Conspicuous by Their Absence

Ivan said:
I just finished flipping through Profile 260 about the Manchester. This and the Lancaster really were not very pretty aircraft.
The interesting bit of trivia I found in a forum message was for the Manchester's Vulture reduction gear ration - 2.38:1.
It sounds like the Vulture has reversible pitch propellers. Runaway propellers were actually a fairly common problem on some aircraft such as the B-26, but the propellers were not reversible.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

OMG...you really like treading on glass don't you....Avro Lancaster not a pretty aircraft, I've a sneaky feeling one or two people out there in the ethos might disagree.

An early Spitfire was definitly pretty
A P51 was pretty
A B24 and its packing case were both pretty
A Lancaster was stunning (I'm biased as I've stood 20yds from PA474 during an engine test at RAF Mildenhall back in the 70's)
Lightnings, Hunters and Phantoms all beautiful

Now certain Amiot aircraft weren't pretty, a Westland Pterodactyl a bit on the side where only the designer would think it was pretty.

I really think you should have a glance through the book by william green about fighters, a large book by any standards but an absolute gold mine. Now that book contains examples of really ugly aircraft.
 
Beauty and the (Black) Eye of the Beholder

I apologise if I offended.

There are lots of aircraft I don't consider particularly pretty:

The B-25 Mitchell is not particularly pretty. The Stirling is just plain ugly. The Halifax is fairly pretty. As you mentioned, some of the Amiot and Bloch bombers are simply ugly. I don't think the B-24 Liberator is pretty either. The Hellcat and Wildcat were not particularly pretty. I am somewhat undecided on the late model P-40.

I would enjoy seeing all of the above, but not because I think all of them are particularly attractive.

Spitfire, Mustang, Focke-Wulf 190 - Maybe, Me 109 - Maybe were pretty aeroplanes.

We all find different things aesthetically pleasing.

- Ivan.
 
"Beauty is in the eye..." well; you know the rest...

As a rule of thumb, if it flies, it can't be "ugly". Quirky, strange, awkward, but not ugly.

The simple fact that it could stand in mid air confers an aura of beauty to any flying object.

That rule, of course, does not apply to object going "through" air, like shrapnels or bullets.

My two cents...:mixedsmi:
 
I must admit that you have all surprised me, either you all new what a B24 Packing case was or it slipped you by.
During the ETO bombing campaign there was great rivalry between the crews of B24s and B17s hence the referal by the B24 crews to the B17 as the packing case that the B24 was shipped over to Britain in.
Also it produced a B17 with no top decking, no armour, no turrets and no guns. This made it very fast and during "training flights" they would fly alongside a B24 and basicaly....Moon!

Now there's a project!
 
i have to admit i hadn't heard that one.
reminds me of the bombardier moon shot
from several years ago.
 
Yes, I knew what a B-24 "Packing Case" was, but I actually think a B-17 is fairly attractive.

The topless B-17 was also called a "Roadster" and was stripped and loaded with bombs to be used as a guided missile in Project Aphrodite. The pilot(s) would take off and then bale out after the aircraft was taken over by radio control and then guided to the target. Joseph Kennedy Jr. was killed in this project when his plane exploded before he baled out.

- Ivan.
 
for your amusement...

other than a repaint of a Dan Gies
US carrier, by Edmundo Abad,
i have never seen a cfs Japanese carrier.

in an attempt to rectify the problem,
here's what we have so far;
View attachment 80738

don't you think the zero
really makes the shot?
 
The 'Aphrodite' B17s were heavily modified well used examples with all turrets removed and faired over. Even the top decking was removed and the nice cosy cockpit gutted of all glass bar the two front panels, making a neat open cockpit. This was to enable quick and easy exit of the aircraftof the pilot and engineer once the general direction was set and the radio control activated. All equipment inside the aircraft was removed and replaced with the guidance radio and ancilleries. I believe they carried about 20,000lb of Torpex on a mission being guided by another B17 accompanied by a fighter for protection.

A fact not known was that early TV cameras were also tested on these aircraft. With all these mods the aircraft designation was also changed to BQ-7, a B24 modded in a similar but less drastic way was a BQ-8. I believe it was on of these that Joseph Kennedy perished.

The idea was a sound one but the technology didnt allow the execution, at best the accuracy was several hundred yards, at worst a few miles
 
womble55 said:
No I was joking although even though his work was fairly good several years ago, he will, sadly, be remembered for his odd shaped aircraft and his famous rantings and ravings when somebody tried to do repaints on his aircraft. If I start ranting and raving please put me in a home. The problem with this game is that we stretch the boundries of accuracy and quality only for it to become the norm, thus we have to go one better the next time. I see this every day when I open old projects and wonder how I could have made something so basic and subsequently have to rebuild said project.
Click to expand...

Here is a little comparison of the ST A6M5 and a couple others. I didn't include ones that are just repaints of a A6M2. I am guessing that ST might have been a FS5 aircraft which might explain the crude shape. My version dates from either 2000 or 2002 though at the time the panel lines were not as complete and it did not have a pilot. The same basic shape with just a few changes (Cowl Guns, Cowl, Wing Tips, Wheel Wells) is what I am currently using for my A6M2.

Up until you brought up the author, I didn't have ANY ST aircraft enabled any more.

- Ivan.
 
Sorry about that, all of my ST aircraft are stashed deep in my folder collection. I only activate one when I decide on a project, just to see what has gone before. I did this with my Fulmar and my Defiant TT, the original examples are quickly deleted from the active folder at the earliest oppertunity.

Its a shame that he never went for detail accuracy but to do general representations, some of which are grossly exaggerated. I refer to the Martlet/Wildcat, yes he caught the portly nature of the beast but his dimensional accuracy was, how do I put this tactfully.............in the ball park but sat in the rear seats.

Refering back to the Raiden, it always seemed to me to remind me of a GeeBee R1 racer. In fairness, what were our designs like at that period and what will people say about what we make now in years to come. With techniques changing and the bar being raised on every new aircraft published it is little wonder the examples of yesteryear are deemed awful or gross or just plain crude.

Going back to the original topic of this thread/blog, we all know what aircraft we would like but what about programs to assist us in what we do?

Personaly, I'd like an update of aircraft animator, where I can do multifolds in undercarrage or working fowler flaps and HP slots.

What say you? to quote Tolkein
 
Hi Womble55,

I have probably around 300 aircraft selectable on my development machine (Pentium 233) and about another hundred or so that I have deemed unworthy. I don't delete them though. I just rename the Aircraft.cfg file to Aircraft.Deactivate and it is no longer selectable.

I think you are being generous with the ST aircraft. The shapes are barely in the ballpark as you commented, but even worse is that the design technique is not so good either. Bleeds are all over the place and the wings go all the way through the fuselage. I did the same thing on my first project but figured out pretty quick that it wasn't a good idea. I don't believe I have seen the Wildcats though, do you have the distribution ZIP files?

I rather like the look of the Raiden. It is also a seriously high performance aircraft and as I said before, has never had a proper representation in CFS. A lot of the Japanese aircraft have been seriously neglected. The Ki-61 Hien also does not have a good representative. I build one but have put a coat of camouflage paint on it yet.

I don't believe folks who know the limitations of the simulator will complain about what we are building now. I believe we have pretty much reached the limits of what can be done with a simulator that can only use 256x128 pixel textures. Regarding tools, they haven't changed much in the last 10 years. Our techniques have changed a bit. At least mine have as I get a little smarter with each project I work on. The changes are just minor refinements though. As I mentioned earlier, the current A6M2 project is just a few minor edits to a 10 year old project. It still seems fairly worthy even in the current environment.

Aircraft Animator has always had its issues as has Aircraft Factory 99. Consider that AA has never been able to handle deployed flaps properly. I am convinced that some of the motion ranges do not work. AF99 builds models for FS 98 but does not for CFS so it doesn't use all the correct variables for AI aircraft.

The tools haven't changed but the models get better. Perhaps that says something about the lack of skill of the designers at the start. I know I learn a bit with each project I do.

i do wonder how things would have been different if the authors of AF99 had chosen to have limits of 40 or 50 Components and perhaps only 10 Structures. I find almost nothing that a Structure can do that a Component won't do better.

I have written a LOT of utilities to make AF99 easier to use. They all do pretty much what they claim but some have little bits of weirdness that make them not quite ready for distribution. What they generally do is to Move a Part, Mirror a Part, Move Textures, Move an entire Component, Mirror a Component, etc. What kinds of utilities are you looking for?

What more is there to say? Perhaps we should switch to AD2000 as Smilo did?

- Ivan.
 
I had the devils own job finding the Wildcat/Martlet, I have it on my PC but am unable to upload it. Instead I searched online for the download for you. The reason it was difficult to find was because it is listed under FS2002. ST built some of his later planes still using AF99 but built to fly in FS2000 and FS2002. By changing the Air file for a FS98/CFS1 compatible one and maybe the CFG and the Sound and Panel folders, it will display perfectly well. Its been a long time since I did one but his Seahawk, Fulmar, Seafury and Firefly are all possible.
The web address is http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/fslib.php?searchid=6725244&page=5
 
Thanks Womble55,

I just downloaded them. Will check them out later.

BTWl I was thinking a bit after your comments about Aircraft Animator and Fowler Flaps and Handley Page Slats.
I believe both are do-able by creative choice of rotation points.

See attached images for Fowler Flaps. The point of rotation is the Little Green Cross. (X=183, Y=265)
I didn't spend a lot of time refining the pivot point, so I am guessing it can be improved.

I believe Slats can be done in a similar manner.

- Ivan.
 
As I said in another thread, I'm a sucker for missing the blatently obvious. If you make a circle large enough then for all intents and purposes, the small segment you use will be a straight line.

What I would like in Aircraft Animator though is a click start and click stop to any movements rather than relying on remembering codes to alter angle, distance and sequence. I'd also like to be able to place folders within folders to allow multiple movements on undercarriage retractions.

How about a paint program that actualy paints the plane as though you are there with a spraygun.

Or an editor that you can edit the final speeds, weights and suchlike and it will edit the subfolders for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top