As the nature of things progress...

[nigel richards]

Bushi, If you want to change your eye point for landing to look out on the right side of the cockpit add the following to your panel.cfg under the [VIEWS] section:

VIEW_DOWN_DIR=6.0, 0.50, 0.50
VIEW_DOWN_EYE=.20, -0.05, -0.0

Then press & hold down Num Pad 5 to activate, not sure how to activate it as a toggle though, so it fixes ones finger for a bit........

If you want to view out t'otherside change the eye .2 to negative.
Happy landings

P.S. only works in FS9 - camera views needed for FSX.

That's useful HU there - thanks Keith!

 

[zswobbie1]

Cant wait to try the latest..

 

[Bushi]

LOL. You're having fun, Sir!

Just wait until you get the NEW flight models - better sideslip handling, less inherent lateral stability and more positive rudder Authority...

But be warned - that little 5 cyl Mongoose will be putting out less horses - just like the real thing!
I know you like the streamlined cowl so big sister with the same cowl and a dandy 7 cyl lynx under her nose will give you the oooomph!

CAN'T wait.

Funny you should mention rudder authority.. This morning, I played around with the cfg file to add some visible deflection to it.. as it seemed the 'stops' were set too close... moved the value to 30... and that rudder authority was evident.. played with reducing the rudder area to see if I could get her back to your initial rudder effectiveness values.. (ham handed non designer approach.. LOL) My "test" was to get her doing ten knots on the ground, then do a 360 and time how long it took to complete.. and adjust..

STOP BANGING YOUR HEAD ON THE TABLE!!!

hey.. you want test pilots?? you take what applies for the job!! At least when we 'bend' this one... there is SUDDENLY another.. all fixed.. sitting on the ramp.....

is that 'big sister' with the non ringed (cowled) engine equipped with those tall wire wheels with their canvas covers? or am I to be content with the lower powered mongoose. which.. I LOVE... to stay with this early squared off rudder model?

oh.. I played with the fuel flow scalar in the mongoose trainer to give a 275 mile (give or take) range at 3,500-5,000' and 1600 rpm.. to match published figures I have found.(only source so far is wikepedia)

1.3 did the trick.

You may also notice from my panel screenshots.. I've temporarily added a push to start button the the 'test' airplane so I can do a realistic startup routine and not the Ctrl-E.

ps.. my wife thinks I'm having an affair with a sleek silver little thing... I was up till one AM... and back at it for nine this morning...

No one to blame.. but YOU!!!

I can't help but be saddened that my pc issue brought me to this testing late.. and am quite sure re-hashing what has already been discovered, addressed, and improved by the flight test team..

Cheers Nigel, and can't wait for the next version...
Dave..

who, guess what... is flying again... (just north of Dundee..)

 

[Dev One]

One thing about crosswind take off & landings...way back when that aircraft was used, one would take off & land into wind - there were no real defined runways - even back in the late 50's when I learnt to fly at Fairoaks one used to do that too, although crosswind landing was on the syllabus & which, much to my dismay, I c**ked up on my final test.......
Keith

 

[Bushi]

One thing about crosswind take off & landings...way back when that aircraft was used, one would take off & land into wind - there were no real defined runways - even back in the late 50's when I learnt to fly at Fairoaks one used to do that too, although crosswind landing was on the syllabus & which, much to my dismay, I c**ked up on my final test.......
Keith

Absolutely Keith!! air--FIELDS back in those days.. even pictures of early Templehoff shows pics of Ju-52's landing on a huge grass surface.

but still nice to keep up on the technique..

The starduster 2 I get to fly is FAR more comfortable (and less terrifying) operating on grass as opposed to tarmac as the tyres can slip a bit.. and sadly.. most airports today dictate your direction.. and are paved.. !!

I remember my daughter going up with the airplanes owner and warning her about the landing... "There's two way to land this airplane well.. and so far.. no one has found EITHER of them!!"
LOL
....and just after the mains were on the runway.. apparently she said; "That wasn't so bad.. " to which he replied.. "hang on kid.. it ain't over yet!"

ps.. some of my training was done in a Cessna birddog, and a Piper cub.. and Super cub.. so.. taildraggers.. and gliders... yeah.. learned how to use my feet right from the beginning.

 

[nigel richards]

Cant wait to try the latest..

Hang in there Robin - just a few more days' tinkering to bring all versions up to standard. If I can pull it off, I'll include the 646 Sea Tutor in the pack also.

One thing about crosswind take off & landings...way back when that aircraft was used, one would take off & land into wind - there were no real defined runways - even back in the late 50's when I learnt to fly at Fairoaks one used to do that too, although crosswind landing was on the syllabus & which, much to my dismay, I c**ked up on my final test.......
Keith

That's when airfields were AIRFIELDS - must confess an affinity to that kind of environment...ahhh!

Absolutely Keith!! air--FIELDS back in those days.. even pictures of early Templehoff shows pics of Ju-52's landing on a huge grass surface.

but still nice to keep up on the technique..

The starduster 2 I get to fly is FAR more comfortable (and less terrifying) operating on grass as opposed to tarmac as the tyres can slip a bit.. and sadly.. most airports today dictate your direction.. and are paved.. !!

I remember my daughter going up with the airplanes owner and warning her about the landing... "There's two way to land this airplane well.. and so far.. no one has found EITHER of them!!"
LOL
....and just after the mains were on the runway.. apparently she said; "That wasn't so bad.. " to which he replied.. "hang on kid.. it ain't over yet!"

ps.. some of my training was done in a Cessna birddog, and a Piper cub.. and Super cub.. so.. taildraggers.. and gliders... yeah.. learned how to use my feet right from the beginning.

LOLOL. Quite a story there, Dave - love it!

 

[Blackbird686]

Actually, I prefer grassy airfields for my Spitfires and Hurricanes in the sim. Plane Design's Spitfire is a real challenge on a grass runway...LOL!

Looking forward to the "Sea Tutor", Nigel.

BB686

 

[nigel richards]

Looking forward to the "Sea Tutor", Nigel.

BB686

I know you'll give her a thorough testing - thanks Chief!

 

[Bushi]

For motormouse. a few little bits I've modified

Your assistance with the FDE is MUCH appreciated!!!

Here is my ham-fisted.. but working mods to prepare myself for the 'promised' lower power of the five cyl. when it's released. yes.. I've been warned..... LOL


With a total LACK of info on the earlier airplane, as it seems all the specs I can find online refer to the much more prevalent higher powered Tutor variant, I decided to just use some of my real world experience and 'wing it' for now.

I decreased the empty weight to 1644 pounds. I figure that would be a fair adjustment to bring the engine down from the seven cyl. Lynx to the little mongoose.
then decreased the hp in the Trainers CFG (designed for the bigger engine..) to 160

I then decreased the prop diameter ever so slightly to get the rpms back up to a max of 1900 with the lower power.

There is a noticeable difference in the characteristics of the 'new' airplane, but I love that little five cyl!!! The nose with it installed looks just right to my eyes!

oh.. I also increased the pilot weight to 250 pounds.. because it's me in the 'pit... ..... not some skinny 25 year old!!!

Cheers
Dave

 

[Motormouse]

Your ***istance with the FDE is MUCH appreciated!!!

Here is my ham-fisted.. but working mods to prepare myself for the 'promised' lower power of the five cyl. when it's released. yes.. I've been warned..... LOL


With a total LACK of info on the earlier airplane, as it seems all the specs I can find online refer to the much more prevalent higher powered Tutor variant, I decided to just use some of my real world experience and 'wing it' for now.

I decreased the empty weight to 1644 pounds. I figure that would be a fair adjustment to bring the engine down from the seven cyl. Lynx to the little mongoose.
then decreased the hp in the Trainers CFG (designed for the bigger engine..) to 160

I then decreased the prop diameter ever so slightly to get the rpms back up to a max of 1900 with the lower power.

There is a noticeable difference in the characteristics of the 'new' airplane, but I love that little five cyl!!! The nose with it installed looks just right to my eyes!

oh.. I also increased the pilot weight to 250 pounds.. because it's me in the 'pit... ..... not some skinny 25 year old!!!

Cheers
Dave

Yeah, I' d already increased pilot weight, to account for heated sidcot suit, oxygen kit etc. (yes, they had a self contained oxygen bottle with regulator and mask), but as you've found out most of the published figures on the web are for the later model Tutor, which was (in point of fact) the 626 model with the rear gunners pit faired over and without the extra navigation training kit of the 626 stashed in the rear pit.

Which means that the 621 with bigger motor, plus the all wood PWS variant and the little engined 621, are all best educated guesses, based on what little information can be found. Weights have been most difficult to pin down.

Magoo has been doing the donkeys work with coding, so big thanks to him for that, and poor Nigel has had his pm box filled with alterations to cfg files!

Ttfn

Pete

 

[Bushi]

Yeah, I' d already increased pilot weight, to account for heated sidcot suit, oxygen kit etc. (yes, they had a self contained oxygen bottle with regulator and mask), but as you've found out most of the published figures on the web are for the later model Tutor, which was (in point of fact) the 626 model with the rear gunners pit faired over and without the extra navigation training kit of the 626 stashed in the rear pit.

Which means that the 621 with bigger motor, plus the all wood PWS variant and the little engined 621, are all best educated guesses, based on what little information can be found. Weights have been most difficult to pin down.

Magoo has been doing the donkeys work with coding, so big thanks to him for that, and poor Nigel has had his pm box filled with alterations to cfg files!

Ttfn

Pete

first off.. I think it is hilarious that the first three letters of ***istance were censored by whatever autobot is used in the forum. I mean.. really.. "***ISTANCE?? LOL

Yeah.. pilot weight.. LOTS of gear..

And yes.. like you, I have NO idea besides the published info I can find on weights other than what seems to be the later variant, so took educated guesses on an airframe sans the third pit equipment, no cowl, and two less jugs on a slightly smaller crankcase. I'm probably STILL running a bit heavy.
I've also moved the viewpoint. It suits my screen res, and I positioned it fore and aft to match where it would be sitting straight up in the pit. It might still be an inch too far aft, but the panel is just right at the zoom I have. Eyepoint is always a tricky bit, and screen aspect ratio has to be factored in.

I figured Nigel would be swamped, so really haven't sent him any cfg 'suggestions'.... After the next upgrade, I'll see if there is anything I wish to add that hasn't been addressed.

I found this poster and thought of a 626 for a future 'expansion', with gunners position, even a blind flying hood... note that this airplane has an uncowled engine, a faired over windscreenless second cockpit, AND the tall wire wheels with fabric covers.
Quite the versatile little airframe!

Cheers
Dave

 

[magoo]

Armstrong Siddeley (light radials) Dry Weight:

Mongoose: 340 lbs.

Lynx: 525 lbs.

Cheetah: 637 lbs.

I believe in the flights models sent to Nigel, the Tutor (Lynx) was used as the mean for empty weight, and the others had that number added or subtracted in regard to the engine provided and sundry other equipment on board.

Pilot weight......may vary with mileage & habit.

 

[magoo]

Edit.....mismanaged post>>See below for correction.

 

[magoo]

Quite the versatile little airframe!

They were superbly developed biplanes. The more I learn about this series, the more I like them.

I think any of the models would make a great basis for a (retirement) home-build project replica.

It'd sink a few cases of beer in the garage to come up with a good engine. Rotax 2800 is too small, R985 is too big and thirsty (Prefect).....Kinners & Continentals are becoming quite hard to find parts......Russian/Polish radials..? Time to consult the Oracle of Google.

Hmmm......would have to extend the garage first. ......

Nigel's got it spot-on. Create a whole production line of replicas in the electric ether.

Certainly it creates headaches in the creation process.....but very unlikely to end with a divorce and a municipal citation for bylaw violations regarding non-standard mods to house & garage, and desist from taxi-ing tests on suburban streets.

 

[wombat666]

Nigel.
That small glitch I found?
Fixed.
Purely cosmetic.

 

[Bushi]

They were superbly developed biplanes. The more I learn about this series, the more I like them.

I think any of the models would make a great basis for a (retirement) home-build project replica.

It'd sink a few cases of beer in the garage to come up with a good engine. Rotax 2800 is too small, R985 is too big and thirsty (Prefect).....Kinners & Continentals are becoming quite hard to find parts......Russian/Polish radials..? Time to consult the Oracle of Google.

Hmmm......would have to extend the garage first. ......

Nigel's got it spot-on. Create a whole production line of replicas in the electric ether.

Certainly it creates headaches in the creation process.....but very unlikely to end with a divorce and a municipal citation for bylaw violations regarding non-standard mods to house & garage, and desist from taxi-ing tests on suburban streets.

I started off building mine in a two car garage.. and admittedly, some of my airframe was constructed on the living room floor.. LOL... then we built a house of our design, and I had a massive three car garage.. it was high too.. and the centre door was just a tad over eight feet wide.. just enough for the tailplane to pass through.. the wings.. four MAIN bolts and some linkage, disconnect the struts from the lower longeron... and they were off.....

I had a good bit of block and tackle mounted to a large crossbeam through the middle, and I literally had my airplane hung OVER the cars while I was building it. Drop her down.. do some work.. hoist her back up.. A homebuilders dream!
Being on the outskirts of a rural town, with some property.. has it's benefits. As for the marital issues.... this was when I was with my ex... lol.... hmmmm....

Sadly.. I am now retired.. and no airplane.... life... yeah...........sigh..........

cheers
Dave

 

[nigel richards]

Nigel.
That small glitch I found?
Fixed.
Purely cosmetic.

Ah! Thanks for reminding me W666 - you must mean this, my friend:

Thus far I can get this collection of gems to fly and look superb in FS9, FSX SE, P3D3 and P3D4.1 with only one problem child, the PWS-18 Trainer has a minor cosmetic aberration and only in P3D.
I look forward to that Metaxa Nigel.
You have worked miracles getting this aeroplane to such a high standard.

Could you help me out with a couple of visuals to sort the issue out, as I don't have P3D

 

[nigel richards]

Here comes the first 646 Sea Tutor for testing...

You're all one heck of a team, Gentlemen - I wouldn't have made progress without your awesome wealth of support, feedback, enthusiasm, and suggestions.

As for figures and data, don't thank me - Motormouse with his Real World Aero-engineering expertise, and James Banks' incredible talent for creating uncannily realistic flight models are our heroes, Gentlemen!

NEW Test Pack should be ready for some W/E wing flexing - what has kept me so far, is the introduction of 2 NEW models to the Tutor section, plus the introduction of our first model of the AVRO 646 Sea Tutors.

 

[huub vink]

When the model is just half as good as it looks in the images, its already better than perfect

So we all will have wet feet soon

Cheers,
Huub

 

[Josh Patterson]

I like the little sea plane base you have going on there! Reminds me of Old Rhinebeck but on the water!