Conspicuous by Their Absence

I

Ivan

Charter Member
Hello Folks,

Which aircraft do you all think should have been in CFS but aren't? This is a slightly different twist on the question "What would you like to see?"

Personally, I find the Halifax and Stirling under represented. I know there is at least one of each, but am surprised there are not more. The Japanese Type 5 fighter and F4U-4 Corsair are also under represented IMO.

- Ivan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do agree with Halifax and Stirling, but I will surprise you with my own discovery; the AVRO Lancaster!

Turns out that all versions being used in CFS are FS98 vintage a/c, even those we used from RAF662. The latter were «upgraded» to CFS standards, but are still basically old revamped a/c.
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

I thought there were quite a few good Lancasters out there which is why I didn't list that aircraft. I have also found a Stirling and a Halifax, but both are really POOR models. I don't think FS98 origins are all that bad because we still build aircraft using FS98 tools.

The -4 Corsair is the REAL surprise to me. Pretty soon, I'll be building one of those. I am just debating on putting my current Corsair on diet first. It is too fat.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan said:
Hi Hubbabubba,

I thought there were quite a few good Lancasters out there which is why I didn't list that aircraft. I have also found a Stirling and a Halifax, but both are really POOR models. I don't think FS98 origins are all that bad because we still build aircraft using FS98 tools.

The -4 Corsair is the REAL surprise to me. Pretty soon, I'll be building one of those. I am just debating on putting my current Corsair on diet first. It is too fat.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

I do remember some Alain de l'Homme Corsairs that were good looking. I do agree that Stirling and Halifax are not as well represented as the Lancaster, but I'm convinced that the latter would benefit of a CFS overhaul, and would certainly be a more popular pick for MP games.
 
Alain L'Homme's Corsairs are very good, but they are post-War F4U-5s. The recognition feature is the gerbil-like cheek pouches which I believe are oil coolers. The Dash-4 is quite a nicer looking plane and was probably the ultimate development of the plane.

My original Corsair was done just to prove a point. I didn't much worry about where the wing bend was and used drawings that I later found out were not very good. I have since fixed the wing bend and found a much better set of dimensional drawings done by Paul Matt. I have looked at Corsairs in photographs and at the actual plane for hours and still am amazed at the overall shape of the plane.

Just out of curiosity, where is the Lancaster lacking? What would you do to improve it?

- Ivan.
 
Just out of curiosity, where is the Lancaster lacking? What would you do to improve it?
Click to expand...

Kill all the bleeds, especially around the tail, the wings roots, engines nacelles and props. Redo the transparency textures, especially the bomber aimer bubble canopy. Make an internal cabin and a virtual cockpit without jitters, place the CoG within the fuselage so TG2 could be aimed without too much visual interference. That's only a start. Don't take me wrong, this is a fine aircraft (the RAF662), but it could be better.

I recently read "Whistling Death - The Test Pilot's Story Of The F4U Corsair" by Boone T. Guyton, one of the main test pilot at Vought Aircraft. No two aircraft were identical as modifications were constantly made on the production line. Workers could tell when an a/c was made simply looking at, and into, them. This was not unique to Vought, but the Corsair would set records for the number of mods they had.

Not all changes were readily visible, but many were. So beware of «rivets' counter»:mixedsmi:.
 
I would consider conspicuous absence
to mean absent from CFS.
my candidate would be the Do 17.
other than the obscure variant offered as an AI,
I have never seen one offered.

I could go on about the lack of quality medium bombers,
but we have been through that before.
ah, what the heck, B-25, B-26 and of course the A-20.
the lack of a quality A-20 is especially bothersome,
since a picture of one is on the CFS installation menu.
 
Hi Smilo,

Yes, Conspicuous by their absence. I never thought about the Do 17 but you are probably right. I also find the absence of a good Ju 87 Stuka rather surprising.

The other stuff seems to be in some process of development among present company:

YOU are working on the A-20
I am working on a B-25
I WILL be working on a B-26 at some point.

There are rather mediocre versions of all of the above that are available though. Of the three US Mediums, the B-26 probably has the best example available for CFS in my opinion.

- Ivan.
 
The AAC occasionally fly a Ju 87 that has been, if memory serves me, repainted by Paul Dubart.

I do agree that medium bombers are scarce to come and of general poor quality. So are support a/c (trainers, transport, reconnaissance...) and «civilian-turned-military» stop gap aircraft.
 
the A-20 is currently on hold.
I ran into a couple barriers
and decided to take a break.

I have a pretty nice Stuka
that I would be happy to send.
just let me know.
true, repaint by Pol.
 
Hi Hubbabubba, Smilo,

The only decent Stuka I have ever seen for CFS has been a G model with 37mm cannon under the wings and that model wasn't a dive bomber. Smilo, if you believe you have a good one, please email me.

Hubbabubba, can you give examples of the stop-gap aircraft you mentioned? One civilian aircraft I was thinking about building was the Beech Staggerwing. One of those made the rounds in pre-war China.
Regarding your mention of Boone Guyton, I came across that book many years ago. It is an excellent read. Regarding differences in the production Corsairs, Most of those differences are not visible in the CFS scale of modelling. I called my released Corsair a F4U-1A because of the fuel tank arrangement, but except possibly for canopy braces and a slightly different flight model, it could be a F4U-1D. There are also differences in the bomb racks and pylons for drop tanks and mine doesn't have either.

Smilo, what kind of hangup did you hit with the A-20? Anything I can assist with? If so, email me.

- Ivan.
 
Thanks Smilo. I picked up the pieces you sent. Now I just need to load on my game machine.

- Ivan.
 
Hi Smilo,
The Ju 87B Stuka is beautiful. I believe the textures that came with the thing WERE the PJ Dunbar textures. I never did see a yellow nose version.
I don't believe I had seen this particular model before.

The flight model seems a little weird though. Do you happen to know what the procedure is to execute a divebombing attack? I tried using spoilers, but nothing much happened. Also, I can only get 175 mph max speed at 3500 feet. I am going to check out the flight model a bit. I have a pretty good description of the Ju 87 (I don't know if it is a B or D model) in a Luftwaffe aircraft book by Eric Brown.

This is a pretty good addition to the Hangar.
Thanks again.
- Ivan.
 
Hubbabubba, can you give examples of the stop-gap aircraft you mentioned?
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I didn't gave it much thoughts. The Australian Boomerang comes to mind. Many civilian aircraft went to war out of necessity, not necessarily as fighters. The Jungman, the Stinson(s) and all these «grass hoppers» that did such a splendid job as «hacks» and recon.

The reason they haven't been modelled for CFS1 is all too human; they're considered «targets» rather than full-fledged war participants, as they should be.

When, in the movie «Battle of the Bulge», Henry Fonda has the pilot cut his engine to listen to the advancing tigers tanks under, masked by heavy clouds crawling low, you have an aircraft doing more to the ultimate victory than a 500 bombers formation clubbing for the tenth time the same oil refinery.

Not enough credit is given to these «targets».
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

I believe we actually have representatives of some of those aircraft. The Boomerang is out there. The little tail dragger Pipers do well enough as a general representative of the Liaison types and can easily be found in the FS98 Golden Age aircraft. There are a few trainers I have come across but never bothered to install. They may not have great flight models, but that isn't all that hard to fix.

I don't think in the Henry Fonda action in the Battle of the Bulge movie that it was the aircraft that was the hero but the pilot. In my opinion, that is true the majority of the time there is a heroic action. The Stuka in the prior discussion is a good example. Most were vulnerable. One flown by a man named Rudel proved that they were not always vulnerable.

- Ivan.
 
OK Ivan...

I went to check my own Stukas and it appears that I have two versions; one has turning vanes on the two gear legs and was most probably painted by PJ (JG57 markings). The air file let me dive from 3,500 feet to ground at 45-55° and reach ±320 mph. Aircraft container's name is Ju87B_JG57. The POV is about 100 ft over the plane, but it could be me tinkering with it.

The other is a «twin-pack» with two paint job called Ju87B-2 10_LG1. I can easily reach 320 mph in a dive under the same circumstances as above. I do prefer its handling but it has no turning vane. One of the paint job is a yellow nose a/c. I don't think they are PJ works.

Both have bleeds, but the latter has less than the former... but less details too.

Which one do you have?

P.S.- As I'm writing these lines, radio is announcing a load of white stuff about to drop on your front yard.
I'm dreaming of a white Chrismas...
Just like the ones I used to know... (you know the rest):wavey:
 
If you know of a Boomerang worth downloading, show me the way.

I agree; pilots were the real heroes, but I don't do pilots...:kilroy:

I think that FS98 a/c could be, in general, done better now. Just compare my Taifun with the previous one. Parts limitations, paint with half a palette, AF99 «patch» release... a lot of bettering is possible!

Have to go now:salute: (it does salute with the wrong hand!:kilroy:)

P.S.- Come to think of it; many FS98 a/c were in fact FS95 or FSF5 made with AF5, the forefather of AF99. Precision to the first decimal only. Pegasus Taifun is one.
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

Sorry it took so long to respond. Snow disrupted a lot of things.

The Plane that Smilo sent me was the Ju87B-2 10_LG1. The model is fairly pretty. It does have a fair number of bleeds, but none that do much to disrupt the display.

There IS a FS98 or earlier version of the Boomerang. I don't remember if it was any good, but since it isn't active on my development computer, I must not have liked it much.

Regarding flight models, I believe that a CFS plane should be at least capable of executing its typical mission profile. In the case of the Stuka, that would be something like coming over the target at 15,000 feet and doing a VERTICAL dive onto the target and pulling out at abou 2,500. With the dive brakes (Spoilers) on, it should never exceed 350 mph even while vertical.

My Dauntless can do a pretty fair approximation of its mission profile with a dive that looks to be pretty close to vertical but because of the extra flap lift, it doesn't really go straight down. Probably moves more like 70 degree angle like the real ones did. My issue is that I can't write up how to set up a bombing attact because I haven't been able to consistently set up attacks and be able to hit anything.

- Ivan.
 
it has been a while since I used the Stuka,
but as I recall, I had pretty good luck with it.
lets see if I can remember....
flying toward the target, I would use padlock mode,
when the target was between the gear,
(almost at the bottom of the screen)
I would nose forward into the dive
back out of padlock
release at about 2,500 and pull up hard.
I was never able to accomplish
the wing over into the dive
and still maintain target visual orientation.
so much for doing it like in the movies.


the model is the Junkers Ju87B-2 10/LG1
given to me by PJ Dunbar.
it is a reworked Junkers 87/B 'Stuka'
from the Just Flight FSClassics package.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top