Wartime Versus Restored Warbirds for FSX????

[DaveQ]

Tricky to answer, I think.

My personal preference is for `vintage`, in `as flown` condition - scars and all!

However FSX is a `today` sim and the fact is that modern flying requires modern avionics as a requirement, not a choice. No B-17 would be allowed to fly unless their radios met current requirements, they need a transponder, and no pilot would be daft enough to take off in a Spitfire for anything other than a local flight without at least a hand-held GPS (and often these days a real-time weather package).

Primary safety and the longevity of the aircraft is the prime consideration, not pretending its still WWII. And I fly them in FSX as if they were delicate antiques, not "fly `em, fight `em, throw `em away" mass-produced short lifespan tools with a service life of weeks or months, not years or decades.

So, for me at least, there IS a prima facie need for access to modern avionics. And I think the popups provide the answer - they don't clutter the VC and change the original look, but they are there if needed.

But having the choice is far and away the best choice!

I agree with Frank and Snave. I did the A2A Mustang 'Slender, Tender and Tall' in both WWII and 'modern' versions; the 'modern' one has a vc with a Bendix radio/autopilot and a Garmin 500 GPS but, as Frank says, you can make the cockpit to suit you. I've just uploaded 'Cripes A'Mighty 3rd' as WWII rather than as Kermit Weeks' 45-11507 because the texture set doesn't really suit a highly polished version so it's sometimes just a matter of what look is easiest to achieve.

DaveQ

 

[txnetcop]

A2A Accusim P-47, B-17, B-377 and Cub and Flight Replica's panels are exactly what I want for FSX. I have only flown one warbird in my life, an AT-6 from startup, taxi, takeoff, landing and shutdown. It was the greatest experience of my life. It was all authentic and gave me a feel for what young pilots experienced in their training during WWII. I want to know what the people who flew these birds experienced. I like to figure out how the navigation of the day worked. I even get a kick out of using a compass and my watch for nav and math to consider wind drift. I used to dream of being a WWII pilot when I was a kid. I never grew up. Now I get to experience a little of it. So make mine ORIGINAL Bartender!
Ted
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[fliger747]

I prefer original service aircraft. Warbirds are often a defacement of historic aircraft. On eof the values of FS is the ability to "preserve" historic aircraft in original service condition.

T

 

[Snave]

I prefer original service aircraft. Warbirds are often a defacement of historic aircraft. On eof the values of FS is the ability to "preserve" historic aircraft in original service condition.

T

Original as delivered? Original after six months rough and tumble? Original after the ground crew have scrounged the nearest equivalent part they can find and riveted it in behind a fish plate on a plane that's been in the War for a couple of years, is on it's sixth engine, third wing - and tenth pilot..?

Often, the `defacement` of historic aircraft is the result of the result of the treatment they received in the hands of Squadrons. There is never a definitive moment to preserve an historic aircraft. No aircraft is historic on the day of its production. It only becomes so with use.

And use means NOT original service condition. You simply cannot have it both ways.

A simple example: No aircraft arrived at the squadron carrying nose markings or custom paintjobs for wings, empennage or spinners. Those were added at a local level. And often changed, touched-up or revised during service...

By your analogy we should never see ANY aircraft carrying non-regulation markings. And that's plain daft!

 

[pilottj]

I love the vintage look of the warbirds but I do desire functionality within the sim too. Certianly you dont have to put a G1000 in a warbird but I think the RealAir Spitfire has a nice happy medium. A radio/xpdr unit and a CDI dont spoil the classic look of the cockpit too much, and you could use the many VOR stations that are in FS or shoot an ILS. Since you can't really shoot anything I see little need for gunsights, tho I do pretend to strafe methlabs from time to time

 

[flyindave]

Orig versus Modern

Modern I want to getin and fly as if I was going out to the airport today an taking off from Hayward and flying down the coast an maybe stopping on the way back in half moon bay for lunch

 

[Helldiver]

Out of respect for the men who flew them and to get a feel for what they had to do with, there is no question that they should be kept the way they were in WWII.
If you want all the bells and whistles than why not fly an F-22? - Leave us old guys alone.

 

[CheckSix]

With all due respect to you Helldiver and at the risk of being some what inflammatory, I do not fly FSX Warbirds out of respect to anyone, I prefer to fly them with respect.

Pushed for preference I would rather fly a restored Warbird with all the modern accoutrements in FSX, if I want to "respect" the brave and / or fallen and get an almost REAL as it gets "feel" for what it was like to operate such aircraft I will fly the IL-2 or Pacific Fighters genre sims. So really there is question as to whether FSX Warbirds should be modelled as "Modern Restorations" or "Factory fresh period WW1 or WW2 and so forth" and its is completely down to the creator of the model to protray and offer to the community their product in what ever guise they feel and it is then upto us by way of personal preference to fly it or not.

As an Edit: If we SHOULD be flying these aircraft as if they are they period then the FSX world should be remapped to represent the villages, towns and cities of the period and remove anything perceived as modern... Bit of a tall order and my respect goes to those scenery designers who do a good job at creating the older "period" airfields etc.

 

[icycle]

As an Edit: If we SHOULD be flying these aircraft as if they are they period then the FSX world should be remapped to represent the villages, towns and cities of the period and remove anything perceived as modern... Bit of a tall order and my respect goes to those scenery designers who do a good job at creating the older "period" airfields etc.

Amen to that! I just can't bring myself to fly my A2A B-17 in the same picture as a modern KORD (or with modern downtown Chicago - for that matter), unless I'm portraying a restored warbird. "Stock" FSX has too many modern things in it (as it was designed to do). Unless someone takes on the project to remove the "modern" and insert the "period" (1940's - in the above example). I feel better flying the warbird vs. the factory-fresh in-period version. Just my opinion, of course, but to use a quote:

"it's like putting an elevator in an outhouse, somehow it just don't belong"
(quote from the movie "Roadhouse").

Bill

 

[Panther_99FS]

Will the wartime birds have a flight model that reflects that added weight of the armor :ques:

 

[Snave]

Will the wartime birds have a flight model that reflects that added weight of the armor :ques:

Not forgetting the ammunition.

Lots of aircraft allow simulation of the dropping of internal and external loads. NONE currently replicate the depletion of ammunition. Not even the Accu-Sim birds.

 

[Mathias]

Our Fw190 has armor, weapons and expendeable payloads added, hence a unique flight model for each of the many variants.
Armor and Gun weight and locations are part of the coupled MOI calculations, ammo weight is accessible to the user via the payloads editor.

 

[Ken Stallings]

I prefer original service aircraft. Warbirds are often a defacement of historic aircraft. On eof the values of FS is the ability to "preserve" historic aircraft in original service condition.

T

That is a very good point. No FAA requirements to worry about. Perhaps the best outcome is two panel options for released warbirds. I realize it would require extra work, but have one panel be authentic wartime avionics and gauges, with another that would feature a more modern layout.

Ken

 

[Helldiver]

You kids go ahead, you've bastardized WWII aircraft so much I won't be suprised to see a B-17 with jet propulsion and a Hydramatic front wheel drive.
I'm glad that I won't have to see what the next twenty years will bring.

 

[Ken Stallings]

You kids go ahead, you've bastardized WWII aircraft so much I won't be suprised to see a B-17 with jet propulsion and a Hydramatic front wheel drive.
I'm glad that I won't have to see what the next twenty years will bring.

Personally speaking, I say the level of fidelity in VC's, flight models, and exterior models is at its highest point of fidelity in the history of the entire Flight Simulator series right now this moment.

The recently released B-17 goes far beyond what I've ever seen before.

I would just hope you could strive to enjoy whatever time life brings you in the future, and also appreciate that a lot of people born many decades after the war ended, nevertheless hold tremendous appreciation and respect, and spend tons of hours to craft the best warbirds they can.

I think they should be appreciated for what they do.

Cheers,

Ken

 

[Helldiver]

Yeah, you picked a good one. The B-17 G. It was an overweight pig wih all that extra armor and that useless chin turrent. It didn't appear until the end of the war. The war was fought with B-17 E and Fs.
By the time the G showed up the air war was won. They ended up being used as drones and USCG aircraft. But their presence in the war was minimal. Believe what you want to.
It happened on my watch.

 

[icycle]

Yeah, you picked a good one. The B-17 G. It was an overweight pig wih all that extra armor and that useless chin turrent. It didn't appear until the end of the war. The war was fought with B-17 E and Fs.
By the time the G showed up the air war was won. They ended up being used as drones and USCG aircraft. But their presence in the war was minimal. Believe what you want to.
It happened on my watch.

interesting opinion.

Cordially,
Bill

 

[Ken Stallings]

Yeah, you picked a good one. The B-17 G. It was an overweight pig wih all that extra armor and that useless chin turrent. It didn't appear until the end of the war. The war was fought with B-17 E and Fs.
By the time the G showed up the air war was won. They ended up being used as drones and USCG aircraft. But their presence in the war was minimal. Believe what you want to.
It happened on my watch.

The B-17G entered service in the ETO in September 1943, and more G's were built than any other variant combined! By the end of the war over 18 months later, over 8,000 of them were fighting! Multiple sources, including Roger A. Freeman's excellent "B-17 Fortress at War" published back in 1977, back up this fact. Certainly, no one can claim that the war was won in Europe in late 1943! I hope you really are not trying to claim that. There was still over half a year to go before D-Day and the only theater in the ETO the allies were winning was in Russia due to Stalingrad and Kursk. But, elsewhere the issue was very much in doubt. Certainly the ETO air war was very much in doubt.

The USN and Coast Guard only acquired 30 B-17G's, so that's hardly a fair description of their future use. In fact, like most aircraft from the war, they were scrapped.

The chin turret no doubt added weight and drag. But merely its presence detoured the Luftwaffe's favorite attack method -- the head on attack. However, combat trials with the chin turret showed that it was the most effective weapon to counter this head on attack. Prior to the chin turret the head on attack showed a significant vulnerability for the B-17 and B-24 and the Luftwaffe exploited it precisely because it was the most weakly defended area of the bomber (individually and in groups).

Frankly, the bomber (even after the bombs were dropped) were hard pressed to outrun a determined Luftwaffe attack. So, the reduction in speed was more than offset by the increased firepower protecting the area already demonstrated to be the most vunerable to attack.

I know already you will try to refute my documented facts by claiming I wasn't there. Got it! I wasn't. But frankly you were a gunner on an SB2C in the PTO. If you want to talk about the Helldiver I assure you I will be all ears, as I have demonstrated when I enthusiastically participated in your discussions of what your aircraft actually did.

But, you were not in the USAAF and you were not in the ETO, certainly not as a crew member on a B-17 bomber. So, really, both of us are required to consult the views of those who actually built them, flew them, and understood first hand how they performed in combat.

Ultimately, the reason why many virtual designers pick the B-17G variant is because more were built than all others combined. They served during the height of the air war in the ETO. And, they were the final variant built for the war and represented all the lessons learned, most written in blood.

Ken

 

[Naki]

Ultimately, the reason why many virtual designers pick the B-17G variant is because more were built than all others combined. They served during the height of the air war in the ETO. And, they were the final variant built for the war and represented all the lessons learned, most written in blood.

Ken

..and that there are more preserved samples to model from? (not that I have checked whether this is true or not)

 

[Ken Stallings]

..and that there are more preserved samples to model from? (not that I have checked whether this is true or not)

Excellent pont!

Although there are some museum quality E's and F's out there, there are more G's flying.

Truth is that the only about 500 E's and about 3,500 F's were built. The combat losses among these were horrendous! Although, it must be pointed out that the best counts among the historians reveal that it is very likely that the B-17's and B-24's shot down more Luftwaffe fighters than all other allied aircraft combined! And this is despite factoring out an estimated three times inflation rate between claims and post-war confirmations!

The primary reason why the V-VS won air supremacy in the Eastern Front is that the Luftwaffe fighter arm was bled white by the allied bomber campaign. And in terms of destruction of the single-seat fighters, it was the B-24's and B-17's of the USAAF that did the lion's share of the destruction.

This isn't frequently documented, but it isn't a mere accident. Rather, it reflected outright strategic policy of the USAAF to use the bombers as bait. The damage to strategic targets on the ground was almost considered a side benefit! This is a compelling indication of the monumental calculations made with human life in the war!

Ken