Anyone know if this one's legal?

[Firebar]

http://www.nazcastudios.com/

click on gaming then on repaints its the EE Canberra that I'm looking at.

Cheers if anyone knows.

M

[Spookster67]

Max mach is 0.88 according to Wikipedia, so it's sub-sonic, and a lot more than 10 were made, so as long as it's realistically modelled I guess it would be ok for use on jet legs.

[srgalahad]

That should be Paul Foster's EE Canberra. haven't tested the flight model but it's likely close. I'd check the numbers yourself to see if there are discrepancies. Barring those, it should be fine as a subsonic jet.
Note that there will be performance differences between the EE bird and the Martin B-57 (Alphasim)

Rob

[smilo]

has anyone checked out Bill Holker's
Martin B57D Recon?
I wouldn't mind using it,
if it passes muster.
b57d.zip @ flightsim

[Firebar]

I flew it earlier and I think the reference speeds may be slightly twitchy but other than that it's a joy (haven't done any data comparison yet though)

B-57 is a very different fuselage shape, it's very definitely gonna have different charecteristics.

[bpfowler]

alphasim Canberra is cleared for racing yes?

[MM]

Hi all,

Without making a formal decision about any particular aircraft model, I'd just like to clarify the rules for jets from previous years--and likely ones for this year.

We have allowed subsonic jets, those with a Mmo of less than 1.0. (There is some discussion of including those with a Mmo=1.0, if that matters.)

To find the Mmo, look in the aircraft.cfg under "[Reference Speeds]" for an entry like "max_mach=0.99". It is that entry that matters here.

The other criteria typically concern that the model be a reasonable representation of the actual aircraft in terms of speed, climb, altitude, range, and so forth.

Rob, Willy and Tom are good persons with whom to consult here.

Best,
Mike

[vcaptmattsmith]

The only thing I'll add to Mike's comments is that, assuming compliance with the 'letter of the law' - that is, the numbers are all within the limits the Committee has set with respect to the quantity of aircraft produced, speed, etc - aircraft are presumptively realistic.

In other words, with respect to realism, aircraft are "realistic until proven unrealistic." We act to disallow aircraft, since they are presumed allowed.

The one exception to this is that we may from time to time act to allow an aircraft that is especially appealing but fails one of the rigid tests we've set out and thus ordinarily would be proscribed.

The only reason I bring this up is that I want to be clear that the Committee does not need to give a race aircraft its 'stamp of approval' before it becomes legal to use. Such a regime would be unmanageable from an administrative standpoint.

We want you all to use the aircraft you want to use. We'll only override your wishes when an aircraft is unreasonably unrealistic or unfairly exploitative of the rules we've set out - and we'll make those determinations clearly known, so that you have fair notice not to use a proscribed aircraft.

M

[nazca_steve]

I'm working on a whole new series of FS9 Canberras at the moment, with special detail being paid to getting the flight model right for once on a Canberra! The Paul Foster ones were flyable using Kevin Kuehler's modded FDEs, but from watching old footage and reading pilot reports, none of the FDEs out there seem to do her justice to how manoeverable she really was. These won't be ready for your race this time, but perhaps in future.

Cheers,

Steve