Thank you so much!
Cees
Cees
C.R.D.A.Cant.Z.506B ready !!!
- Thread starter mvg3d
- Start date
Hi Kikas,
...and everyone else who intends to submit, or respond to, bug reports.
You have all installed four new aeroplanes not one. In all bug reports please cite the type of Z.506 that was selected from the aircraft selection menu. They each have different code.
Bug report:- <<..... i think there's a problem with contact points as plane very easily jumps into the air both on take off and landing>>
I have now retested all four new aeroplanes after release using the released code. They do not exhibit anything resembling that behaviour, when installed compliantly and flown from default Microsoft water mesh.
I conclude that you have probably misinstalled the download. I suggest you remove it carefully, backtracking the instructions in the read before install file, and then re-install.
Bug report:- <<sim crashes with this plane and Alexander Belov's sceneries>>
Again the most likely explanation is corrupted installation causing the newly installed file set to be non compliant.
If the Belov scenery in question was designed in accordance with the FS9 SDK, and a compliant FS9 startup.FLT was used to spawn another hydroplane on the water mesh within it successfully, nothing will cause FS9 itself (the sim) to crash when any compliantly installed native FS9 hydroplane is then subsequently selected using the select aircraft menu.
Perhaps you really mean that the Airone crashes, (over and over again)? That is a different issue that I have not addressed because it was not reported.
If you are using third party software, such as a flight planning tool, using a 'move aircraft to' command, to position a hydroplane on the open water mesh, you should probably blame that third party tool's 'move to' code for crashing FS9.
Bug reports can only be used by developers if the report cites the code in use. Especially if the aeroplane was in contact with the surface, the precise location must be cited, so that developers can try to replicate the bug report.
If anyone else who uses any Belov scenery containing water mesh experiences an entire FS9 crash, using a compliant startup.FLT to spawn a different hydroplane successfully on the Belov water mesh, then selecting one of the four new types of Airone from the 'select aircraft menu' as the means to ensure that it is code inside the Part 1 Airone release that causes FS9 itself to crash, and both the identity of the Belov scenery in use, and the precise location of spawning is reported as LAT/LON I will investigate further.
The LAT/LON in use during spawning on water mesh (or a water runway) created by Belov can be pasted from the STARTUP.FLT used.
[Track]
Latitude=N041° 51' 38.5897"
Longitude=W087° 42' 43.5498"
>
FSAviator.
...and everyone else who intends to submit, or respond to, bug reports.
You have all installed four new aeroplanes not one. In all bug reports please cite the type of Z.506 that was selected from the aircraft selection menu. They each have different code.
Bug report:- <<..... i think there's a problem with contact points as plane very easily jumps into the air both on take off and landing>>
I have now retested all four new aeroplanes after release using the released code. They do not exhibit anything resembling that behaviour, when installed compliantly and flown from default Microsoft water mesh.
I conclude that you have probably misinstalled the download. I suggest you remove it carefully, backtracking the instructions in the read before install file, and then re-install.
Bug report:- <<sim crashes with this plane and Alexander Belov's sceneries>>
Again the most likely explanation is corrupted installation causing the newly installed file set to be non compliant.
If the Belov scenery in question was designed in accordance with the FS9 SDK, and a compliant FS9 startup.FLT was used to spawn another hydroplane on the water mesh within it successfully, nothing will cause FS9 itself (the sim) to crash when any compliantly installed native FS9 hydroplane is then subsequently selected using the select aircraft menu.
Perhaps you really mean that the Airone crashes, (over and over again)? That is a different issue that I have not addressed because it was not reported.
If you are using third party software, such as a flight planning tool, using a 'move aircraft to' command, to position a hydroplane on the open water mesh, you should probably blame that third party tool's 'move to' code for crashing FS9.
Bug reports can only be used by developers if the report cites the code in use. Especially if the aeroplane was in contact with the surface, the precise location must be cited, so that developers can try to replicate the bug report.
If anyone else who uses any Belov scenery containing water mesh experiences an entire FS9 crash, using a compliant startup.FLT to spawn a different hydroplane successfully on the Belov water mesh, then selecting one of the four new types of Airone from the 'select aircraft menu' as the means to ensure that it is code inside the Part 1 Airone release that causes FS9 itself to crash, and both the identity of the Belov scenery in use, and the precise location of spawning is reported as LAT/LON I will investigate further.
The LAT/LON in use during spawning on water mesh (or a water runway) created by Belov can be pasted from the STARTUP.FLT used.
[Track]
Latitude=N041° 51' 38.5897"
Longitude=W087° 42' 43.5498"
>
FSAviator.
Hmmm... no issues here, and I fly the Z.506B out of Cairns, Australia (Offshore start of my own creation using Vista OZ scenery for FS9). I also use the "Airone_Start_Up" flight provided by Manuele and it works just as it should. The plane is a very gentle easy flyer.
Are you using stock or custom scenery when flying the Z.506?
BB686
If i use this (and only this) plane with Mr. Belov's sceneries then my sim crashes, but thats not a real problem i can disable them as they are for different period anyway, but shaking and jumping into the air while still on the ground is a bit of a problem
FSAviator, first of all - thank You for all Your work you put into planes by Manuele and Mr. Meneghini.
I think i sorted problem of shaking by editing contact points a bit:
point.2 = 4, -21.58, -11.17, -9.3, 1000, 0, 0, 0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.3, 0, 0, 2
point.3 = 4, -21.58, 11.17, -9.3, 1000, 0, 0, 0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.3, 0, 0, 3
now everything seems stable and fine.
As for Mr. Belov's sceneries, they either crash after couple of minutes flying around, sound disappears, and i get FS crash message, or if i start with other plane it crashes instantly i try to switch to Airone.
I think i sorted problem of shaking by editing contact points a bit:
point.2 = 4, -21.58, -11.17, -9.3, 1000, 0, 0, 0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.3, 0, 0, 2
point.3 = 4, -21.58, 11.17, -9.3, 1000, 0, 0, 0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.3, 0, 0, 3
now everything seems stable and fine.
As for Mr. Belov's sceneries, they either crash after couple of minutes flying around, sound disappears, and i get FS crash message, or if i start with other plane it crashes instantly i try to switch to Airone.
Blackbird686
SOH-CM-2025
Hey Kikas --
Well bloody hell, then. I'm not sure what codecs Vista OZ uses for water mesh, but it LOOKS different than the stock MSFS water, and that's all I can discern. I redid ALL of my default FS9 water textures using another 3rd party package some time ago, but the Vista OZ water is the same. Since reading the article above posted by FS Aviator, I have gone back and flown all 4 different Z.506 Airone models and I can't get any of them to do anything other than what they're supposed to do... So you may want to try an un-install-re-install of the plane, as suggested.
Here's a test if you want to isolate model issues.... Load one of the Z.506 models onto default scenery as close to water as possible. Once the flight loads and you're sitting in the cockpit, use the "Y" key to slew the model over the water surface. Hit the "Y" key again and grab the controls. Gently land the Z.506 down onto the water surface. Come to a complete stop, then run up the engines, keep the flaps up until you reach 120 Knots, then drop the flaps a notch and gently pull back on the yoke. The Z.506 should slowly lift out of the water. It should cover some distance tho. If successful, then do the same with the other three planes. Maybe not in the same session, but if one of the models is a problem child, it will show up.
That's what I would do.. but I'm somewhat backwards anyhow.
EDIT: Just read your post, mate. Glad you got that part of it all sorted.
BB686
Last edited:
Some wider issues illuminated
Hi Kikas,
It is not my intention to discourage bug reports, only to encourage detailed bug reports whose circumstances can be replicated during developer testing. I will try to illuminate some associated issues for the benefit of all, but there is no evidence that the problems only you experience relate to contact points.
Real hydroplanes do not necessarily sit exactly level on the water. The 'sit' obviously varies with current CoG, in real life and in FS9. This cannot cause a hydroplane to jump into the air, in real life or in FS9. When real (early series ) Airone CoG is fully compliant after fuelling the datum line of the whole aeroplane is about two inches higher at the stern of the floats compared to their bow.
point.0 = 4, 15.9 , -11.17, -9.3,
point.1 = 4, 15.9 , 11.17, -9.3,
point.2 = 4, -21.58, -11.17, -9.1,
point.3 = 4, -21.58, 11.17, -9.1,
This micro varied over different versions, as armament and crew changed, but I decided nobody would notice and so all four have the same default early series 'sit' which is 'realistic'. The decrease in AoA due to the very slight static nose down sit is too slight to have any influence in the real world, or FS9, that anyone would notice as a change of aircraft behaviour, before or after Pilot Flying trims compliantly for Vy and applies full up elevator throughout the take off.
Compliant installation and use of complaint startup.FLT files to spawn the Aironi into compliant scenery isn't the only relevant compliance issue if any of you hope to experience a realistic take off or landing. There are many compliances to learn and achieve to unlock the embedded realism.
<<I think i sorted problem of shaking by editing contact points a bit:>>
Your original report did not mention shaking. When installed compliantly the four aeroplanes in this release do not shake. If the precise location they are spawned into is defined as water mesh in the BGL concerned, they will rise and fall on the passing waves, with relevant amplitude and passing wavelength, which cannot be mistaken for 'shaking'.
Everybody else should be able to test that the Airone will in fact spawn on land, but will then exhibit zero wave state, still with no shaking. If we apply power it will skid, because on any mesh (including an FS9 beach) it is sitting on the scrape points, not the contact = flotation points, a power skid will cause sparks on a hard runway. As the wartime crew training manual explains that is one way FS9 illuminates the pilot error of scraping the floats across a reef, sand bar or mud bank. It's not 'realistic' but it delivers the required notice of pilot error.
Blackbird 686 said;
<<I redid ALL of my default FS9 water textures using another 3rd party package some time ago, but the Vista OZ water is the same. >>
We all need to understand that textures are irrelevant. They are just some pretty colours with no other data inside. Many FS9 scenery designers who did not know how to control the shape of shorelines just placed water textures onto land mesh. Swapping the Oz texture, or any other third party texture, for the Microsoft texture cannot alter that scenery design time error. The texture never tells us whether we have spawned, or landed, on water.
If the underlying mesh is actually water mesh the contact = flotation points rule, and the Airone will exhibit the wave state. If the underlying mesh is land the scrape points rule and it obviously won't exhibit any wave state. It is a given that flight simulation enthusiasts will try to land Aironi on water textures, naively believing that scenery designers only place them over water mesh, but I fear that is far from true.
However if the landing is compliant the supplied Airone code allows that landing on a water texture on land mesh to succeed, but you will all see a shower of sparks and you will all stop very quickly! A non compliant landing could obviously cause the Airone to 'jump' in FS9 if the Airone actually alighted on land mesh covered with a water texture.
The realism in this release is very high. The supplied wartime crew training manual warns about inadvertent stranding, and about the need to avoid surf over shallow water when planning take off and landing direction during the captaincy decision making cycle. FS9 is a simulator of the real world laws of dynamics. It's not a video game. Archimedes' law is running. If the Airone is run across submerged reefs, sand bars, or mud banks at significant velocity, and the scrape points contact the reef it will 'jump' as notification of pilot and captaincy error. At lower velocity it will just run aground when being deliberately beached gently.
The Airone has stepped floats. At low velocity the floats are semi submerged, as velocity increases it 'comes up onto the step' and begins to hydroplane. We can feel it come onto the step. Landing may, or may not, induce a period of hydroplaning with a small lurch as the Airone ceases to hydroplane on the step. All that is encoded, but it does not 'jump' into the air, and it does not shake, on water or land, when installed compliantly *and* it was spawned using a compliant FS9 hydroplane startup.FLT.
The product documentation warns about the crazy content of many consumer created Startup.FLTs.
For some reason many consumers are determined to believe that everything that can possibly go wrong inside a desk top flight simulator must be caused by 'flight dynamics' and that it must be possible to fix whatever the perceived problem is by fiddling with just one tiny text file (the aircraft.cfg) because it the only one that is easy for consumers to locate and fiddle with.
I am afraid desk top flight simulators are much more complex than that and in reality there is less than 1% chance that the problem is in the aircraft.cfg, or can be fixed by fiddling with it. Nor can misinstallation of files be fixed by using a non compliant take off technique that would rip the flaps off in real life.
FS development is about more than copying some numbers from the Boy's Big book of Wonderplanes into the flight dynamics. It requires code that offsets, or provides 'work arounds' for design time errors made by Microsoft, and common errors made by third party developers. The released contact points and the scrape points have a complex job to do during Airone simulation, including tolerance of compliant consumer landings on bogus water textures over land mesh, and realistic detection and consequence of inadvertent stranding and intended beaching, and I therefore advise against altering them.
Whether we can taxi the Aironi on land mesh covered with a water texture after landing depends on current weight. We will always need a lot of power to scrape the floats over the land BGL that was concealed with a water texture. Under certain circumstances depending on BGL content we will not be able to taxi within that bogus scenery.
We cannot take off from a land BGL covered with a water texture. It is necessary to slew to a location where the flotation = class 4 contact points (above) exhibit a wave state, allowing us to be sure we are now on water mesh, not land mesh covered with a water texture, where the class 2 scrape points will exhibit no wave state. Then during the captaincy decision making cycle we must consider where the bogus scenery we have already detected may again have water textures laid over land mesh. In MSFS this may require us to take off towards open sea regardless of wind direction. if we slam the floats into land mesh under a water texture during take off or landing the airome may 'jump' or it may 'crash'.
None of these errors are in the Airone release. Instead it provides the necessary work arounds via carefully coded offsets between flotation and scrape points, and other components of the aircraft.cfg.
>
Kikas, because you see shaking while static, as well as jumping while in motion, I can now be sure you have misinstalled something, or less likely, you are using one or several equally broken hydroplane startup.FLTs, (perhaps cloned from one another in some way), to spawn the Aironi. Either way you will have other run time errors that a two inch raising of the rear of the floats while static on the water mesh, and using random unsafe take off techniques, will never solve.
<<As for Mr. Belov's sceneries, they either crash after couple of minutes flying around, sound disappears, and i get FS crash message, or if i start with other plane it crashes instantly i try to switch to Airone.>>
Mr. Belov has contributed many freeware sceneries, as well as other freeware files, and we should not assume that they all have bugs. Your report is still not as clear as it could be, but I think you are saying that, for you, the scenery in question causes FS9 to crash after a couple of minutes whatever aeroplane you select.
Your new more detailed report indicates that the scenery in question causes a 'memory leak'. If the aeroplane used has few polygons and a simple VC, or no VC, consuming less of your 'computer memory', it takes a few minutes for your 'computer' to 'run out of memory', but if you try to spawn a complex aeroplane release the scenery in question has already consumed (and not given back) so much of the memory available in your computer, or on your video card, that the FS9 crash is instantaneous. The wartime Airone release does not cause the computer crash.
If the Belov scenery was installed compliantly, and then layered compliantly, the FS9 crash is caused by a scenery that is not FS9 compliant. Consumers with more memory (of the relevant kind) may suffer an FS9 crash only after a much longer timeframe. If bugs actually exist in software they don't necessarily bite all consumers on an identical timescale, even if usage is identical. One consumer can have problems that another consumer (or the developer) never sees, depending on memory installed. The issue is sufficiently detailed reporting of the circumstances, to allow identification of the cause. The real remedy is never one that has no relationship to the cause.
Misinstalling the Airone release 'may' be contributing to the speed of the crash. No one else has reported any of the problems you have experienced and so we can all conclude that you have misinstalled the many files in some way. There is only one way to fix that. I had to invoke that real uninstall and re-install fix more than once during development and alpha testing. The required installation is more complex than usual.
That is one reason that the Airone release will be in two parts.
FSAviator.
Hi Kikas,
It is not my intention to discourage bug reports, only to encourage detailed bug reports whose circumstances can be replicated during developer testing. I will try to illuminate some associated issues for the benefit of all, but there is no evidence that the problems only you experience relate to contact points.
Real hydroplanes do not necessarily sit exactly level on the water. The 'sit' obviously varies with current CoG, in real life and in FS9. This cannot cause a hydroplane to jump into the air, in real life or in FS9. When real (early series ) Airone CoG is fully compliant after fuelling the datum line of the whole aeroplane is about two inches higher at the stern of the floats compared to their bow.
point.0 = 4, 15.9 , -11.17, -9.3,
point.1 = 4, 15.9 , 11.17, -9.3,
point.2 = 4, -21.58, -11.17, -9.1,
point.3 = 4, -21.58, 11.17, -9.1,
This micro varied over different versions, as armament and crew changed, but I decided nobody would notice and so all four have the same default early series 'sit' which is 'realistic'. The decrease in AoA due to the very slight static nose down sit is too slight to have any influence in the real world, or FS9, that anyone would notice as a change of aircraft behaviour, before or after Pilot Flying trims compliantly for Vy and applies full up elevator throughout the take off.
Compliant installation and use of complaint startup.FLT files to spawn the Aironi into compliant scenery isn't the only relevant compliance issue if any of you hope to experience a realistic take off or landing. There are many compliances to learn and achieve to unlock the embedded realism.
<<I think i sorted problem of shaking by editing contact points a bit:>>
Your original report did not mention shaking. When installed compliantly the four aeroplanes in this release do not shake. If the precise location they are spawned into is defined as water mesh in the BGL concerned, they will rise and fall on the passing waves, with relevant amplitude and passing wavelength, which cannot be mistaken for 'shaking'.
Everybody else should be able to test that the Airone will in fact spawn on land, but will then exhibit zero wave state, still with no shaking. If we apply power it will skid, because on any mesh (including an FS9 beach) it is sitting on the scrape points, not the contact = flotation points, a power skid will cause sparks on a hard runway. As the wartime crew training manual explains that is one way FS9 illuminates the pilot error of scraping the floats across a reef, sand bar or mud bank. It's not 'realistic' but it delivers the required notice of pilot error.
Blackbird 686 said;
<<I redid ALL of my default FS9 water textures using another 3rd party package some time ago, but the Vista OZ water is the same. >>
We all need to understand that textures are irrelevant. They are just some pretty colours with no other data inside. Many FS9 scenery designers who did not know how to control the shape of shorelines just placed water textures onto land mesh. Swapping the Oz texture, or any other third party texture, for the Microsoft texture cannot alter that scenery design time error. The texture never tells us whether we have spawned, or landed, on water.
If the underlying mesh is actually water mesh the contact = flotation points rule, and the Airone will exhibit the wave state. If the underlying mesh is land the scrape points rule and it obviously won't exhibit any wave state. It is a given that flight simulation enthusiasts will try to land Aironi on water textures, naively believing that scenery designers only place them over water mesh, but I fear that is far from true.
However if the landing is compliant the supplied Airone code allows that landing on a water texture on land mesh to succeed, but you will all see a shower of sparks and you will all stop very quickly! A non compliant landing could obviously cause the Airone to 'jump' in FS9 if the Airone actually alighted on land mesh covered with a water texture.
The realism in this release is very high. The supplied wartime crew training manual warns about inadvertent stranding, and about the need to avoid surf over shallow water when planning take off and landing direction during the captaincy decision making cycle. FS9 is a simulator of the real world laws of dynamics. It's not a video game. Archimedes' law is running. If the Airone is run across submerged reefs, sand bars, or mud banks at significant velocity, and the scrape points contact the reef it will 'jump' as notification of pilot and captaincy error. At lower velocity it will just run aground when being deliberately beached gently.
The Airone has stepped floats. At low velocity the floats are semi submerged, as velocity increases it 'comes up onto the step' and begins to hydroplane. We can feel it come onto the step. Landing may, or may not, induce a period of hydroplaning with a small lurch as the Airone ceases to hydroplane on the step. All that is encoded, but it does not 'jump' into the air, and it does not shake, on water or land, when installed compliantly *and* it was spawned using a compliant FS9 hydroplane startup.FLT.
The product documentation warns about the crazy content of many consumer created Startup.FLTs.
For some reason many consumers are determined to believe that everything that can possibly go wrong inside a desk top flight simulator must be caused by 'flight dynamics' and that it must be possible to fix whatever the perceived problem is by fiddling with just one tiny text file (the aircraft.cfg) because it the only one that is easy for consumers to locate and fiddle with.
I am afraid desk top flight simulators are much more complex than that and in reality there is less than 1% chance that the problem is in the aircraft.cfg, or can be fixed by fiddling with it. Nor can misinstallation of files be fixed by using a non compliant take off technique that would rip the flaps off in real life.
FS development is about more than copying some numbers from the Boy's Big book of Wonderplanes into the flight dynamics. It requires code that offsets, or provides 'work arounds' for design time errors made by Microsoft, and common errors made by third party developers. The released contact points and the scrape points have a complex job to do during Airone simulation, including tolerance of compliant consumer landings on bogus water textures over land mesh, and realistic detection and consequence of inadvertent stranding and intended beaching, and I therefore advise against altering them.
Whether we can taxi the Aironi on land mesh covered with a water texture after landing depends on current weight. We will always need a lot of power to scrape the floats over the land BGL that was concealed with a water texture. Under certain circumstances depending on BGL content we will not be able to taxi within that bogus scenery.
We cannot take off from a land BGL covered with a water texture. It is necessary to slew to a location where the flotation = class 4 contact points (above) exhibit a wave state, allowing us to be sure we are now on water mesh, not land mesh covered with a water texture, where the class 2 scrape points will exhibit no wave state. Then during the captaincy decision making cycle we must consider where the bogus scenery we have already detected may again have water textures laid over land mesh. In MSFS this may require us to take off towards open sea regardless of wind direction. if we slam the floats into land mesh under a water texture during take off or landing the airome may 'jump' or it may 'crash'.
None of these errors are in the Airone release. Instead it provides the necessary work arounds via carefully coded offsets between flotation and scrape points, and other components of the aircraft.cfg.
>
Kikas, because you see shaking while static, as well as jumping while in motion, I can now be sure you have misinstalled something, or less likely, you are using one or several equally broken hydroplane startup.FLTs, (perhaps cloned from one another in some way), to spawn the Aironi. Either way you will have other run time errors that a two inch raising of the rear of the floats while static on the water mesh, and using random unsafe take off techniques, will never solve.
<<As for Mr. Belov's sceneries, they either crash after couple of minutes flying around, sound disappears, and i get FS crash message, or if i start with other plane it crashes instantly i try to switch to Airone.>>
Mr. Belov has contributed many freeware sceneries, as well as other freeware files, and we should not assume that they all have bugs. Your report is still not as clear as it could be, but I think you are saying that, for you, the scenery in question causes FS9 to crash after a couple of minutes whatever aeroplane you select.
Your new more detailed report indicates that the scenery in question causes a 'memory leak'. If the aeroplane used has few polygons and a simple VC, or no VC, consuming less of your 'computer memory', it takes a few minutes for your 'computer' to 'run out of memory', but if you try to spawn a complex aeroplane release the scenery in question has already consumed (and not given back) so much of the memory available in your computer, or on your video card, that the FS9 crash is instantaneous. The wartime Airone release does not cause the computer crash.
If the Belov scenery was installed compliantly, and then layered compliantly, the FS9 crash is caused by a scenery that is not FS9 compliant. Consumers with more memory (of the relevant kind) may suffer an FS9 crash only after a much longer timeframe. If bugs actually exist in software they don't necessarily bite all consumers on an identical timescale, even if usage is identical. One consumer can have problems that another consumer (or the developer) never sees, depending on memory installed. The issue is sufficiently detailed reporting of the circumstances, to allow identification of the cause. The real remedy is never one that has no relationship to the cause.
Misinstalling the Airone release 'may' be contributing to the speed of the crash. No one else has reported any of the problems you have experienced and so we can all conclude that you have misinstalled the many files in some way. There is only one way to fix that. I had to invoke that real uninstall and re-install fix more than once during development and alpha testing. The required installation is more complex than usual.
That is one reason that the Airone release will be in two parts.
FSAviator.
I think i got the problem and its because of me and my old pc, aircraft is perfect. I noticed that shaking and jumping happens mostly during heavy weather, during included saved flight there's almost none of that, then i remembered that some planes are acting that way because of low framerate, so i installed 64x64 dxt3 cloud textures and voila everything's perfect. After reading a bit about contact points i still decided to do few experiments and changed static compression of floats to 0.85 and this did the trick too, even with clouds of high resolution and heavy weather i can maneuver and do takeoffs and landings without worries of sudden jumps into the air.
As i said problem was on my part, because of my old pc, sorry for all the problems i caused, but at least i learned something new
As i said problem was on my part, because of my old pc, sorry for all the problems i caused, but at least i learned something new
Blackbird686
SOH-CM-2025
You did not cause a problem Kikas... Glad you got it sorted.
BB686
BB686
mvg3d
Charter Member
Hi Kikas,
You can't imagine how many things I learned about MSFS World "working" in team with Mike/FSAviator.
I want to give him again a big "THANK YOU" for the veeery big work he did for my (our) planes, I'm only a retired old plastic modeller, he is the person that makes these planes to fly really and not as RC models......
You can't imagine how many things I learned about MSFS World "working" in team with Mike/FSAviator.
I want to give him again a big "THANK YOU" for the veeery big work he did for my (our) planes, I'm only a retired old plastic modeller, he is the person that makes these planes to fly really and not as RC models......
Volker Böhme
Charter Member
Hi,
thanks for uploading this Z.506 Airone package. Great work indeed.
I just finished reading teh contextual hitory. An excellent piece of work, as usual. I don't want to be nitpicking, but I'd like to comment on something, though:
„In February 1941 they moved to Rodos, but they returned to Leros soon after the Luftwaffe airborne forces (not the German Army) captured Crete in May.“
This is not quite true. The German 'Fallschirmjäger' paratroops and the glider troops from the LL Sturmregiment were in fact part of the Luftwaffe and made up the first waves of the assault. But starting from about 17:00 hours of 21 May 1941, the second day of the operation, mountain troops ('Gebirgsjäger') were flown into Maleme to reinforce the airborne troops. These mountain troops were part of the Army ('Heer'), so the Luftwaffe made up only a part of the invasion force, even though an important one.
Actually, anonther army division had been tasked with airlanding operations during the campaign in the Low Lounties a year earlier, but that division was used elsewhere. Using mountain troops was quite a logical choice then, they were in the area anyway and if their equipment can be broken down into packs light enough for a mule, it should not pose a problem for a Ju-52, either.
While we're at it, here's something from the Z.1007 contextual history relating to Crete that I'd comment on as well.
„Fighting mostly against the New Zealand Army during their airborne assault on Crete, receiving too little CAS, which departed too distant air bases having been displaced by transports, and with no armour support because there was no over the beach component, the Luftwaffe paratroops suffered 40% casualties, their morale was shattered, and they would never again perform a significant offensive airborne operation.“
I'm not quite sure I'd agree about 'shattered morale'. The German airborne division was filled up with new forces, retrained and remained a very effective fighting force for at least another 3 years. What was shattered in fact was confidence of the High Command in airborne operations and airborne troops were used almost exclusively as ordinary infantry units. However, occasionally (rarely) airborne operations still took place. The largest operations were probably battalion-sized drops during the fighting for the Italian Dodecanese in 1943 and the last airborne landing most likely took place during the Ardennes offensive. However, from late 1944 onwards, the qualitity of 'airborne' units quickly declined when they increasingly consited of surplus Luftwaffe ground units (barely) retrained for infantry service and just labelled 'Fallschirmjäger' to keep them under Luftwaffe control.
Anyway, that's just a comment on the side and only marginally touches the Z.506 and Z.1007 history.
Best regards,
Volker
thanks for uploading this Z.506 Airone package. Great work indeed.
I just finished reading teh contextual hitory. An excellent piece of work, as usual. I don't want to be nitpicking, but I'd like to comment on something, though:
„In February 1941 they moved to Rodos, but they returned to Leros soon after the Luftwaffe airborne forces (not the German Army) captured Crete in May.“
This is not quite true. The German 'Fallschirmjäger' paratroops and the glider troops from the LL Sturmregiment were in fact part of the Luftwaffe and made up the first waves of the assault. But starting from about 17:00 hours of 21 May 1941, the second day of the operation, mountain troops ('Gebirgsjäger') were flown into Maleme to reinforce the airborne troops. These mountain troops were part of the Army ('Heer'), so the Luftwaffe made up only a part of the invasion force, even though an important one.
Actually, anonther army division had been tasked with airlanding operations during the campaign in the Low Lounties a year earlier, but that division was used elsewhere. Using mountain troops was quite a logical choice then, they were in the area anyway and if their equipment can be broken down into packs light enough for a mule, it should not pose a problem for a Ju-52, either.
While we're at it, here's something from the Z.1007 contextual history relating to Crete that I'd comment on as well.
„Fighting mostly against the New Zealand Army during their airborne assault on Crete, receiving too little CAS, which departed too distant air bases having been displaced by transports, and with no armour support because there was no over the beach component, the Luftwaffe paratroops suffered 40% casualties, their morale was shattered, and they would never again perform a significant offensive airborne operation.“
I'm not quite sure I'd agree about 'shattered morale'. The German airborne division was filled up with new forces, retrained and remained a very effective fighting force for at least another 3 years. What was shattered in fact was confidence of the High Command in airborne operations and airborne troops were used almost exclusively as ordinary infantry units. However, occasionally (rarely) airborne operations still took place. The largest operations were probably battalion-sized drops during the fighting for the Italian Dodecanese in 1943 and the last airborne landing most likely took place during the Ardennes offensive. However, from late 1944 onwards, the qualitity of 'airborne' units quickly declined when they increasingly consited of surplus Luftwaffe ground units (barely) retrained for infantry service and just labelled 'Fallschirmjäger' to keep them under Luftwaffe control.
Anyway, that's just a comment on the side and only marginally touches the Z.506 and Z.1007 history.
Best regards,
Volker
Volker Böhme
Charter Member
Hi all,
here's a document I found on the net regarding maritime reconnaissance.
http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/arc...n_of_Merchant_Ships_within_a_Convoy_final.pdf
It is a translation of a short Lufwaffe document on identifying ship types by their position within a convoy and their wake shape. I thought it might somehow fit to the Z.506B.
Best regards,
Volker
here's a document I found on the net regarding maritime reconnaissance.
http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/arc...n_of_Merchant_Ships_within_a_Convoy_final.pdf
It is a translation of a short Lufwaffe document on identifying ship types by their position within a convoy and their wake shape. I thought it might somehow fit to the Z.506B.
Best regards,
Volker
Volker Böhme
Charter Member
Hi,
here's a link to a web page about Marsala seaplane base, one of those listed in the Z.506 pack:
http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/sicily/trapani/marsala-stagnone-s595.html
Pictures of the base and a link to a youtube video is available there.
Best regards,
Volker
here's a link to a web page about Marsala seaplane base, one of those listed in the Z.506 pack:
http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/sicily/trapani/marsala-stagnone-s595.html
Pictures of the base and a link to a youtube video is available there.
Best regards,
Volker
Last edited:
Volker Böhme
Charter Member
Hi,
here's a bit of additional information on Peenemünde, including a map and a large aerial picture:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heeresversuchsanstalt_Peenemünde
The seaplane base might be on the northwest tip of the island, next to the airfield, as indicated by the anchor symbol:
Best regards,
Volker
here's a bit of additional information on Peenemünde, including a map and a large aerial picture:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heeresversuchsanstalt_Peenemünde
The seaplane base might be on the northwest tip of the island, next to the airfield, as indicated by the anchor symbol:
Best regards,
Volker
Volker Böhme
Charter Member
Hi,
here's the aerial picture of Peenemünde:
Best regards,
Volker
here's the aerial picture of Peenemünde:
Best regards,
Volker
Volker Böhme
Charter Member
Hi all,
one more thing on Augusta seaplane base on Sicily:
A picture from Google Earth: The building on the right upper corner might be a seaplane hangar. It seems to have an annex with a rounded front, giving an overview over the area. Such attachments have been used by the Luftwaffe as control towerd for their airfields and it might be the case here as well. The site also has a large ramp which should be good for beaching medium-sized seaplanes. The large building west to the presumed hangar is an WWI vintage airplane hangar, indicating military presence in the area.
I have also seen a picture of Z.501 taking off in a southerly direction with the airship hangar in the background, in other words, departing from the area of the presumed hangar.
I believe that this indicates that the hangar-like building might well have been a seaplane base.
Best regards,
Volker
one more thing on Augusta seaplane base on Sicily:
A picture from Google Earth: The building on the right upper corner might be a seaplane hangar. It seems to have an annex with a rounded front, giving an overview over the area. Such attachments have been used by the Luftwaffe as control towerd for their airfields and it might be the case here as well. The site also has a large ramp which should be good for beaching medium-sized seaplanes. The large building west to the presumed hangar is an WWI vintage airplane hangar, indicating military presence in the area.
I have also seen a picture of Z.501 taking off in a southerly direction with the airship hangar in the background, in other words, departing from the area of the presumed hangar.
I believe that this indicates that the hangar-like building might well have been a seaplane base.
Best regards,
Volker
Volker Böhme
Charter Member
Hi,
here's also a link to Brindisi seaplane base: http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/apulia/brindisi/brindisi-idroscalo-s585.html
Olbia: http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/sardinia/olbia-tempio/olbia-s590.html
Orbetello: http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/tuscany/grosseto/orbetello-s547.html
Trieste: http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/friuli-venezia-giulia/trieste/trieste-s543.html
Hope this helps,
Volker
here's also a link to Brindisi seaplane base: http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/apulia/brindisi/brindisi-idroscalo-s585.html
Olbia: http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/sardinia/olbia-tempio/olbia-s590.html
Orbetello: http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/tuscany/grosseto/orbetello-s547.html
Trieste: http://www.forgottenairfields.com/italy/friuli-venezia-giulia/trieste/trieste-s543.html
Hope this helps,
Volker
Hurricane91
SOH-CM-2023
Hello Volker,
Thank you for posting these fascinating links. The structures in Augusta do appear to be those of a substantial
seaplane base. I haven't found any other photos of it yet but will keep an eye out. While searching today, I did find
an interesting story;
http://www.gentedelquindicesimo.it/...rete-ali-raccolsero&catid=37:modern&Itemid=28
...and a great photo of two siblings at Vigna di Valle.
Thank you for posting these fascinating links. The structures in Augusta do appear to be those of a substantial
seaplane base. I haven't found any other photos of it yet but will keep an eye out. While searching today, I did find
an interesting story;
http://www.gentedelquindicesimo.it/...rete-ali-raccolsero&catid=37:modern&Itemid=28
...and a great photo of two siblings at Vigna di Valle.
Volker Böhme
Charter Member
Hi,
thanks to the link, I'll use the translator later to read it.
By the way - the Trieste location privided in the map is the shipyard that built the CANT seaplanes, while the one from the Forgotten Airfields list is the former commercial (ALA LITTORIA) seaplane base, which was in military use at least some time during WWII.
Best regards,
Volker
thanks to the link, I'll use the translator later to read it.
By the way - the Trieste location privided in the map is the shipyard that built the CANT seaplanes, while the one from the Forgotten Airfields list is the former commercial (ALA LITTORIA) seaplane base, which was in military use at least some time during WWII.
Best regards,
Volker
Airone docking
Hi Volker and others,
Thanks for the further research. I hope everyone is enjoying Part 1 of the Airone release.
In general the Airone was not beached, even though it could be. Damage to the floats was too likely. It was more usually 'docked' using a more or less standard large hydroplane lifting crane with a sling that attached to two attachment points fore and aft of CoG on either side of the fuselage. The photo posted earlier showed such a crane.
The URL below shows the Balearic Air Forces hydroplane dock at Pollensa with two of the earliest Z.506B Aironi Srs 1 present.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/CANT_Z.506_B-Pollensa_harbour.jpg
Note the elevation of the hydroplane dock above the bay and any beach.
The URL below shows a similar hydroplane crane that has docked a Z.506S Soccorso during WW2.
http://www.pliniogallinaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/009ppffr.jpg
In this case I suppose it was lifted just for a propaganda photo since it remains attached to the crane ready to go back in the water.
This URL shows an engine test after maintenance and another view of a 'typical' Airone hangar.
http://coollib.net/i/90/233990/pic_34.jpg
Moorings, beaches and even the open hard standing were not ideal for many maintenance tasks.
This URL shows how the Airone was sometimes 'not quite beached' using a motor launch to position it for direct loading / unloading, but only if ideal wave conditions and a sloping beach permitted.
http://www.asso4stormo.it/arc_02/arc_02_05/Gabellini_gab/gab18.jpg
Nothing to do with beaching or docking but this URL shows the rest of the wartime Wireless Operator's station, including his chart plotting table, which we could not include in the VC.
http://www.rkd.friko.pl/cant-1.jpg
>
Finally looking forward to the Part 2 Airone Postbellico release next month, this URL shows a Postbellico being undocked.
http://www.airaces.ru/images/hydroplane/crda-cant-z-506b-airone-launch.jpg
Note the long domed Savoia hydraulic airscrew hubs after the post war mid life update to provide classic era constant speed propulsion. The constant speed screws substantially altered the performance envelope and operating procedures, which is one of the reasons this complex release is in two parts.
Note the rebuild of the gondola with new curved plywood panels to reduce co-efficient of profile drag, but still the AR126/RC34 engines designed by Bristol in the early 1930s and thus still without cowl flaps, as well as the plywood payload bay doors still being roughly sealed against water ingress to this ancient wooden aeroplane, using mastic between air drops.
FSAviator.
Hi Volker and others,
Thanks for the further research. I hope everyone is enjoying Part 1 of the Airone release.
In general the Airone was not beached, even though it could be. Damage to the floats was too likely. It was more usually 'docked' using a more or less standard large hydroplane lifting crane with a sling that attached to two attachment points fore and aft of CoG on either side of the fuselage. The photo posted earlier showed such a crane.
The URL below shows the Balearic Air Forces hydroplane dock at Pollensa with two of the earliest Z.506B Aironi Srs 1 present.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/CANT_Z.506_B-Pollensa_harbour.jpg
Note the elevation of the hydroplane dock above the bay and any beach.
The URL below shows a similar hydroplane crane that has docked a Z.506S Soccorso during WW2.
http://www.pliniogallinaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/009ppffr.jpg
In this case I suppose it was lifted just for a propaganda photo since it remains attached to the crane ready to go back in the water.
This URL shows an engine test after maintenance and another view of a 'typical' Airone hangar.
http://coollib.net/i/90/233990/pic_34.jpg
Moorings, beaches and even the open hard standing were not ideal for many maintenance tasks.
This URL shows how the Airone was sometimes 'not quite beached' using a motor launch to position it for direct loading / unloading, but only if ideal wave conditions and a sloping beach permitted.
http://www.asso4stormo.it/arc_02/arc_02_05/Gabellini_gab/gab18.jpg
Nothing to do with beaching or docking but this URL shows the rest of the wartime Wireless Operator's station, including his chart plotting table, which we could not include in the VC.
http://www.rkd.friko.pl/cant-1.jpg
>
Finally looking forward to the Part 2 Airone Postbellico release next month, this URL shows a Postbellico being undocked.
http://www.airaces.ru/images/hydroplane/crda-cant-z-506b-airone-launch.jpg
Note the long domed Savoia hydraulic airscrew hubs after the post war mid life update to provide classic era constant speed propulsion. The constant speed screws substantially altered the performance envelope and operating procedures, which is one of the reasons this complex release is in two parts.
Note the rebuild of the gondola with new curved plywood panels to reduce co-efficient of profile drag, but still the AR126/RC34 engines designed by Bristol in the early 1930s and thus still without cowl flaps, as well as the plywood payload bay doors still being roughly sealed against water ingress to this ancient wooden aeroplane, using mastic between air drops.
FSAviator.