SOH Team Project - Grumman Tracker, Trader, Tracer

[Hooky722]

Forgive me for being ignorant but have any of these creations been completed and released yet for fs9? or am i jumping the gun a bit either way great work guys

Kind Regards

Hooky:salute:

[OBIO]

Hooky

You jumped the gun. But no harm done. I know that ALL of us are anxious to add another Milton Shupe Work Of Art to our FS9 aircraft collection.

OBIO

[Rich]

Hi Milton, This is what I have for the hook settings, you can see with the red cross where the hook catch point is and the small white light is the hook attach point on the fuselage only did SOH-S2F3 so far but threw in cat launch settings for FSX Accel. The virtual hook catch point is slightly in front of the visual hook as it seems it hangs vertically but the visual does not.

One pointer that the hook length is to short it will go through the deck/ground whereas it should stop at ground level with the hook sitting on the ground/deck

One thing I have found with a few trike gear models is the damping needs to be less than 1.0 as when the nose gear hits the deck it flips you over backwards, I have it as 0.900

Replace the existing [TailHook] with this one, copy pasting the [launch_assistance] entry in at the same time.

See what FSX users think of it the cat launch is obviously no good for Fs9 and your hook settings should be ok with the Carrier Opps COPv2 gauges which I would go for in Fs9

[TailHook]
tailhook_length=7.6 ;(feet)
tailhook_position=-20.976, 0.0, -2.533 ;(feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical
positions from datum
cable_force_adjust=3.0

[launch_assistance]
launch_bar_pivot = 10.6, 0.0, -5.3
launch_bar_lug = 12.9, 0.0, -7.3

Cat launch hook up point is just behind the nosewheel where you see the white light

[nigel richards]

Regarding sounds for the S2T, I borrowed the KA350 sounds for testing but I hope we can do something better. They may be realistic (if so, okay) but if not, ... maybe someone can recommend something else.

I'll take care of Turbo Stoof's sounds Milton.

(icon:he dashes off to the library to find a copy of 'Teach Yourself How To Make Turboprop Soundsets':icon)
:tgun2: other way, idiot!

[Milton Shupe]

Hi Milton, This is what I have for the hook settings, you can see with the red cross where the hook catch point is and the small white light is the hook attach point on the fuselage only did SOH-S2F3 so far but threw in cat launch settings for FSX Accel. The virtual hook catch point is slightly in front of the visual hook as it seems it hangs vertically but the visual does not.

One pointer that the hook length is to short it will go through the deck/ground whereas it should stop at ground level with the hook sitting on the ground/deck

One thing I have found with a few trike gear models is the damping needs to be less than 1.0 as when the nose gear hits the deck it flips you over backwards, I have it as 0.900

Replace the existing [TailHook] with this one, copy pasting the [launch_assistance] entry in at the same time.

See what FSX users think of it the cat launch is obviously no good for Fs9 and your hook settings should be ok with the Carrier Opps COPv2 gauges which I would go for in Fs9

[TailHook]
tailhook_length=7.6 ;(feet)
tailhook_position=-20.976, 0.0, -2.533 ;(feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical
positions from datum
cable_force_adjust=3.0

[launch_assistance]
launch_bar_pivot = 10.6, 0.0, -5.3
launch_bar_lug = 12.9, 0.0, -7.3

Cat launch hook up point is just behind the nosewheel where you see the white light

Ah, thank you so much Rich. I have sent this data to Fliger747 to test out. That is helpful.
He is pretty close to what you have now.
It is interesting that the cfg does not ask for angle, and that makes the catch point a bit of guess work.

Do I understand correctly that the launch assistance is only available in FSX?

The visual model launch coordinates are 7.178, 0.0, -5.19 but I suspect they are not used.

[Milton Shupe]

I'll take care of Turbo Stoof's sounds Milton.

(icon:he dashes off to the library to find a copy of 'Teach Yourself How To Make Turboprop Soundsets':icon)
:tgun2: other way, idiot!

LOL Thank you Nigel; we really appreciate that effort too!

[nigel richards]

LOL Thank you Nigel; we really appreciate that effort too!

My pleasure! SIR!

Which turboprop engine exactly is it?

edit; Garrett TPE331 ?

[nigel richards]

As I understand Milton, you're already on the S-2T. Is a testbed available sir?

[Milton Shupe]

My pleasure! SIR!

Which turboprop engine exactly is it?

edit; Garrett TPE331 ?

Yes it is for the military variant and the CDF variant I am currently working on.

As I understand Milton, you're already on the S-2T. Is a testbed available sir?

I will have you a link shortly.

[nigel richards]

Yes it is for teh military variant and the one I am currently working on.



I will have you a link shortly.

Much appreciated.

Standing by!

[Milton Shupe]

Forgive me for being ignorant but have any of these creations been completed and released yet for fs9? or am i jumping the gun a bit either way great work guys

Kind Regards

Hooky:salute:

Hooky,

Thanks for your interest. No, not released yet. Still very much in the Alpha development stage with several members here participating and many more contributing. Our biggest need now from a timing standpoint is for the panel and gauges. Everything else is moving along with gusto.

Thanks OBIO for jumping in with a response and kudos.

[p3aewguy]

I'll take care of Turbo Stoof's sounds Milton.

(icon:he dashes off to the library to find a copy of 'Teach Yourself How To Make Turboprop Soundsets':icon)
:tgun2: other way, idiot!

Nigel,

Search on You Tube for fire tanker videos. I watched several videos of these while searching for data and they are LOUD!

Dave

[Milton Shupe]

Milton,

Here's a CDF sheet with a few general specs.

Dave

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your efforts here. Tom has the info you posted and is making adjustments. I realy appreciate your time in research. Maybe ultimately we will get some broader performance specs, maybe from the outfit that did conversions.

Meanwhile, I am working on the CDF variant trying to get the tank modeled.

[p3aewguy]

From JANE's 1994-5:

Marsh S-2F3T:
1227 kW (1645 shp) Garrett TPE331-15AW
Hartzel 5 blade prop 9ft 7 in
max useable fuel 518 US Gal (1960 liters)
Empty weight: 6282 kg
MTOW: 13.163 kg
Max payload: 6881 kg
Wingload: 286.6 kg/m2

Max speed sealevel: 260 kts
Max speed at alt: 296 kts
Ceiling: 24.000 ft
Range (no reserve): 647 nm (1200 km).

Grumman S-2T Turbo Tracker:
1227 kW (1645 shp) Garrett TPE331-15AW
Dowty advanced technology four-blade prop
Max speed: 270 kts at 5000 ft

Regards,

Marcel

PS.
Just found the offical FAA spec on the Marsh version, you can get it here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...FILE/A51NM.pdf

Milton,

The link in MGR's post is for the FAA Type cetrificate data sheet, which contains a lot of performance data, includung weights, CG, and speeds. Still looking for more.

Here's the link. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...FILE/A51NM.pdf

Dave

[nigel richards]

Nigel,

Search on You Tube for fire tanker videos. I watched several videos of these while searching for data and they are LOUD!

Dave

Thanks Dave.:salute:

[Milton Shupe]

Milton,

The link in MGR's post is for the FAA Type cetrificate data sheet, which contains a lot of performance data, includung weights, CG, and speeds. Still looking for more.

Here's the link. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...FILE/A51NM.pdf

Dave

Ah, that's great! I missed this one.
Thanks to your both.

[p3aewguy]

Ah, that's great! I missed this one.
Thanks to your both.

Milton,

Sadly Marsh Aviation doesn't have a website and some articles detail some trouble they were in with the State Department over exporting problems in 2010 . I found a Type certificate data sheet stating that the Type Certificate was sold to the California Fire Authority in 2009. Maybe Tankerguy72 or another forum member knows someone working there (CalFire) who could loan a supplemental flight manual (S2F-3T Flight Manual Supplement/Pilot Operating Handbook 3-DE6105 dated May 13, 1997) which will list the performance data for the Turbo Tracker.

If there's a forum member in Mesa Arizona who could check Falcon Field and maybe touch base with Marsh (if they're still there).......

I'm pretty much up against the wall, research wise.

Dave

[Milton Shupe]

Milton,

Sadly Marsh Aviation doesn't have a website and some articles detail some trouble they were in with the State Department over exporting problems in 2010 . I found a Type certificate data sheet stating that the Type Certificate was sold to the California Fire Authority in 2009. Maybe Tankerguy72 or another forum member knows someone working there (CalFire) who could loan a supplemental flight manual (S2F-3T Flight Manual Supplement/Pilot Operating Handbook 3-DE6105 dated May 13, 1997) which will list the performance data for the Turbo Tracker.

If there's a forum member in Mesa Arizona who could check Falcon Field and maybe touch base with Marsh (if they're still there).......

I'm pretty much up against the wall, research wise.

Dave

Good points Dave. TG?

[Milton Shupe]

Mgr has pointed out that the clarity of the fuselage artwork is a bit lacking (my words), and asked if we should consider remapping for better resolution.

The paint kit for the E-1B is done so I would not ask for a redo on that aircraft paint kit.

Nick has not yet jumped into the S2F-3 paint kit so I would like to hear some feedback/input regarding remapping the S2F-3 fuselage (and future variants) to a higher resolution standard.

This means of course, that all of you who jumped in to do your own paint scheme, that would work on your current model of the S2F-3, but the newer model remapped would have to be revisited to reapply your work.

What say you?

Given the many paint schemes out there and the plethora of nose and window area artwork, should we remap for higher resolution?

[tankerguy72]

Milton,

Sadly Marsh Aviation doesn't have a website and some articles detail some trouble they were in with the State Department over exporting problems in 2010 . I found a Type certificate data sheet stating that the Type Certificate was sold to the California Fire Authority in 2009. Maybe Tankerguy72 or another forum member knows someone working there (CalFire) who could loan a supplemental flight manual (S2F-3T Flight Manual Supplement/Pilot Operating Handbook 3-DE6105 dated May 13, 1997) which will list the performance data for the Turbo Tracker.

If there's a forum member in Mesa Arizona who could check Falcon Field and maybe touch base with Marsh (if they're still there).......

I'm pretty much up against the wall, research wise.

Dave

Ill ask some of the Tanker pilots and see what I can come up with, but I cant guarantee anything :salute:

[AndyG43]

Given the many paint schemes out there and the plethora of nose and window area artwork, should we remap for higher resolution?

Is the need for higher resolution to accomodate the needs of FSX? In my opinion it is no bad thing, map to as high a resolution as possible then shrink to fit - but I'm not a guru, just a dabbler, so that opinion may be invalid.

[Wings of Gold]

The time to remap to support higher resolutions is now - not later. Speaking of FSX, I mentioned (awhile back) that the Concorde nose function does not work in FSX. Do we need to avoid any animations that use that function now - or can that be remaped later, when the FSX version is done? Milton: It looks simply superb!! Bill

[falcon409]

Is the need for higher resolution to accommodate the needs of FSX? In my opinion it is no bad thing, map to as high a resolution as possible then shrink to fit - but I'm not a guru, just a dabbler, so that opinion may be invalid.

Mapping to as high a resolution as possible for FSX (4096x4096 is what I usually do repaints in) is a nice idea, but what I've found is that sometimes folks want one of my repaints reduced to fit the FS9 format of 1024x1024 and by the time I reduce it (saved in 32bit for best clarity) the details are gone. So I don't see an advantage in doing textures oversized and then reducing as all that nice detail work you just did, won't remain. Another thing that degrades those even further is that a lot of folks don't like 32bit for some reason, so they request DXT3 which renders even less detail. So in summary, doing oversized textures to get as much detail as possible, only to reduce them to fit a relatively small texture size is wasted effort.:salute:

[p3aewguy]

Mapping to as high a resolution as possible for FSX (4096x4096 is what I usually do repaints in) is a nice idea, but what I've found is that sometimes folks want one of my repaints reduced to fit the FS9 format of 1024x1024 and by the time I reduce it (saved in 32bit for best clarity) the details are gone. So I don't see an advantage in doing textures oversized and then reducing as all that nice detail work you just did, won't remain. Another thing that degrades those even further is that a lot of folks don't like 32bit for some reason, so they request DXT3 which renders even less detail. So in summary, doing oversized textures to get as much detail as possible, only to reduce them to fit a relatively small texture size is wasted effort.:salute:

I tend to agree. The 2048 x 2048 format seems best for both worlds (FS9 and FSX) Just my 2 cents worth.

Dave

Edit: The use of DXT3 helps on older/weaker computers with respect to frame rate and loading. With my previous computer, I had to convert exclusivel to DXT3 or my video in FS was jerky or the video crashed completely.

[AndyG43]

Another thing that degrades those even further is that a lot of folks don't like 32bit for some reason, so they request DXT3 which renders even less detail.

I think that is just habit, it wasn't too long ago that 32 bit textures caused the dreaded stutters, but I think most people now have PCs that are more than capable; I've decided I'm doing all my repaints in 32bit, if people want DXT3 then they will be able to convert it themselves. DXT3 should be left for AI now - again, my opinion.