Conspicuous by Their Absence

Ivan,

With my new method of modelling through SCASM, bleeds are a thing of the past (mostly). The jeep and St-Leu church are two example of that. I can also adjust vertices to a refpoint precision. In a scale 7 model, this is 13th of an inch precision!

I do remember the Boomerang you're talking about, but it was not what I would call "CFS1 standard".

I have read Rudel's book «Stuka pilot», but I don't remember him saying it was common practice to go vertical. I know that the Ju 87 had a special bomb release system that would push on the bomb to get it out of the propellers disc on its way down, but vertical dives were seldom practice.

smilo,

If you're stuck on your A-20, I have a cure for the headaches; why not come back to AAC games. You can always return to your baby later, and with a bit of sanity restored.:173go1: I know that it works on me...

We have been missing you a lot, and our recent attendances do reflect that. Call it mutual assistance.

So, aparently, I have PJ's stuka without PJ textures then. I do remember having enabled TG2 for Hank on one of them, probably the one with the vanes.

One thing we will never be able to model is the ability of the Ju 87 to climb up and return to horizontal flying, even if the pilot is unconscious!:isadizzy:

Unless Ivan could pull something out of his magic hat.

Joyeux Noêl à vous deux.
 
Hi Smilo, Hubbabubba,

A little digression first: The SBD-3 Dauntless was the premier ship killer in the Pacific theater. The typical attack was a near vertical dive at about 70 degrees from horizontal with dive brakes deployed. The airspeed could be held down to about 350 mph in this attitude and configuration.

Unfortunately in CFS, I don't know that I can animate the same control surfaces with two controls (Spoiler and Flaps). My choice was to leave the Flaps on the Flap control and use the Spoiler control to raise the upper surface of the wing trailing edge. I don't know that the Dauntless required two controls to configure for a dive, but mine does.

What I also found out from working on the flight model was that the typical flap drag for most CFS aircraft is way too high. The SBD actually has lower drag in the dive configuration than many CFS planes with flaps down. (Perhaps we should sanity check this area for other CFS planes?)

While the SBD wasn't a true vertical diver, according to Captain Eric Brown, the Stuka WAS. "It felt natural going straight down", which means that its drag was even higher. As such, it needs a higher effect spoiler / dive brake than it currently has. I will check out the flight model and see what I can do. Rudel flew on the Eastern front where some of the Ju-87's didn't even have dive brakes (the cannon planes). I figure that a true Sturz Kampf plane needs them though. They are already animated in the model, they just have no effect.

Perhaps something can be done about auto-pullout with the auto pilot? I don't know that I will spend much time experimenting with that.

- Ivan.
 
Unfortunately in CFS, I don't know that I can animate the same control surfaces with two controls (Spoiler and Flaps).
Click to expand...

SCASM:kilroy:

Go look at Bretoal's Bréguets, the broomstick is following roll and pitch axis. With SCASM, you could build flaps that are specific to flaps commands but are invisible when spoilers command is used. It depends on what you're looking for.

Eric "Winkle" Brown was a class all to himself. Hans Ulrich Rudel was an authority with the Ju 87 and only dived once vertical to deliver a death blow to a Soviet battleship with a heavier-than-normal bomb down one of the funnel. I doubt that Brown experience included a bomb drop as he probably only flew her after war.

I know that P-47 pilots had to bail out after releasing their bombs right into their own props! Was the Dauntless equipped with a special bomb rack like the Junker?
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

Yes, the Dauntless did have a swinging arm to make sure the bomb cleared the prop.

Yes, I know: everything can be done in SCASM.

I have never read Rudel's book. From your description, it sounds like he was an attack pilot but not a dive bomber pilot. A vertical dive is THE standard attack profile.

Just to give you an idea of what a Dauntless attack using my plane would look like:
1 Fly until you are almost directly over the target at perhaps 15,000 feet.
2 Bring throttle to idle
3 Open Dive Brakes. Nose will drop through loss of lift.
4 Open Flaps. Speed will climb gradually to around 350 mph
5 Roll or otherwise line up on the target. (Line up slightly below)
6 Release bomb at about 2000-5000 feet
7 Close Dive Brakes, Roll to clear any pursuers
8 Advance to full throttle
9 Pull Out and Close Flaps
10 Confirm Dive Brakes Closed, Flaps Closed, Throttle Open and Level Flight

I generally can't hit much from a dive bombing run. The biggest issue is step 1.

- Ivan.
 
I still do not understand why you need double control over flap-spoilers. Is it the same moving part(s)?

Unless you have a view under you, I can't see how you can drop straight down on a moving target that is zig-zagging from 15,000 ft.

Rudel started as a dive bomber pilot, and a good one at that, but moved to 3.7 cm kanonboot Stuka, killing hundreds of Russian tanks. During his training, he learned to dive-bomb «up to 90 degrees», but, as far as I can remember, only went vertical while attacking the Marat, an old but sturdy battleship at berth, with a specially designed 2,000 lbs bomb.

It is the only time he mentionned going vertical, without dive brakes BTW! He released his bomb under 900 feet and was able to pull out and away from the target skimming the waves at 10-12 feet.
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

The flaps also act as part of the dive brakes. When selecting flaps, only the lower control surfaces move and may move at various angles. When selecting dive brakes, upper and lower surfaces both move and I believe they are fully deployed or not at all.

The issue that I have on the dive bombing runs is trying to determine when I am over the target so that I can roll the aircraft and enter a vertical dive directly over the target. If the dive is started NOT over the target, there isn't much time to line up before bomb release and pull out.

The Dauntless wasn't really a vertical diver as the Ju-87 because it wasn't quite as draggy and gained speed too fast in the dive. Neither plane climbs well enough with a bomb load to make a retry feasible. Typically on a patrol, the Dauntless carried a single 500 pounder. On an attack mission, it would carry a single 1000 pounder but could carry a max load of around 1500 pounds.

The Dauntless was agile enough to be a passable fighter and with 2 x .50 caliber MGs had generally more firepower than the Japanese Zero. The Dauntless wasn't a very big plane, but also didn't have folding wings either. The Dauntless had two multiple wing tanks per wing which means that I can't find an appropriate fuel selector or fuel gauge.

A man named Vejtasa managed to embarrass a few Zeros with this plane.

- Ivan.
 
BTW, as I mentioned earlier, CFS really doesn't need dive bombers because just about every fighter can behave like one. Pick a plane, take it to altitude, throttle back and deploy flaps. You can dive slower than a Stuka that way.

- Ivan.
 
I'm starting to understand your concern about flaps generated drag.

So, if I understand correctly, the Dauntless had a split trailing edge that acted as diving brake by holding the upper part up and the lower part down, the lower part being also used as flaps.

The solution would be then to make two lower parts. One for the air brakes, one for the flaps. SCASMing would only intervene to place a conditional jump that renders the flap invisible while spoiler key is being used, and another jump would render the lower air brake invisible when flaps are lowered. I'm not even sure that it can't be done with AA solely.

P.S.- Oops! Just re-read your diving routine. Point #4 calls for flaps after air brakes deployment. How so???
 
Hi Hubbabubba,

I believe on the real Dauntless, there is only One control for the dive brakes (upper and lower surfaces). On my CFS plane, there are two controls: Spoilers & Flaps. I am at around 1196 parts out of 1200 allowed for AF99 at the moment. I don't even know that the plane will display right when it has been textured. Certainly there is no more room for additional pieces in AF99.

I am sure you are absolutely right in that the parts can be animated properly in connection with the single spoiler control in SCASM, but there is the additional problem of what happens in flight performance when the flaps are deployed while dive brakes are deployed. CFS will go merrily along and include the additional drag of flaps and..... Then what? I believe the two separate controls is probably the best idea with CFS.

Besides the flap drag, the typical landing gear drag is also way too high with CFS planes. The typical pitch changes are also incorrect for the most part: Most planes will pitch nose down with extending landing gear AND deploying flaps. This isn't true of every plane, but it is the way to guess unless you know better.

The sequence I quoted is really only for MY Dauntless. The spoiler first helps to put the aircraft's nose down and also doesn't make the aircraft balloon upward as would dropping flaps at high speed. Also, relatively speaking, the target really doesn't move very much in the time it takes to make a dive bombing run.

BTW, during this discussion, I have also been looking at details on the Ju 87. Perhaps I need to put this plane on my build list.

- Ivan.
 
So Ivan, my idea was correct. Of course, AF99 parts limitation may stop you from implementing it. You know my answer to that but I don't want to sound like a preacher heckling to make a convert:engel016:.

If we were to change all CFS1 a/c drag and lift figures for flaps and gears, many CFS1 simmers would have to relearn how to land, me first. It would mean longer finals on approaches.

The Junker Ju 87 is an intricate aircraft and I'm not sure that 1200 parts would do it justice. But I know a way...:engel016:

The jeep should be released pretty soon, the only hurdle left being gauges' creators permissions for the panel (dashboard is more appropriate here:icon_lol:). The version that smilo and you have is quite outdated, but changes are in the details. I will probably release it with FS98 air file style.

It was a great experimental project, along with St-Leu church, and I have learned a lot of things that will certainly be of use in the Harvard MkII.
 
Hi Smilo,

Sorry for the misquote, but I thot it would be funny to express what I believe you are really thinking but are too courteous to write.

- Ivan.:icon_lol:
 
thanks Ivan,
I am sitting here laughing out loud!
seriously, I kid you not.
Merry Christmas, to you and yours
 
smilo said:
Get off your butt and finish up the B-25 Mitchell!!!!!
:monkies:
Click to expand...

Ivan said:
Hi Smilo,
I WILL, I WILL....
:173go1:
- Ivan.
Click to expand...

after sleeping on it,
this is still funny...
although inaccurate.
the truth be known,
I am beginning to understand
what it's like do build a model.
even though, I haven't been doing it for years, like you.
one wants to make it
as perfect as possible.
if for no other reason,
than self satisfaction.
not to mention,
we don't want to give our friends
a crappy product.
after all, our name is on it.
then, there is the distinct possibility
that some a$$h*** will steal it
and call it their own.
add to all this,
the simple fact that we have
lives that interrupt or hobby.
distractions abound and it becomes easy
to set the project aside for another day.
I know of what I speak...
this is a person that rarely finishes anything.
and I mean anything.
my world is full of projects
in various stages of completion.
many are still on the drawing board,
most have never even made it that far.
now for the bloody truth,
I rarely fly CFS anymore.
there was a time when
I would have loved to use the B-25 in multi-player,
but, for now, that time has passed.
so if you want to finish
the B-25, the Dauntless,
or any of your many projects,
do it for your satisfaction.
not my persistent hounding.
please take this with a grain of salt.
I mean no disrespect
I honor your work and you as a friend.
I just though you should know.
 
Jeez! We have a poet in our midst!
:mixedsmi:

Si tu sais déjà,
Que tu n'en sais guère plus qu'un autre,
Tu en sais déjà,
Bien plus que bien d'autres.
 
Hi Hubbabubba,
I believe it is possible to get a decent Ju 87D Stuka for CFS within the limitations of AF99.

The change in drag for greater realism is a harder question. You already know that I try to achieve flight performance that is as close to reality as I can subject to the limitations of research, the CFS engine, and my own knowledge of how to do things. To me, it is an easy answer: Change all the flight models to be as close to reality as possible and if CFS pilots now have to use different techniques and practices, so be it. The idea and attraction of simulators IS trying to get as close to reality as possible.

Hi Smilo,
Thanks for the message. To some extent that covers most of the reasons I build or don't build something. As far as I am concerned, nothing I have ever worked on will ever be completely done. The B-25 specifically needs to have a few holes cut into the aft fuselage to simulate windows that are there. At the moment, I am stuck on certain issues in flight modeling. I HAVE resolved a few things today though.

Later Guys.
- Ivan.
 
Just found one that should be on someone's drawing board; Heinkel He 115.

Nice and "sexy" reconnaissance - mine layer - torpedo bomber on stiff floaters. Was the scourge of Murmansk's bound convoys.

Only model found is a FS2002 at Flightsim. If only we could embark torpedoes like CFS2.:kilroy:
 
http://www.elwood.freeserve.co.uk/aircraft.htm#SECTION012

I believe there is a passable He 115 here. I don't know if torpedos are in the supply chain though.
I exchanged emails with Mr. Elwood a few years ago before I reworked his Lysander. Seems like a nice guy.

Still messing with flight models over here and no real results to show for it yet. BTW, the B-25 Mitchell is sorta stuck. I can't find a good information on the nose gear retraction sequence. Need some good diagrams or a E&M manual. Been too busy shovelling snow to get much accomplished though.

- Ivan.
 
Nice find!

I have visited that page in the past, but overlooked the He 155. I have found some pictures that show an elliptical planform. I will compare with this model.

Some of the other models are also worth a look. Thanks again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top