-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
-
IMPORTANT DOWNLOADING INFORMATION - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
Please see this thread for updates. Update Thread
SOH ADMINISTRATION
better airfile for Baldy's Anson?
- Thread starter UncleTgt
- Start date
Sarg Willy
SOH-CM-2014
I,m still light years , behind , haven,t unpacked that one yet , Nice art work on that Uncle ,
Reply...
UncleTgt,
The aircraft will need a revised .dp file for bombs and other assorted weapons it used. In addition, I have come up empty on fuel capacity. In all other aspects, I modified the .air file to have the "Cheetah" engines. Having engine ratings of 1,100hp might have had something to do with her flight characteristics. In reality, each engine produced 345hp.
Also, the weight was double what it should be. I matched the climb rate accurately, but the aircraft will still be in this configuration be about sixty MPH too fast, unless revising the fuel capacity has an effect.
Also, the deeper I dig, the worse it gets. In addition to the above, the wing is about fourteen feet short, and the wing area was about %16 undersized, in comparison to the historical dimensions.
If I can get the proper fuel capacity, and dimensions of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, as well as wing chord and the like, the better the airfile will be.
UncleTgt,
The aircraft will need a revised .dp file for bombs and other assorted weapons it used. In addition, I have come up empty on fuel capacity. In all other aspects, I modified the .air file to have the "Cheetah" engines. Having engine ratings of 1,100hp might have had something to do with her flight characteristics. In reality, each engine produced 345hp.
Also, the weight was double what it should be. I matched the climb rate accurately, but the aircraft will still be in this configuration be about sixty MPH too fast, unless revising the fuel capacity has an effect.
Also, the deeper I dig, the worse it gets. In addition to the above, the wing is about fourteen feet short, and the wing area was about %16 undersized, in comparison to the historical dimensions.
If I can get the proper fuel capacity, and dimensions of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, as well as wing chord and the like, the better the airfile will be.
Was able to lay my hands on Anson MkI cutaway. We have two tanks in each wing, each tank either 30 (136 litres) or 35 Imp.gallons (159 litres). So if you go for 140 Imp. gallons (636 litres) that should help.
Mean chord of wing found in a 1935 edition of 'Flight' is given as 8ft 4in (2.59m)
Mean chord of wing found in a 1935 edition of 'Flight' is given as 8ft 4in (2.59m)
UncleTgt
SOH-CM-2026
Rami,
I printed a drawing & pro-rata'd measurements to derive the following:
Vertical Stabiliser Height = 88"
Vertical Stabiliser Area = 1.5944 sq mtr
Rudder Area = 1.9292 sq mtr
Horizontal Stabiliser Area = 1.666 sq mtr
Horizontal Stabiliser Span = 134"
Elevator Area = 0.9964 sq mtr each, Total Area = 1.9928 sq mtr
Aileron Length = 175" each
Aileron Area = 1.594 sq mtr each, Total Area = 3.188 sq mtr
Flaps Area = 0.9566 sq mtr each, Total Area = 1.9132 sq mtr
Avg Wing Chord = 91"
Engine Locations (estimated)
50" port & starboard
130" ahead of est CG position
Fuel tank positions (estimated)
At CG position (fore/aft)
Inner tanks = 88" port & stbd
Outer tanks = 148" port & stbd
Prop Diameter = 2.321 mtrs
Not meant to be definitive, but close enough to get you started. Hope this helps.
I printed a drawing & pro-rata'd measurements to derive the following:
Vertical Stabiliser Height = 88"
Vertical Stabiliser Area = 1.5944 sq mtr
Rudder Area = 1.9292 sq mtr
Horizontal Stabiliser Area = 1.666 sq mtr
Horizontal Stabiliser Span = 134"
Elevator Area = 0.9964 sq mtr each, Total Area = 1.9928 sq mtr
Aileron Length = 175" each
Aileron Area = 1.594 sq mtr each, Total Area = 3.188 sq mtr
Flaps Area = 0.9566 sq mtr each, Total Area = 1.9132 sq mtr
Avg Wing Chord = 91"
Engine Locations (estimated)
50" port & starboard
130" ahead of est CG position
Fuel tank positions (estimated)
At CG position (fore/aft)
Inner tanks = 88" port & stbd
Outer tanks = 148" port & stbd
Prop Diameter = 2.321 mtrs
Not meant to be definitive, but close enough to get you started. Hope this helps.
Reply...
John,
Sorry it took twelve bloody days, but life all of a sudden went crazy. This are now calm again, for the moment.
I'm afraid scaling this to real specs didn't do much good. The aircraft is very unstable and requires a lot of positive elevator to stay airborne. She's painfully slow, and can be out-accelerated by a gravel truck.
Please feel free to tinker. I will try again with AirWrench when I return home.
John,
Sorry it took twelve bloody days, but life all of a sudden went crazy. This are now calm again, for the moment.
I'm afraid scaling this to real specs didn't do much good. The aircraft is very unstable and requires a lot of positive elevator to stay airborne. She's painfully slow, and can be out-accelerated by a gravel truck.
Please feel free to tinker. I will try again with AirWrench when I return home.
Reply...
John,
I took another stab at it this morning. I included the originals for comparison. I think the flight envelope is closer to specs, except the aircraft still behaves like a flying brick; unstable and requiring a lot of positive elevator.
One thing I can try is to use the Air Wrench "estimate control surfaces" feature once I input the length, wingspan, and wing area. Even if the dimensions are a little off for the control surfaces...if CFS2 accepts them and she flies well, will that be okay with you, even if she is not 100% to specs?
John,
I took another stab at it this morning. I included the originals for comparison. I think the flight envelope is closer to specs, except the aircraft still behaves like a flying brick; unstable and requiring a lot of positive elevator.
One thing I can try is to use the Air Wrench "estimate control surfaces" feature once I input the length, wingspan, and wing area. Even if the dimensions are a little off for the control surfaces...if CFS2 accepts them and she flies well, will that be okay with you, even if she is not 100% to specs?
UncleTgt
SOH-CM-2026
v2 is pretty much OK, just a tad too "agile"
Rami,
v2 is better than v1, though perhaps still not "docile" enough - she fairly rips down the runway, even when loaded (although to be fair she still takes some effort to actually lift off the runway & into the air!).
In v2 did you get the c of g aft of the min wing centre of lift (record 1204)? That would certainly help with stability.
Rami,
v2 is better than v1, though perhaps still not "docile" enough - she fairly rips down the runway, even when loaded (although to be fair she still takes some effort to actually lift off the runway & into the air!).
In v2 did you get the c of g aft of the min wing centre of lift (record 1204)? That would certainly help with stability.