanks will be as full as they can be.

Also, some planes use what they call a "Standpipe Reserve". That means that although there may only be one fuel tank on board, the selector draws from one of two positions: Either at the lowest part of the tank (all fuel available) (also called Reserve) or a higher position which doesn't draw fuel below the reserve level.

The Dauntless actually has an inboard and an outboard wing tank, but I am not sure that they are individually selectable. If not, then effectively there is only one wing tank per side.

I have been playing with swapping gauges between the various stock panels. My current P-40 panel is basically a P-51D panel with fuel switching from the FW 190A. What I can't decide yet is the order the tanks should be on the selection. FWIW, the Ki-61 panel is basically a Me 109E panel with P-51D fuel selection. (The Me 109 doesn't have a fuel selector because it only has one internal fuel tank.) It may not look right, but it IS functional.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

I must be getting denser...
I don't see how increasing the capacity
could not increase the range.
but, I will take your word for it.
I would like the quick .air file
if it isn't too much trouble.
please and thank you in advance.

oddly enough, the standpipe reserve is familiar.
I have an old Massey-Ferguson tractor
that uses the technique.
the fuel valve is initially opened 1/4 turn
and the tractor is operated until it runs out of fuel.
the reserve is activated by manually turning the fuel valve full open.
there is just enough fuel to get back to the barn.

try shutting down the mosquito with Ctrl+Shift+ F1
that's Mixture idle cutoff
very odd about the ignition only half working.

oh yeah, I am using a different panel.
it's for precision bombing.

[Ivan]

Hi Smilo,

Yes, the increased capacity WILL increase the range. I must have just stated it wrong. The problem is that you are looking for about 50% more range and 20% more fuel won't go quite that far.

Check your email. I believe there also were a couple problems with the propeller animation (wrong direction?) and I changed that too. I can't adjust the pitch though.

Let me know how it works or doesn't.
- Ivan.

[hubbabubba]

I believe this is where Hubba got the information stated above.

Let's just say that we both got our information from the same source; RAF "Pilot's note for Mosquito FB. 6".

Since most of the capacity was in the wings, general figures for all Mosquitoes must be pretty much the same. The fuselage was only containing a small amount. It is said that B Mk IV with bulging bomb bays could deliver a 4,000 lbs "cookie" to Berlin and back. Pictures are showing such aircraft with 100 Imp. gal. under both wings. I doubt that it was carrying the center 63 Imp. gal. with the bomb. So it would give 542 Imp. gal. or 651 gal.

According to this site , the distance between East-Anglia and Berlin is ±993 miles, which gives us an average 1.53 miles per gallon (with a safety of 10%, we are still at 1.53 mi/gal).

Roger Lowery tanks give 92 gal right (526 AirEd) and left (525) and 57.6 center (531), for a total of 241.6 US gal or 201.74 Imp. gal. We are far from the count. More than that, 546 gallons are left in section 302, which the poor beast has to carry for nothing! I had made the same mistake in the Taifun (remember Ivan?).

Removing that dead weight and adjusting the "CFS1 style" tanks to reflect real capacity should go a long way.

[Ivan]

Hi Hubbabubba,

The fuselage 50 or 63 gallon tanks were internal and just behind the cockpit. Other than for weight reasons, there was no reason they could not be filled while carrying a bomb load.

Regarding the Record 302 fuel tanks, I do seem to remember some issue with these and your Taifun, but don't remember the details. I know the stock P-47D has Section 302 tanks. I also know that I tried way back to base my F6F-3 Hellcat on the stock Thunderbolt and was surprised as heck when the thing could not be belly landed. (It would slow down and then bounce and flip over.)

I never checked out whether This Mosquito Bomber had section 302 fuel tanks and whether the weights were correct. I generally don't get to that level of detail when working on an AIR file that isn't my own. I certainly didn't do any speed, power or climb tests. Since you pointed it out, I will go check the AIR file again.

I believe that a pretty good visual model for the Mosquito would be quite easy to build because of the simple shapes. Do you agree?

- Ivan.

[hubbabubba]

Hi Ivan

The fuselage 50 or 63 gallon tanks were internal and just behind the cockpit. Other than for weight reasons, there was no reason they could not be filled while carrying a bomb load.

I will take your word for it. Despite having a large amount of literature on the Mosquito, internal fuselage tanks are only represented in a ¾ front "cut-off" view of a B Mk IV in a Japanese book, and they are described as 2x68 gallons! I find it rather difficult to imagine that the B Mk IV would carry 113 Imperial gallons without additional tanks while the FB Mk VI would have only that capacity with them. I would give precedent to pilot's notes over the Japanese book, no matter how ordinarily precise they are.

Redoing the calculation while taking into account these central tanks, and considering a capacity of +63 Imperial gallons (±136 US), we have 605 I.gal (±727 US). This gives an average of 1.37 miles per gallon US (1.52 with a 10% reserve).

Regarding the Record 302 fuel tanks, I do seem to remember some issue with these and your Taifun, but don't remember the details.

My Taifun starboard wing was tilting the aircraft to the right, you found that I had tanks imbalance approximately at the tip of the right wing under 302 and 1003. I thought they were inoperative under CFS1 air file system, but they were still carrying their weight! The solution was simply to remove the whole two sections!

In CFS1 air files, only sections around 525 to 533 are used. All stock aircraft are using one to three tanks. AI aircraft are still using 302-1003 "FS98 style" tanks. Under "CFS1 style" tanks, only tanks from 525 to 531 are being emptied. The stock P-47D has no 302-1003 sections, you must have tweaked it without noticing. I verified in a "plain vanilla" installation of mine.

I believe that a pretty good visual model for the Mosquito would be quite easy to build because of the simple shapes. Do you agree?

Which Mosquito? Very few aircraft were declined in so many different versions; photo reconnaissance, bomber, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, transport...A modeler could do a Mosquito every six months and he would not cover all the variants in a lifetime, unless he starts very young and dies very old...

[Ivan]

The tanks behind the cockpit don't each carry 63 Imp Gallons. The COMBINED capacity is 63 gallons. This is just from Wikipedia. Perhaps I have other docs on the Mosquitos, I don't know because I haven't cared enough to look for them.

Perhaps you are correct about the tweaked P-47D AIR file. I probably found the sectin 302 / section 1003 fuel tanks as the simplest means of describing fuel tanks and used those. Everything was fine until I tried to belly land the airplane and then lots of weirdness. One other thing was that I didn't change stabiliser area until I found the plane was terribly unstable at altitiude. I then took a dial caliper to a MPC 1/72 Hellcat model and estimated the areas. After changing that, the instability was gone.

As for mosquito variants, the nose, engines and propellers change by a bit, but most of the versions are either bomber or fighter nosed with little bitty antennae or not. The wings, fuselage and tail don't change much and the engines don't project past the upper surface of the wing. To me, this looks like a much less complicated model than the B-25, B-26, Ju 88, or A-20.

BTW, The AIR file for the Mosquito B.IV has no section 302 fuel tanks and the Zero Fuel weight seems a bit low at 14,300 pounds. The engines also need to be moved forward by a bit but since I don't have any good drawings, I don't know by exactly how far.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

One link for a .50 Cal weighs 269.4 grains. Found and weighed just ONE this morning.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Finished the Service Ceiling and Absolute Ceiling tests last night:
Starting with half fuel and full ammunition:
Service Ceiling 32,700 feet
Absolute Ceiling 33,900 feet

Actual reported Service Ceiling for the P-40C was 29,500 feet which I believe sounds a bit too low.
I am reasonably satisfied with the results.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

--------------
speaking of tanks and switches,
(yeah, it's a stretch)
Ivan, as I recall, long ago,
you were looking for a multi-position fuel tank switch
for your Dauntless...or am I dreaming?
did you ever find one?
I may have good news.

Hi Smilo,

Attached is an image of the SBD-3 Dauntless fuel selector. This is kinda goofy, but I would be satisfied if there were a gauge that could select Left Main, Right Main, Left Aux, Right Aux. The Reserve is a standpipe reserve in the Left Main tank.

Thanks.
- Ivan.

[hubbabubba]

Hi smilo

Are-you the smilo12334 (spurious numbers) that is, among others, trying to talk some sense into the bozo who pretends on YouTube that the Mossie was all-metal, British only pretending it was wood to intoxicate the Germans into loosing time and money into building one? If so, a word of advice; don't loose your time into a desperate cause.

That guy is to place with those who believe that earth is flat and, believe it or not, one phenomenon who affirm that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not nuked but flattened with "classical" incendiaries! I've seen him being kicked-out of at least three forums. He tends to be very crude with those who try to say otherwise.:isadizzy:

Hi Ivan

I have such a gauge that can be switched on Right-Main, Left-Main, Right-aux, Left-Aux, Normal (all) or Cut-off. I think it works only with 302-1003 "FS98 style" sections, but I'm not sure. I will try to test it with a tweaked "CFS1 style" tanks air file. It's a modified gauge that I used for an "extravaganza" F-16A panel of mine. Jet air files are only working with FS98 air files as CFS1 has only piston engines.

Incidentally, I have found HERE and HERE documents that describe the fuel capacity of the Mosquito B Mk IV and B Mk IV ii as being 536 gallons (I presumed Imperial) internal. Interesting fact; it goes down to 500 gallons with the "bulging bomb bay" version. Central main tanks gone?

It would also mean that the tanks were different between B Mk IV and FB Mk VI. Maybe the FB version had smaller wing tanks to increase roll rate? (I'm hypothesizing here...)

The range would have been barely enough for a Berlin bomb run, which fits operations reports.

[Ivan]

Hi Hubbabubba,
Let me know how the gauge testing works out. Also, where did the gauge come from?

The unpainted screenshot below shows the changes from your comments about the bleeds. Note that the split between the fin and tailcone has changed. The red triangle above the front of the wing fillet cures the fuselage bleed problem.

The other screenshot shows what the P-40C changes look like with the original P-40E paint. The untextured major components are the most major rebuilds in which not only were the polygons changed, but the entire component was deleted first. Looks like a roadkill to me.

I also checked out the roll rates for the P-40C. They are an almost exact match to the documented results up to 350 mph IAS. I did not test beyond that because of the severity of the dives needed to get to that airspeed.

- Ivan.

[smilo]

nope, I am not said, smilo1234.
I do not argue politics, religion,
or war denials in public forums.
the effort is an exercise in futility.

attached is a picture of the seven position fuel switch that I have.
I believe it was created by Chuck Dome.
I do not have the skills to change the gauge,
but I would imagine that redoing the gauge BMP
would not be that tough.

so, I had a thought about mosquito fuel capacities,
what if the air file was changed to reflect
the quantities with the wing slipper tanks?
granted, the tanks would not be visible in the model,
but, the long range mission could be accomplished.
the whole package could be renamed,
Mosquito B Mk IV LR
LR being Long Range
kinda hokey, but what the heck

[Ivan]

Hi Smilo,

Let me know how much fuel and where you want it. I'll check for replies after dinner.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Here's an aircraft that has been awaiting flight testing and a new panel for a few years. It differs from the Corsair uploaded here in that the canopy is different and the wing bend has been relocated inboard along with the landing gear. There are some dimensional inaccuracies though.

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Another minor variation on a theme. I built this one a few years back when one of the folks who is no longer here kept requesting. When I was done, his interest wasn't there any more.....

- Ivan.

[Ivan]

The P-40C has spent the last week or so in the paint shop. The P-40C is much fatter than the P-40E, so a few textures needed to adjusted.

The rudder was rebuilt to minimise a bleed that Hubbabubba found. The problem was that the NEW rudder extended past the bottom of the texture. In order to texture this, (0.bmp) the fin and rudder needed to be moved up. They collided with the main gear struts and the tail wheel. The tail wheel was moved.

As you can see from 4.bmp, there isn't a lot of space between the fuselage textures and other pieces here. Because the fuselage is deeper, the wing fillet needed to be moved to another texture. From the earlier screenshot, you can see that the top of the razorback section of the P-40C extends past the top of the texture.

- Ivan.