-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Aeroplane Heaven Lancaster available!
- Thread starter Rallymodeller
- Start date
I concur. This is a lovely model, and AH has been releasing updates after listening the comments from the community. Outstanding work and stellar service!
Priller
I think so too 
Buuuutttt....I notice that if you look REALLY closely, the upper wing stencils for the wing tanks on each wing both say 'No 1' tank!
The outboard tank should of course be No 2 (strictly there were 3 tanks in each wing so maybe a stencil is MISSING!)
Also the stencils specify 80-octane fuel, but the Merlin XX in the Lancaster 1 used 100-octane fuel...
For the avoidance of doubt, this is all a little tongue-in-cheek (though true)!
Buuuutttt....I notice that if you look REALLY closely, the upper wing stencils for the wing tanks on each wing both say 'No 1' tank!
The outboard tank should of course be No 2 (strictly there were 3 tanks in each wing so maybe a stencil is MISSING!)
Also the stencils specify 80-octane fuel, but the Merlin XX in the Lancaster 1 used 100-octane fuel...
For the avoidance of doubt, this is all a little tongue-in-cheek (though true)!
DennyA
SOH-CM-2023
If there's a config tweak to make the tailwheel work the way you guys want it to, and since AH has good reasons for how they implemented it in the release version, it feels like we're already at a great place. If something prevented modding the plane to make it work the way purists want it to, I'd see a reason to keep the discussion open. But since AH has a config that will be comfortable for the vast majority of users, especially those without high-end control hardware, and those who have pedals/brakes/multithrottles/etc. can tweak things to make it work the way they want it to, feels like we're at the best possible situation now.
I think back to the first time I was able to get a flyable Lanc in a flight sim (1990s... Maybe Fighter Squadron: Screamin' Demons over Europe?) and how far we've come from there that these are the nits we're picking. The visual detail, level of systems simulation, and (not mentioned enough nor lauded enough!) flight modeling here is superb. And because AH doesn't limit planes to Marketplace, buyers who do want to tweak have all the config files they need to do so to their heart's content. Personally, I'm overjoyed with what AH has provided here! Constructive feedback is fine, but holy crap, Baz and team have outdone themselves here and I'm certainly going to get my $ worth out of flying this.
Although I do wish there was an option for a modern cockpit with a G3000 replacing the steam gauges.
(KIDDING!)
I think back to the first time I was able to get a flyable Lanc in a flight sim (1990s... Maybe Fighter Squadron: Screamin' Demons over Europe?) and how far we've come from there that these are the nits we're picking. The visual detail, level of systems simulation, and (not mentioned enough nor lauded enough!) flight modeling here is superb. And because AH doesn't limit planes to Marketplace, buyers who do want to tweak have all the config files they need to do so to their heart's content. Personally, I'm overjoyed with what AH has provided here! Constructive feedback is fine, but holy crap, Baz and team have outdone themselves here and I'm certainly going to get my $ worth out of flying this.
Although I do wish there was an option for a modern cockpit with a G3000 replacing the steam gauges.
(KIDDING!)
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
ftl818, I wish I could double like your comments. Your insights and minor suggestions are of course spot-on. Most developers would have simply replied to your initial post by saying, "oh, I see what you did there, and you're probably most certainly right", and then sensibly explain why they did it the way they did.
Last edited:
@Bomber_12th and @ftl818 SOH has always been a place where devs have given us, the community, the possibility to look at their models and provide positive feedback and criticism. Over the years, several devs have opted out of that. Why? Because of nit picking and unpleasantness. You would do the site and the whole community a favour by being a bit more constructive.
Priller
Priller
bazzar
Charter Member 2018
We have been developing our products for a chosen market, for years now. We like to think we know what sells and what doesn't. I understand that some are not so happy with certain results or the way we do things. That's fine but it will not take us off the well-trod road we have been traveling for the last 2.5 decades. If a product doesn't sell because it is not "good enough" then that is on us and not for the community to try and "fix". We have a policy of continued and regular updates and upgrades to address issues where necessary. We need people to trust us that the work will be done.
In my opinion, many of the current MSFS issues are down to the community pushing for something for which the product was never designed. We are now seeing, particularly in airliners, devs being pushed to the limit into providing systems reality and more that belongs more in a professional simulator than this game. Yes, game. We now have in 2024, a far more game-style product than 2020. Careers? Medals? Awards? Is that not a game?
So we get delays and postponements. Are we not surprised? With developments now taking years in some cases, the flow of new product to the market is going to decrease proportionately.
From my perspective I know there are individuals who just don't like us ( though I do not understand what it is we have ever done to them) and I will never change that. I also don't care. We are a business and what we make puts food on the table.
The P51D, the Zero and now the Lancaster rank as the most successful products we have EVER made (the P51D has outsold everything, hands down) so a very large thankyou to all who have purchased them. The Lanc hits the MarketPlace this week and we have some super projects coming down the line.
Since working with Microsoft (and that has been a valuable experience for which we will always be grateful) we have experienced far more of the inner workings of the industry and regrettably, seen many of our developer friends, small and large leave the field for various reasons, mostly pressure. I only hope that this desperate charge to demand more and more " realism" for this game will not result in its undoing.
In my opinion, many of the current MSFS issues are down to the community pushing for something for which the product was never designed. We are now seeing, particularly in airliners, devs being pushed to the limit into providing systems reality and more that belongs more in a professional simulator than this game. Yes, game. We now have in 2024, a far more game-style product than 2020. Careers? Medals? Awards? Is that not a game?
So we get delays and postponements. Are we not surprised? With developments now taking years in some cases, the flow of new product to the market is going to decrease proportionately.
From my perspective I know there are individuals who just don't like us ( though I do not understand what it is we have ever done to them) and I will never change that. I also don't care. We are a business and what we make puts food on the table.
The P51D, the Zero and now the Lancaster rank as the most successful products we have EVER made (the P51D has outsold everything, hands down) so a very large thankyou to all who have purchased them. The Lanc hits the MarketPlace this week and we have some super projects coming down the line.
Since working with Microsoft (and that has been a valuable experience for which we will always be grateful) we have experienced far more of the inner workings of the industry and regrettably, seen many of our developer friends, small and large leave the field for various reasons, mostly pressure. I only hope that this desperate charge to demand more and more " realism" for this game will not result in its undoing.
Spook48
SOH-CM-2026
I still don,t see what high- end pedals have to do with it. I have them but i certainly don,t wanna dance on them. To each his own i guess. It is nice when an airplane in a sim behaves close to the real thing but you can also exaggerate things. Whats next ? Simming with your refrigerator door open so you can feel the cold like those guys did in the fourties ?
G-forces would be nice
For those interested: https://nl.flightsim.to/file/95750/lancaster-castoring-tailwheel. Not by me....
For those interested: https://nl.flightsim.to/file/95750/lancaster-castoring-tailwheel. Not by me....
Lancaster loadouts and the bomb bay.
Looking closely at the AH bomb bay you seen this:
Two rows of 4 bomb at the back, wow. But..... this is how the real bomb bay looks (BBMF):
Two rows of THREE attaching points (Haynes manual). Bomb loads look like this:
Again 3 bombs in a row, never 4. Further information in the web shows the same: https://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm. I only found 4 bombs in a row on pictures of plastic model kits.
Something for a future update?
Looking closely at the AH bomb bay you seen this:
Two rows of 4 bomb at the back, wow. But..... this is how the real bomb bay looks (BBMF):
Two rows of THREE attaching points (Haynes manual). Bomb loads look like this:
Again 3 bombs in a row, never 4. Further information in the web shows the same: https://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm. I only found 4 bombs in a row on pictures of plastic model kits.
Something for a future update?
Last edited:
If you go to the link you've posted and scroll down, you come to this, with four bombs in a row:
The original caption of this photo states it is a Lancaster. Well, it's certainly not a Halifax or Stirling - but could it be a Lincoln ? If it definitely is a Lancaster, I'm not sure how they hung the bombs four abreast. They must have reconfigured the number and arrangement of bomb carrier arms, I suppose.
The original caption of this photo states it is a Lancaster. Well, it's certainly not a Halifax or Stirling - but could it be a Lincoln ? If it definitely is a Lancaster, I'm not sure how they hung the bombs four abreast. They must have reconfigured the number and arrangement of bomb carrier arms, I suppose.
This is very interesting. But also the carpet bombing configuration has three bombs abreast in the tail section. Does the Haynes book give only part of the story, perhaps because it has the BBMF lancaster as subject? Other configurations of the bomb bay do exist? I find the picture a bit strange, the bombs are very corroded and are there any fuses?
Last edited:
What appears to be the tail unit is actually the wingtip of the aircraft behind, there are at least 3 aircraft in a row, with the H2S radar housing...
However I've got access to a copy of Air Ministry Publication AP2062A from 1943, "The Official Air Publication for the Lancaster MkI and III, 1942-1945" a VERY complete document , 530 pages as sold by the RAF Museum, which has a number of pages on bomb loading and ALL show 3 abreast configurations.
But I've never even thought of looking at the bombs...I'd much rather AH put any available effort into a variant with H2S, no exhaust covers and no mid-upper-turret
However I've got access to a copy of Air Ministry Publication AP2062A from 1943, "The Official Air Publication for the Lancaster MkI and III, 1942-1945" a VERY complete document , 530 pages as sold by the RAF Museum, which has a number of pages on bomb loading and ALL show 3 abreast configurations.
But I've never even thought of looking at the bombs...I'd much rather AH put any available effort into a variant with H2S, no exhaust covers and no mid-upper-turret
I found this website. Very informative. https://www.silverhawkauthor.com/post/canadian-warplanes-3-avro-lancaster-rcaf-1942-1945. The picture from paul K is on it in black and white. Was colored afterwards? The fuses are present, look at the little propellors in the bomb tail.
Last edited:
DennyA
SOH-CM-2023
Worst part of this hobby is the sub-hobby of people who make concerted efforts to show Supreme Aviation Knowledge by finding things wrong with products people have spent years working on, instead of appreciating the fact that a company has built a 9x% accurate replica for a game-company-developed simulator you can run in your home office. We're not training time-traveling WW2 RAF pilots here.
When a flight model is way off... When a plane has really obvious dimensional or instrument issue... When a plane just doesn't work right. All justified. But c'mon, folks, the bomb config has already been shown to be legit, so the original post wasn't done with enough research.
If a poster wants to flex his ability to find nitpicks, maybe consider contacting the developer support directly instead of looking for validation from your peers, so that the company can address it if it's legit, and if not, it won't drive the last few devs away from this forum?
When a flight model is way off... When a plane has really obvious dimensional or instrument issue... When a plane just doesn't work right. All justified. But c'mon, folks, the bomb config has already been shown to be legit, so the original post wasn't done with enough research.
If a poster wants to flex his ability to find nitpicks, maybe consider contacting the developer support directly instead of looking for validation from your peers, so that the company can address it if it's legit, and if not, it won't drive the last few devs away from this forum?