Conspicuous by Their Absence

P2V Neptune

Hi Ivan,
On closer inspection, it appears that even the early -1 and -2 Versions had belly bulges, but smaller than later editions, and that will be OK. Anyway, performance and armament of the early design will probably be quite interesting for CFS1 - not so the Truculent Turtle (not even that one had no bulge), as this long-range record breaker had eliminated all armament and equipment in favour of fuel tanks, so perhaps it wouldn´t be a successful CFS1 model.
Perhaps the increased power of the P2V-2 would make it an eligible candidate for modelling.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Don't worry about lack of armament or lack of it.
Hubbabubba's Messerschmitt 108 doesn't have armament either but seems to be a very successful design.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Sorry for the distraction.... I actually don't have a lot of interest in the P2V Neptune either.
I just thought it was a more respectable subject for the simulator than the Tu-95.

Incidentally, the P2V often carried a couple jet engines that were on idle power when flying at low altitude and were used to assist on take-off.....

There are plenty of WW2 twins and multis that have never received a proper chance in CFS but of course we all can choose to build what we want. I don't think folks have done many of the Japanese bombers.
Don't let my choice of what to build prevent you from doing the same subject.

Did you notice that there is a Lockheed 188 Electra AFX available? The Electra was the civilian airliner version of the current P-3 Orion.....

- Ivan.
 
What to build? An Orion maybe!

Hi Ivan,

No hurry. Sometimes topics pile up and one needs time to treat them all.

Actually I thought from your suggestion that you did have an interest in the P2V Neptune. No problem if not.
Anyway, a P2V-1 or P2V-2 could be my future project building list, as it was quite a meritorious machine for the time - along with the Constellation and the Electra (Orion) it was a plane that kept Lockheed going for years!
I realise a Neptune would be more fitting for the simulator as it was quite manoueverable and had lots of different armament.

The Tu-95 would be rather a target than a hunter, albeit heavily defended... unless a simmer were to use it for altitude bombing... I´ll see. It´s only because of the spectacular looks and performance that I fancy building this monster. I like the feel of big planes on the simulator too.

Re. Lockheed 188: Yes, I re-worked that some years ago to make a better shaped model. I had the feeling that the typical 188 Electra nose on the FS5 / AF5 model didn´t come across so well and I extensively re-built the whole thing. I still have the new AFX as well.

Shall I see if I can convert my L188 re-build to an Orion for CFS1 and upload it? I would actually quite fancy that.

The turboprops (eeeek!) could actually come across quite well in the FS98 .air file. There are some nice sounds available too. With help from one André Léderer I did some PT6A Turbo-prop FD fine adjustments for a Polair and SAR Tri-Turbo Three and a South-African Turbo-Dakota I´d converted from some excellent DC-3 AFX available from Freeflight Design.

So, how about an Orion? With AWAC radar maybe...?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Two new Uploads

Hi all!
So, the Curtiss Wright AT-9 Jeep is finished, and in 2 versions.
Here are 2 links to the new uploads:
Curtiss Wright AT-9:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=20195
Curtiss Wright AT-9A:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=20194
The models themselves have different file and texture names so as not to cause confusion within the aircraft index. I hope you all enjoy them.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • AT-9-1.jpg
    AT-9-1.jpg
    37.2 KB · Views: 0
  • AT-9A-1.jpg
    AT-9A-1.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 0
Possible L-188C to P-3 Orion conversion

Hello Ivan,

I was just going over the AFX of my 2005 AF99 re-build/upgrade of an AF5 L-188 Electra. Mainly it involved a 12-sided fuselage and more accurately shaped fore-fuselage curves from the side-view and movable control surfaces as well as other modifications that improved bleedthrough problems. The 3D .exe of the earlier flight simulators obviously worked differently, and my extensive re-build in no way implies any negative opinions on the original author´s AFX.

So, I was examining the possible modifications for a P-3 Orion, principally a 7 ft shorter fore-fuselage, less blunt nose, and a 17.2 ft aft-extending MAD boom.

However, as the original AFX had its building centre 12 ft aft and 0.5 ft low, the CoG or AF99 Centre of Rotation had been shifted forward and up, and this will be a headache for a modification, unless of course you would be so good as to shift the CoG forward by 12 ft and up by 0.5 ft with your wonderful CoG shifting programme.

If I were to undertake this project, perhaps I could send you the AFX for a CoG shift?
...Which leads me to the next question, if you think that a P-3 Orion will be a nice thing to produce for CFS1.

Incidentally, parts count is at 148.1% so some degree of intelligent resource-scrounging will probably be necessary!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Shifting the Center of Gravity

Hello Aleatorylamp,

As I commented earlier, you certainly do not need my approval to build any project you like.
I personally don't have a lot of interest in the more modern aircraft for Combat Flight Simulator.

I like the older machines from between the wars and through the end of WW2.
In some cases, I don't mind building later aircraft such as a Sea Fury, Bearcat or Spiteful even though it was post-war because they were such good representatives of their types, but that is just MY preference.

If you want me to shift the model's CoG, I can try.
I still don't know what happens when the final assembly moves the pieces around as well as setting the center of rotation.
I was thinking of doing the same thing to a PBY Catalina AFX because I KNOW that one has a bunch of pieces moved around.

- Ivan.
 
Choices...

Hello Ivan,
I see! Well, my line of thought was that if an aircraft I were to build was one that you also liked, then my asking you questions on building technicalities would be less bothersome and probably more fun too. The Fledgeling seemed to fit in nicely there. Of course, the more modern Tu-95 and P-3 Orion belong more to the Cold War period, and the P2V is basically post war too.

Personally, my general preference for aircraft construction is actually prior to WWII, but a few do attract my attention for their special characteristics, e.g. the size and performance of the Tu-95, and the uniqueness of the Electra/Orion, and once it was even the graceful shape of the Dreamliner.

The problem with the Orion is that the Electra model I´d be basing it on has pieces pushed around, made more complicated by the incomprehensible 12-ft aft centre of contstruction offset. This was already a nightmare when I upgraded it, so that alterations now started becoming an even worse pain this afternoon, so I´d rather give this one a miss!!

Anyway, I´ll see what I can find. Maybe for the ´tween Wars period...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Interests

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I don't know if I told you this from the start, but I really don't have much interest in the AT-9 Fledgling either.
It is in the correct time period, but would never have hit my build list.

You already know of my lack of interest in the big bombers from the Great War.

That doesn't stop me from assisting if asked. My real interests are actually quite narrow as far as things I actually would build on my own.

The Macchi fighters were only built because that is what the audience wanted.
That is why they sat in limbo for a couple years while others passed them by.
I stated very early on that it might take a very long time to finish them or that they may never get finished.

I have a tendency to keep revisiting aeroplanes that I like such as the P-40, FW 190, and the Corsair.
The Corsair has had two major reworks and the FW 190 has had significant enhancements since I first completed it.
I have spent enough time and effort on the P-40E to have built AT LEAST four other aircraft.....

Don't let MY choice of subjects affect yours.

- Ivan.
 
to build or not to build...

Hello Ivan,

The important this is to enjoy the building process. There´s one determining factor against enjoyment: What one would personally label as ugly: For example, in my case, the MAD Boom on the Orion or the Neptune come quite close, and then worse, the awfully shaped twin-engined Douglas B-18 Bolo or Digby, but that´s just me. Then, there´s the Boulton Paul Sidestrand or the Overstrand, and also the Boeing B-9 bomber, which are just on the verge of what I´d call ugly. So it´s quite easy to decide what not to build.

I suppose it´s just that I haven´t quite decided yet what I do want to build, but will do so soon, no doubt!

As far as twin-engined aircraft go, a couple more candidates come into mind: The slightly strange-but-not-too-ugly-looking yet ground-breaking pre-WW2 Martin B-10, which was faster than many contemporary fighters, or the post WW2 rather spectacular Grumman F7F Tigercat. Then there´s also the Martin A30 Baltimore that Smilo mentioned some time back.

We shall see...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
What to Build, Not Whether to Build

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I have been involved with CFS for so long that there have been literally dozens of aspects I want to research and also a couple dozen aeroplanes I have wanted to build. I keep a task and project list and periodically add to it or cross something off as I finish a project or find a solution to something.

The twin engine gauges are on the To-Do list and have been there for years. Now I have at least a functional if not ideal solution.
Your Tigercat made it onto the list when I was reading "Corky Meyer's Flight Journal" a few years ago.
A lot of projects get to the Development stage without ever having been on the list.

I have also done my share of "Ugly" projects. The Stuka easily qualifies as does the BV 141.
There is never a shortage or worthy projects; there is only a lack of time to build them.

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • Ugly_WheelFairings.jpg
    Ugly_WheelFairings.jpg
    55.3 KB · Views: 0
  • Ugly_Smile.jpg
    Ugly_Smile.jpg
    54.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Ugly_Ailerons.jpg
    Ugly_Ailerons.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 0
to build, or not to build... a given model

Hi Ivan,

Of course! Sorry, I should have continued the comment "to build, or not to build" after the ellipsis.
It is definitely a matter of personal taste, if you are inclined or not towards a given model.
Aesthetically, e.g. I wouldn´t say the Stuka or the BV141 were ugly - just "strange", and perhaps you wouldn´t say the Douglas B-18 Bolo or Digby were so ugly...

Another nice one would be the Lockheed Harpoon, the lines are rather smart, and a little less nice because it looks stubbier and not so elegant, the Lockheed Ventura, but perhaps not everyone would coincide with that.

The Tigercat, very much like the Lightning, has very elegant lines, and looks like a real power-house, both of which make it so appealing. None of these are available for CFS1, so the list never stops...
Anyway, we´ll see, as I said before!

Incidentally, your progress with the twin gauges seems quite interesting. I was wondering if you would be willing to let me try them out, or is it too soon yet? ...just a thought, no problem if not.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Actually the Ventura is on my build list also. It is rather low on the priorities but would fit well as a general "Between the Wars" kind of subject. (It may not be historically correct to do this, but the aeroplane has that look.)
This is one of those projects that I am interested in because it seems like such a nice little high performance aeroplane even though it isn't particularly attractive. I know a Hudson is available somewhere.

There actually IS a F7F Tigercat out there I believe for FS98. I even have it installed on a couple computers.
The model isn't great quality so a new one would work well. That is also why I am considering aircraft like the Ki-43 Hayabusa. The ones that exist are not really all that well executed.

My "Progress" with Twin Gauges is pretty much where the last post in the Gauges thread would indicate.
I have a pair of Tachometers. I can generate a new one with a different face pretty much at will.
I have a single Manifold Pressure Gauge for Engine 1 but never bothered to alter it for Engine 2 though it would only take an hour or so to do it.
I can email you the pair of Tachometers. Not sure if you really want a single MP Gauge since it is functionally no different from the stock ones.

The issue I have had with the MP Gauge is that at Idle, the MP readings are so low that they go off the marked scale.
I am wondering if I should alter the scale but the interesting thing is that all the real gauges I have seen have the same scale as mine.
I have not come to any conclusion about this issue yet.
It becomes even more messy when one considers that although the gauge face reads to 75 inches Hg, I don't believe the simulator can produce a reading quite that high.

Of course I also have a bunch of failed Dual needle gauges......

- Ivan.
 
The Build List

Hello Ivan,
Quite a coincidence, then! I downloaded a number of pictures on the Ventura and its later Harpoon upgrade, and I read some of the texts available, and it certainly seems to have been a machine that threw its weight.
There are even a few good-sized drawings that look quite exact. It could be interesting to see once a possible Ventura has a nice .air fie, how the different area on the fins and the larger wings affects the behaviour of the Harpoon.

I also looked up the Martin A-3 Baltimore, another very interesting candidate - some good drawings too, big enough to be useful. It seems to have had a considerable punch too, and looks quite cool.

As for the sleek Tigercat, the biggest drawing I could find was 880 pixels for the wingspan, which boils down to about 1 pixel for 1 inch. I have to see if I can find a bigger one. I also read a post about the conversation between the new text pilot and Cory, the other test pilot... quite an entertaining read. For the moment, this is the one that I may tackle first.

I´m drawing up scales on the drawings for all these planes in the 3 axes, to use as plans. Maybe that´s how I can decide which to build first.

Then, the strangest looking is the Martin B-10, and I might just make the scaled plan just to see the feel I get. So basically, there are 4 or maybe 5 twin-engined light, medium and light attack bombers on the list.

As for the gauges, I´d love to try out your 2 Tachometers! Thanks a lot! I´ll be looking in my mail-box then.

Cheers for the moment!
Aleatorylamp
 
Twins

Hello Aleatorylamp,

It seems like you're set on Twins of some kind.
There are a very large number of candidates. We haven't even touched on the ones from the Pacific Theater yet.
I don't think I have ever seen proper treatment of any Japanese twin. There are a couple of G4M Bettys out there and that is about it.

If you are not set on twins, there are plenty of single engine stuff that has not had enough attention. Try looking for a good TBF Avenger.

I actually found a fair amount of data on the Martin A-30 Baltimore. I personally don't have a lot of interest in it though I know Smilo does.

There are always the projects Smilo and I have batted back and forth for a while such as the A-20 Havoc, B-25 Mitchell, B-26 Marauder, Dornier Do 17Z, Junkers Ju 88, etc. None of those have had very good treatment thus far that I know of.

Here are a couple of screenshots of a F7F and another twin that I was working on at one point.

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • F7FNightFighter.jpg
    F7FNightFighter.jpg
    59.3 KB · Views: 0
  • Greif.jpg
    Greif.jpg
    59.5 KB · Views: 0
Twins

Hi Ivan,
Well, yes, at least twins!...

After your comment on Japanese aircraft, I just looked for Japanese twins and there are quite a few with cool designs on par with the Tigercat´s lines... Nakajima Gekko, Kawasaki Randy, Mitsibishi Dinah...

Judging by the quality of their cars nowadays, no doubt their planes back then must have been impressive.
When I retire in November next year I´ll have more time!

I´d thought that the more well known war-twins you mention - i.e. A-20 Havoc, B-25 Mitchell, B-26 Marauder, Dornier Do 17Z, Junkers Ju 88, etc. - were not badly represented, so I hadn´t really looked into those. But it seems there´s room even there, although being so well known, I tend not to go for those so much. Anyway, the range of possibilities grows and grows...

Time for bed!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

The aircraft and especially engines built by the Japanese are worthy of an entire new discussion.
After doing a fair amount of reading, I have my own opinions, but there are so many caveats and exceptions that it is hard to describe them in even a number of posts.

I believe I described some of their issues in a post about War Emergency Power. It really is a strange thing.
I can tell you that one of the issues with my Kawasaki Ki-61 project was the conflicting data as is the case with a lot of other Japanese aircraft. The local library is completely insufficient for research unless you start requesting inter-library loans.

Japanese manufacturing today has nearly nothing to do with their industry before and during WW2. Credit all new industrial machinery and W.E. Deming for the changes.

Smilo and I had this discussion many times: (Summary as follows.)
Yes, all those German Twins are well known, but try to find a good add-on of any of those. The same applies to the B-25 and B-26.

The Greif in my screenshot is another fairly interesting aeroplane that has never been built that I know of.

The Tigercat is an interesting beast. If you look over photographs, you may be surprised how narrow the fuselage is....
I haven't even started looking for drawings or specifications for the beast though I do know about some of its strange handling characteristics.

- Ivan.
 
FS5-FS9 development gap

Hi Ivan,

I looked around a little for all the models we have been mentioning, and it seems that when FS5, FS95, BAO Flight Shop/AF5 came out, there was proliferous building going on for the majority of these models.

Later, with FS98 and AF99, some of them were upgraded to some degree or other, but probably the difficulties in doing a good job there were a deterrent. Also, computer hardware had a tough time catching up, and the improved models needed the frame rates only expensive graphics cards could handle, and the FS5 models were generally compatible with FS98 and CFS1, so few really bothered at that time. Perhaps these were the reasons that not much happened until the better 3D engines and the wireframe extrusion building programmes appeared.

When FS2002 and CFS2 came out, people were more interested in the new simulators whose 3D engines could cope with the more powerful GMax and FSDS2, but even that lasted only a short while, because soon everything became even more powerful, and only after that, a number of these models seem to have been re-born with for FS9 and FSX with Gmax and FSDS3, so there seems to be a generation gap as far as we are concerned.

As regards the Japanese and their WW2 machines then, possibly their design genius and war production quality were not on the same level, and their potential was not fully taken advantage of. Like many Russian designs, a lot of their designs are reminiscent of American ones.

The Greif in your screenshot - I was wondering what it was - the tail is too small for a Boeing B-9, and had me baffled. Interesting. Some of the large post-biplane designs are not ugly!

Yes, I noticed the minimum frontal resistance design of the Tigercat - it looks unexpectedly different from the front. Definitely an interesting machine! I prefer the one with the pointed nose...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top