SOH Team Project - Grumman Tracker, Trader, Tracer

[Wing_Z]

Who could guess that a TWA could be Orsim?
Well, it is, and not just because it has a kink.
Details like this make a jaded palate perk up, long live FS9...

[fliger747]

Dave/P3:

Thanks for the manuals, have the same great data as for the E-1B. Of course none of the manuals ever tell you what the empty weight is, which is even true of our manuals for the big jets, as every plane is slightly different. Had a chance to read through them on the way back from YSSY to VHHH yesterday.

Cheers: Tom

[hawkeye52]

Milton, the TWA looks great! This HAS GOT TO BE A First! in FS.

I'm guessing you modeled the 9-ft extension. Is it within the limits of FS for you to model the full 65 feet that p3aewguy reported? Then there would be no doubt that it is a TWA!

BTW, I'm trying to locate my ARC-80 manual -- more out of curiosity than anything else -- to verify the length of the TWA used on the Hawkeye, as I'm sure it was well over the length used by the ARC-38 on the Fudd. I finally found a source which pretty much verifies the data provided by p3aewguy.

http://staff.salisbury.edu/~rafantini/618S1.htm (about two-thirds down the page)

"...while connected to the aircraft's 40 to 100 foot wire antenna..."

-H52

[Milton Shupe]

Milton, the TWA looks great! This HAS GOT TO BE A First! in FS.

I'm guessing you modeled the 9-ft extension. Is it within the limits of FS for you to model the full 65 feet that p3aewguy reported? Then there would be no doubt that it is a TWA!

BTW, I'm trying to locate my ARC-80 manual -- more out of curiosity than anything else -- to verify the length of the TWA used on the Hawkeye, as I'm sure it was well over the length used by the ARC-38 on the Fudd. I finally found a source which pretty much verifies the data provided by p3aewguy.

http://staff.salisbury.edu/~rafantini/618S1.htm (about two-thirds down the page)

"...while connected to the aircraft's 40 to 100 foot wire antenna..."

-H52

Hawkeye52, I can do it but not sure of the ultimate value. The wire would have to be segmented every 5-6', and each segment must be animated to hide it inside the aircraft. So, probably 10 animated wire segments to wrap/unwrap, and guide it out of/into the aircraft. Yes, can be done but ultimately to what end. That's why I chose the shortest of the lengths.

[hawkeye52]

Found my ARC-80 manual and it sez: "Trailingwire (0 to 145 feet) ejected and retracted at 70 feet/minute (minimum speed)." Case closed!


"...not sure of the ultimate value. The wire would have to be segmented every 5-6', and each segment must be animated to hide it inside the aircraft. So, probably 10 animated wire segments to wrap/unwrap, and guide it out of/into the aircraft. Yes, can be done but ultimately to what end. That's why I chose the shortest of the lengths."

Grateful for what you've done. I'm not gonna argue!

- H52

[mgr]

Hiya,

Did some test flying with the ops-manual at hand. Things i noticed so far:

- Plane is very unstable when parkingbrake is on, vibrates a lot and sometime start to jump, fixed this by updating the MOI (values suggested by AirWrench tool):
empty_weight_pitch_MOI = 85000
empty_weight_roll_MOI = 57500
empty_weight_yaw_MOI = 112500

- Plane seems to be overpowered in cruise and underpowered in climb. Tried some tweaking to fix this but not much success so far <g>.

- Already reported i believe, tailhook value is to short, show be:
[TailHook]
tailhook_length=7.9

Now back to test flying :-)

Marcel

[Milton Shupe]

Thanks Marcel. I sent your comments on to Fliger747.

[fliger747]

There are at least five different versions of FS that we might encounter, perhaps more when we consider individual setups. Glad to have some feedback, as I generally develop and do most testing in FSX Accel (afer all this IS a carrier aircraft). It is helpful to indicate whether one is testing at ISA, version, realism settings, crashes on or off etc. An example is the difference between how versions compute engine internal friction, enough that some versions will continue to have the props spin after shutdown. How the plane sits with a given MOI set of values is yet another one. The plane is programmed to be flown at 100% realism, crashes on, automixture on, auto rudder off etc. It is especially important that ISA conditions are selected (clear, weather esentially off). The AFSD utility is helpful in monitoring performance values.Cheers: T

[nigel richards]

Hi All,

I see Professor Milton is at it again with another magnificent project. Looks great so far and I can't wait to see and fly the final outcomes.

As for the searchlight it should be a fairly narrow beam and was steerable. THe carbon-arc lamp was some 3 million candlepower and could supposedly set the grass on fire beside the ramp if used on the ground.

The Canadian Forces CP-121 Trackers were quite regular visiters to CFB Winnipeg in the late 1980's.

Regards, Rob

Thanks for the interesting info Rob.

[nigel richards]

Attachment 50000 Attachment 49999 Attachment 49998
Gentlemen this has become most frustrating. After spending a fair few hours/days getting the appearance of a powerful searchlight, it suddenly dawned on me that no directional cast light was actually being shed.

Initially assigned in the lights section as a landing light, as in the picture on the right, I eventually discovered that the light being cast was actually coming from the small, 'built in' one on the model.

So I opted for strobe assignment (lefthand pic) and my suspicion was thus confirmed.

Finally, I experimented with a host of landing lights known to be effective (example; middle pic). Still no light!

What am I doing wrong???

edit: This pic shows a B-17 using the stock landing lights in the above pics; 2 & 3.

Probably a dumb question but could the model's 'in-built' landing light be overriding the designation of an extra landing light?

Attachment 50002

[mgr]

Hiya Tim,

There are at least five different versions of FS that we might encounter, perhaps more when we consider individual setups. Glad to have some feedback, as I generally develop and do most testing in FSX Accel (afer all this IS a carrier aircraft). It is helpful to indicate whether one is testing at ISA, version, realism settings, crashes on or off etc. An example is the difference between how versions compute engine internal friction, enough that some versions will continue to have the props spin after shutdown. How the plane sits with a given MOI set of values is yet another one. The plane is programmed to be flown at 100% realism, crashes on, automixture on, auto rudder off etc. It is especially important that ISA conditions are selected (clear, weather esentially off). The AFSD utility is helpful in monitoring performance values.Cheers: T

All my testflights are flown in FS9.1:
- with all settings to realistic 100%
- crashes on
- automixture off
- autorudder off
- under clear weather, no wind, ISA conditions, also fly at sealevel

Marcel

PS
Will also do some testing with "AFSD utility" under Fs9.1

[p3aewguy]

Hiya,

Did some test flying with the ops-manual at hand. Things i noticed so far:

- Plane is very unstable when parkingbrake is on, vibrates a lot and sometime start to jump, fixed this by updating the MOI (values suggested by AirWrench tool):
empty_weight_pitch_MOI = 85000
empty_weight_roll_MOI = 57500
empty_weight_yaw_MOI = 112500

- Plane seems to be overpowered in cruise and underpowered in climb. Tried some tweaking to fix this but not much success so far <g>.

- Already reported i believe, tailhook value is to short, show be:
[TailHook]
tailhook_length=7.9

Now back to test flying :-)

Marcel

Marcel,

I tried your numbers and got an extremely unstable approach and touchdown culminating in the aircraft's tail burying in the ground and going ballistic. The MOI is an inertial value and you're quadrupling the aircraft's weight in some axis inertia value. As with any inertial value this is the value you have to overcome to start movement and counteract to stop. The aircraft in flight became difficult to control with my having to counteract control movements as every control movement, once the aircraft started moving, had severe reactions. Especially in the slower flight regimes. This does dampen the static vibration when the brakes are locked but creates other, IMO severe issues.

I also tried applying them to the S2F-3 with the same results. Did you have this result?

Dave

[Tako_Kichi]

Probably a dumb question but could the model's 'in-built' landing light be overriding the designation of an extra landing light?

I am not 100% sure but doesn't the ground cast light have to be set in the model before it shows in game? If so Milton will have to enable it before you can make use of it Nigel.

[nigel richards]

I am not 100% sure but doesn't the ground cast light have to be set in the model before it shows in game? If so Milton will have to enable it before you can make use of it Nigel.

My suspicion exactly TK.

[Milton Shupe]

As far as I know, only the landing lights can affect scenery.

I will add a landing light to the search light as necessary but there is no way to affect that which hits the ground except by changing the default landing light texture. We do not want to do that.

The only effect that your fx will have is to shoot the beam as it will not light up the water or scenery AFAIK. Your very neat effect as placed does look nice. We just need to get the beam think going. You may have to get that luxbeam thing working. :-)