An Accusimmed B-36...is it even possible?

[pilottj]

Hey guys,
I had my dreaming cap on, dreaming about an accusimmed B-36. Could that even be possible to do with A2A's modular programming? 6 piston + 4 jets together? That engineer's panel alone would probably be a flight engineers dream...or nightmare lol.

Cheers
TJ

 

[neptuneman]

My favourite aircraft is the P2V7 Neptune, and there is the same problem (2 turbojet + 2 pistons engine).
I wish we can simulate "hybrid" aircraft in FSX!!

 

[Tylerb59]

I was watching Strategic Air Command on Netflix last night, wanting this and the B-47

 

[DennyA]

FSX's flight modeling can only support four engines, and it can't support a mix of engine types. So planes like the Alphasim B-36 fake it.

To do an Accusim'd version, you'd have to create some kind of external library to do the detailed engine simulations for the 10-engine mix.

OMG! Strategic Air Command is on Netflix? My kid's about to meet Jimmy Stewart!

 

[Kiwikat]

Yeah a plane like that would have to be completely externally controlled. I'd love to have a version of the late Jimmy Franklin's jet Waco biplane as well as a Ryan Fireball, but it ain't gonna happen in FSX.

The subject material (for any of these) is waaaaaaaaaaay too niche as well.

 

[Daube]

FSX's flight modeling can only support four engines, and it can't support a mix of engine types. So planes like the Alphasim B-36 fake it.

FSX allows a complete external handling of the engines.
So even if FSX/FS9 is not able to handle more than 4 engines and not able to handle multi-type engines, an external module can do it.

FSX/FS9 could not handle VSTOL operations, and the RCBO gauge could do it instead.

 

[PRB]

An accusim B-36? Don't give them any evil ideas! I can see it now. I would need to buy two more big screen monitors, so that all four of them would be filled with engine instruments and I'd never get to look outside!

 

[Bjoern]

Why simulate *all* engines?

Just model four of the six prop engines and attach a fire effect to the remaining ones. Voilà, a realistic B-36.

 

[warchild]

i know its crazy, but with a little math it can be done.. Model all engines as jets.. You can convert the numbers from the props to give you their approximate thrust values and rpm.. Its quite possible to model a 1500 pound thrust on a jet with a 1000 rpm N@.. it isn practical but its possible..
Once youve worked out the thrust values, it should be an easy matter to average that down over the four engine limit ...
Pam

( propeller pitch X prop diameter ) x ( blade length squared ) x pi = Cubic inches of air moved per revolution..

cybic inches of air moved x 14.2 x rpm = approx pounds of thrust ( bat sea level )..

 

[pilottj]

lol if A2A can bring us a passenger who comments on our landings, I think they can do just about anything. While a B-36 with all the bells and whistles would be an amazing feat, I think the work to do it might not justify the costs. A really cool experiment would be to try to make the NB-36H or its Russian counterpart, the TU-119. Could MS handle a nuclear powered aircraft?
View attachment 26088

A B-50 might be worth it because they practically already have 1/3rd of one already done in the 377. I seriously hope they consider it. A B-50 would also put them on a path to a B-29. This would allow them to profit a little more with less work I think by being able to market aircraft that share common parts. And if they get to a B-29 with its Wright engines, you could carry those engines on to say a Connie or somthing.

View attachment 26089
Imagine showing up at one of those big Vatsim tubliner fests in one of those...a flying tube for the rest of us heheh

Whatever the next bomber project in A2A's mind will be amazing no doubt.
Cheers
TJ