Big Radials / Noorduyn Norseman (C-64)

[Javis]

We were discussing the cowling on the BR Discord.

A quick image search will show there was a lot of cowling variety back in the days of the Norseman. .

Well, i don't see much difference in the front of these cowlings, Denny. And that's what the question is about, isn't it. This bright yellow one above may *look* to have a flat cowling front but that's the artificially light that's pointed directly onto it i.e. no shadow whatsoever.

The problem with the BR Norseman cowling front can also be seen on their Goose model. It is *flat* where it should be nicely rounded off smoothly bending backwards into the inside of the cowling.

Real Goose :

BR Goose :

Additional problem with the Norseman cowling is that the front is much too broad. Next to the fact that it will not cool the engine as much as it does with a 'normal' front edge of the cowling, it also hides a fairly large part of the engine and don't even think about the drag such a flat surface will induce. Cowlings of radial engines don't have a smooth rounded off front edge just because it looks nice. In short : the BR Norseman might not even get off the ground with the current engine cowling..

Btw, if you ask me, any of the Norseman's cowlings in your photos above would do fine on the BR model. Atm the cowlingfront of the BR Norseman is a far cry from any of these...

 

[Javis]

So BR chose their own style? Lets see a real world design that matches their rendering. I can't be the only one to notice this.

I agreed already with your first post on the Norseman cowling topic, dvj. You're certainly not the only one.

 

[joe bob]

Their cowling does look rather toy like.

 

[srgalahad]

And if you have a copy of Captains of the Clouds (and every classic aviation fan should!), Cagney's Norseman cowling there was different from any of the above.

So it's not like Big Radials is missing matching a definitive design here. There was a lot of change over the course of building and operating these things.

The reason for this is that "HGO" was a fake registration for Hollywood and was, in fact, THE Norseman 1 prototype (CF-AYO) and had a different (Wright R-975 Whirlwind) engine. The 'definitive' versions were the IV, VI, and V. The UC-64 was essentially a Mk IV with US military specs and was internally designated Mk VI. The Mk V was the postwar production Mk. VI with some of the mil equipment removed.
Details abound at https://www.norsemanhistory.ca/

As these were all certified production aircraft, they were mass-produced with common parts (the blistered cowl was a short-lived early design that was changed). So, regardless of what people might see in various lighting and views, the 800-ish series aircraft would have been made in the same jigs and forms.

Possibly, one might have a cowling borrowed from some other Wasp-powered twin but it wouldn't be "typical" or representative of the type.
Of course, it's possible that Big Radials could have found one oddball to use as reference. but in that case it would be appropriate for them to explain this in documentation.

My most recent Norseman 'encounter': s/n 224 53-5233 NC59893 CF-UUD -- Unfortunately de-registered in 2016 and I'm not sure of the current status of the aircraft..

 

[heywooood]

clearly there is an inaccuracy to the cowlings of both the BR Goose and this Norseman - we can all see it.

There are only two questions that need answering now.
1) if it isn't changed how many sales will they lose over it (not mine) - a few? a lot?
2) most importantly - why wouldn't they just admit the error and fix it, rather than try to tell us we aren't right about it?

I've been waiting for a Norseman for flight sim for a very long time...not necessarily a payware one - but one that was high fidelity and proper.
This cowling issue isn't a small one - but it won't stop me from buying the BR effort and just hoping they get around to fixing the problem later.
I do wish they were more open in both cases (Goose and Norseman) to reviewing the shape of the front of that cowling though, rather than chiding the community (their customers) for pointing it out.
They dont even have to reshape it - just open it up or 'cut away' about 2" of the cowling face all the way around the circumference of the opening.

 

[DennyA]

Ya'll really should be discussing this on the Big Radials Discord, where you can actually bring it up with the devs and designers... Posting here's less useful given that I haven't seen Ozwookie here on S-0 in a long time.

https://discord.gg/DcrgcAzZuG

If you're not a Discord user, FYI that you can use it in a web browser without installing anything. Given that almost all MSFS devs are using it for their official support, it's worth the couple of minutes it takes to set up a login.

Posting there might get a change made, or at least an explanation.

Posting here is...



(TOTALLY cool and appropriate for us to discuss the plane here, of course, but just saying posting over on the Discord is kinda critical if you want the devs to know your concerns.)

 

[Javis]

1) if it isn't changed how many sales will they lose over it (not mine) - a few? a lot?

2, mine and dvj's... Hehe

2) most importantly - why wouldn't they just admit the error and fix it, rather than try to tell us we aren't right about it?

Did they do that ? Over at Discord maybe ?..

I do wish they were more open in both cases (Goose and Norseman) to reviewing the shape of the front of that cowling though, rather than chiding the community (their customers) for pointing it out.

I'd love to see that and respond.... I frequented Discord just for the Redwing's Connie when it was 'hot'. Later on i had problem getting in again. Not a fan because of this awkward way to register. But i'll give it go again.

They dont even have to reshape it - just open it up or 'cut away' about 2" of the cowling face all the way around the circumference of the opening.

Nothing easier than create a cowling looking exactly like that of a Norseman (or Otter or just about any radial engined cowling, usually the're all the same, seen one seen 'em all), just have enough cross sections to move and scale to round it off and bend inwards. Childs play really, i.e. fun to do

 

[heywooood]

yes - on Discord - words to the effect that SOH complaints are expected but unfounded

JanKees also trying to explain to Oz what exactly we're talking about - referencing the 'closed cowl' being rounded over too far and with too small an opening around the engine - while Oz is responding about cowling 'shutters' (aka SU-26 style) for the cold weather application

They just aren't accepting the observation that the cowling(s) are incorrectly modeled

 

[lagaffe]

Hi,

When they released the Niewport 17, I had made some remarks about the engine cover which was not modeled correctly: the two holes at the bottom right for the oil and gas evacuation were missing.
They answered that they were not modeling a real model and that the level of details was sufficient for the target buyers (sic)

 

[Spook48]

Hi,

When they released the Niewport 17, I had made some remarks about the engine cover which was not modeled correctly: the two holes at the bottom right for the oil and gas evacuation were missing.
They answered that they were not modeling a real model and that the level of details was sufficient for the target buyers (sic)

Sorry to say , but that is just a childish response

 

[heywooood]

Ya'll really should be discussing this on the Big Radials Discord, where you can actually bring it up with the devs and designers... Posting here's less useful given that I haven't seen Ozwookie here on S-0 in a long time.

https://discord.gg/DcrgcAzZuG

If you're not a Discord user, FYI that you can use it in a web browser without installing anything. Given that almost all MSFS devs are using it for their official support, it's worth the couple of minutes it takes to set up a login.

Posting there might get a change made, or at least an explanation.

Posting THERE is like...

View attachment 89427

I posted there - Admonished the Leprechaun for disparaging the SOH boards - we are customers after all...

 

[Javis]

yes - on Discord - words to the effect that SOH complaints are expected but unfounded

JanKees also trying to explain to Oz what exactly we're talking about - referencing the 'closed cowl' being rounded over too far and with too small an opening around the engine - while Oz is responding about cowling 'shutters' (aka SU-26 style) for the cold weather application

They just aren't accepting the observation that the cowling(s) are incorrectly modeled

Hey Wooood,

Yeah, saw it. Managed to get in again and after quite a bit of search stumbled over the BR Norseman topic. You and Jan Kees did good ! Nothing easier for them (BR) to thank Jan Kees for the photo and see/acknowledge what he means. (however, no response at all sofar...). Typical that the Editer guy first acknowledges the fact that the cowling is wrong but then quickly cancels his comment because we're using photos of the real thing to compare.... What did he expect ? That we all have a real Norseman in our back garden ?...

Good to see that little Leprechaun finally posted a gif of himself. We now know who we're dealing with. I certainly wouldn't want that obnoxious little poser in *my* back garden ! I think we can assume we're not getting a Norseman sporting a normal common engine cowling. Be it even just to pick on us ' SOH rivet counters'...

So be it. I'm going back to Plan B, wait for a radial Otter. Most probabely we don't have to beg for a correct engine cowling there. And if that fails i always have my own atempt for a radial Otter (for FSX/P3D but MSFS made me stow all my model stuff in the back garden...( i *could* invite that little upstart leprechaun into my back garden anyway to have a look at that Otter cowling front, take it home for use on their Norseman for all i care.. ;-)

 

[DennyA]

Typical that the Editer guy first acknowledges the fact that the cowling is wrong but then quickly cancels his comment because we're using photos of the real thing to compare.... What did he expect ? That we all have a real Norseman in our back garden ?...

No, what I said was:

But I also know that they're basing the critique on a few screenshots and camera angles and zoom can be deceiving.

What I meant by that was that we'd only seen a few screenshots of the SIMULATED Norseman, and MSFS's screenshot function is notorious for distorting images depending on the camera angle and amount of zoom. What i meant was that the cowl might not be as odd in the actual sim without the distortion.

But yeah, now the devs have insulted S-O and this thread has gotten personal back at them, so yay for typical constructive Internet discourse. Sigh.

...DennyA/Editer

 

[joe bob]

No, what I said was:



What I meant by that was that we'd only seen a few screenshots of the SIMULATED Norseman, and MSFS's screenshot function is notorious for distorting images depending on the camera angle and amount of zoom. What i meant was that the cowl might not be as odd in the actual sim without the distortion.

But yeah, now the devs have insulted S-O and this thread has gotten personal back at them, so yay for typical constructive Internet discourse. Sigh.

...DennyA/Editer

That weird cowling has nothing to do with camera angle or zoom.

 

[Javis]

No, what I said was:

Ahh!.... So that was *you*, Denny ! Right... that *does* make you kind of a 'mole', doesn't it ?... hehe..

What I meant by that was that we'd only seen a few screenshots of the SIMULATED Norseman, and MSFS's screenshot function is notorious for distorting images depending on the camera angle and amount of zoom. What i meant was that the cowl might not be as odd in the actual sim without the distortion.

But you also said : "I'll saw that in the photos I've found, it does look like the real cowling isn't as tight or narrow on the engine as the screens I've seen " So that's what i based *my* comment on. And, no, i don't think it's the zoom or angle in the screenshots of the BR Norseman model that makes the front of the cowling look odd. Look at the screenie of the BR Goose i posted above. Same thing, front of the 2 cowlings way too broad, also flat and not bending backwards into the cowling. Check with the photo of the real Goose...

You also said: and, hey, aren't you supposed to be flying from inside anyway?

I bet you didn't really mean that, right ? ( it would make all tremendous hard work devs put into creating external models worthless...)

BR has a problem with engine cowling fronts. So what. No biggie and no need for BR to 'retaliate' because somebody points it out. They should appreciate that there are simmers who take FS aircraft modeling serious, have a real interest in a particular model and know how much time and effort goes into creating it. If there is criticism regarding a particular aspect of a model it is usually ment to make the developer aware so it can be looked into and corrected. That's all. No biggie.

But yeah, now the devs have insulted S-O and this thread has gotten personal back at them, so yay for typical constructive Internet discourse. Sigh.

You're right, Denny. Sigh... Aren't we all grown men who should be very much able to deal with a difference in an easy and intelligent way ? Apparently not...

What emoticon should we go with today, this or this :

 

[DennyA]

Yeah, it's hard to convey tone online, which makes it worse! My comment about flying from inside was sarcastic as that's often used as an excuse for this kind of stuff. I gotta start using emojis more liberally.

(I'm Editer on Discord/Xbox/etc. because some jerk(s) stole DennyA on those services!)

 

[Daveroo]

i may get kicked off of the SOH for this, but i cant see the difference in any of it, and i care even less, ive wanted one of these in a flight sim (that i use) for years. and ill get this one.its not going to fly any different in the flight sim with the "wrong" cowling. or am i wrong? i mean its "I"s and "O"s isnt it that create the flight dynamics ? am i wrong? is the modeling of an incorrect cowling going to interfere with the aerodynamics? to the comments above about flying from the cockpit vs outside, i dont care how anyone else flies,and thankfully many of the posters in the screenshots threads do what they do,or we wouldnt have some of the truly gorgeous artwork that we all refer to as a screenshot.

as a side note,and i hope i dont get in trouble for this,but i chat in a group website,and i post images of some of your screenshots ,with credit due and a link to the page for each one, in several of the chat groups message's areas. i do this as one long time friend asked me to share some on his pages,hes not an aircraft fan, doesnt know a single engined plane from a twin.he lives in california,knows wildfires and knows the tankers when he sees one, not what type/model, but that its an airtanker.i posted one of tankerguy72's shots of his upcoming S2T,"jazzy" ,after about two weeks sent me a PM asking what was going on with the shot? he wanted to know where the pilot was, i said simply "its a screenshot from MSFS2020" he then wanted to know what that was..he had thought it was a photograph taken plane to plane, like michael o'leary used to do.. he and his adult son are looking into MSFS2020 now because of that one screenshot.so , my point to all of that is.

the exterior visuals matter

but not to some of us, i do a walk around before i fly (well i did in P3D anyway) and after i land, just a part of the fun of this hobby to "ME", and prolly only me. the thing im now worried about is this::
any of you remember, many years ago a fight that happened over something simular? i forget the details, but it ended with bannings from this website,and blockages of many of us SOH'ers from the website to buy the plane, i remember it being one i wanted,i never joined the "fight" but when i tried to buy it, i couldnt, emails went back and forth, and though he admitted i wasnt involved, i was still a registered member here and i was banned.

weird. though i love the passion involved here with the Norseman and the cowling, come on.. if you hate it that much, and you are mad at the dev over it.. dont get it, but let those of us who dont know the difference,and dont care about it ,just let us enjoy it as built.

please.

 

[Javis]

I hear you, Dave, you want that BR Norseman whatever the heck that cowling front looks like and i bet you and everyone else who has an interest in the BR Norseman (including myself) will get it no matter if the front of the cowling has been reworked or not.

Btw, no idea why on earth you think you might get kicked off the SOH for posting your comment. Nothing wrong with it, as legitimate as any comment here in this topic.

And personally i think comments that question a certain aspect of an external model are just as legitimate too. No doubt we all love developers and have the highest respect for them and their often amazing work, where would we be without them. But developers are not gods (although i know of one or two of whom i have serious doubts about that...;-), the're human too and can make mistakes like human species does, nothing more normal, no problemo whatsoever (atleast not in our virtual world..)

The 'problemo' usually stems from when the well known 'matter of opinion' comes into play. A tricky one indeed, easy to find oneself walking on thin ice all of a sudden. To avoid that it would mean criticizing an FS aircraft model would be totally off limits. Be it about the External model, Virtual Cockpit, Flightmodel, Gauges, Textures, Sounds, you name it. Only platitudes and clichees like Ohhh's and Ahhhh's, Amazing's, Wonderful's and Beautiful's. We could ask ourselves if developers would be happy about that. Actually i don't think so. We wouldn't take them and their meticulous work serious, would we.

It has been said many times before, nothing wrong with constructive criticism and evaluation. It's an important part of our rather peculiar and idiosyncratic hobby (yep, and that's a matter of opinion ;-) You know yourself too, Dave, absolutely normal that developers release one or more updates after initial release of their newest model. Usually these updates are a result of feedback i.e. constructive criticism and evaluation, by their customers or customers to be.

Also absolutely normal that there are flightsimmers who couldn't care less about the external part of an FS aircraft model. They never leave the cockpit during flight (i think that's probabely because RW pilots don't do that either...;-) Then again there are those that spend maybe as much time looking at the External model as they spend inside the Virtual Cockpit. Everybody can use our precious FS as he/she likes. No boundaries, no restrictions, no rules, it's a free virtual world and that's the beauty of it. Right ?!

Myself i belong to the 'As much time looking at the external as sitting in the VC' camp and i have absolutely no problem with the other 'strickly VC' camp. Why would i ??... (only like to say they don't know what the're missing...;-) So when i see something not quite right on a particular new FS aircraft model (been aircraft modeler almost all my life, paper, wood, plastic, digital, you name it, i know an aircraft model when i see one...;-) i see no harm in talking about that, good chance the dev will pick it up and have a look at it.

That's all, Dave. No developer bashing of any sort, just using my experience as 'lifetime aircraft modeler' to point out something that a dev might be willing to look into. You couldn't probabely care less about that Norseman's engine cowling but some of us really do. We just like BR to produce the best looking Norseman ever and i'm sure that's what we're gonna get !

 

[heywooood]

Agree - I'll still buy it and hope for improvement down the road..
My only point here was the question about obstinance - really from either side.
There is a valid point about the configuration of the cowling being incorrect - and there is a valid point about some in any community setting an unreasonable bar (this isn't one - but you know what I mean)
As I told them boys at BR, I would buy their Norseman even if they put the cowling on backwards, because I want a good one (at long last) and I'm not such a stickler for EVERY detail before I'll spend a nickel.
And don't disparage the folks in your own damn market.

 

[Tom Clayton]

Thanks Jan! As long as criticism is meant to be constructive and is delivered in at least a civil (if not polite) manner, then I'll support it. I've seen more bad posting from dev's than I have customers. Although most will take the input and actually do something with it, I've seen others that want to get personal in one way or another and that's when threads start to circle the drain.