Conspicuous by Their Absence

Hello Ivan,

I think the interest there is, even though limited, still provides enough motivation to justify keeping up an activity which is in itself enjoyable. To do all this only by oneself with no outside contact, would be too isolating to be possible!

Sometimes a model I´m working on does not always coincide with what I planned to do, or perhaps really want. For example, friends from our little group of FS98 enthusiasts (who are now a little less active than before) sometimes request a little upgrade, which I then do quite willingly. Other times things get a little difficult on a model like now with the P3 Orion, and I am easily side-tracked with other models to fix that look easier than they eventually turn out to be, and it ends up taking longer to get back to what I was originally doing!

I got back to the Orion and eliminated all the control surfaces on the P3 Orion, and now I have enough resources for all components needed for the new nacelles, but it is not an easy job! So I got side-tracked again with another biplane upgrade I´m finishing - the Albatros G.III age-old biplane twin.

At the moment I´m stuck again, this time, with incomplete specifications, and I´m trying to decipher the maximum fuel capacity for the given maximum range, calculating from the engine and payload specifications. Then I have to adapt that to the weaker-engined, lighter, slower G.II prototype - So I´m busy juggling a lot of numbers...

After that I hope to return to the P3 Orion!

I don´t think the ABSquad site is down... I got into it to download and inspect my creditless plane, and the site is still open today. Perhaps it has changed its address?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
answer to Ivan

the plane that I made at meigs.....
It was made using Chuck Dome's 'trodem demo
these were the early happy days trying to figure
how Scasm/BGL lingo worked
It also calculated vectors (which I was not to sure of then)
When I got SciDis I could figure it out.
I also did the Fsasm examples and d'sembled them to
Scasm source txt----happy intreging days!!!!
>>>papingo
 
Eyeballing vs. Engineering

Hello Ivan,

You mentioned that there was not so much engineering and more eyeballing going on in the aircraft industry of the Great War. I would tend do disagree, but not with the purpose of starting an argument, but only with the intention of expressing my opinion. I would think eyeballing is more like what you do when you make a paper aeroplane and try to fit the build to the shape of the sheet of paper available. ...or what I have to do when I only have one or two photos and have to fit specifications to draw a plan, and there are things hidden from view...

I my opinion, even the first pioneers conducted more than eyeballed measurement on birds´ dimensions and weights, (that´s why for some years airplanes were all tail-heavy and had sustaining tails - I mean what is a bird´s head going to weigh anyway? It uses the tail as a fan not only for direction but also to adjust flight attitude). To make a plane like a bird is already an engineering exercize, I would venture to say.

Then, after the initial success of the first pioneers, data from experimental results like wing-area, span and curvature, aircraft weight and engine power became increasingly available, and using this data do to lift, drag, speed, power and weight calculations for a new model, I would qualify as engineering. Even innovations had to have some kind of theoretical basis and would need calculations more than mere eyeballing, and success depended on whether the ideas and their mathematical calculations worked or not.

Limited by the need for light structures because of the heavy, low-powered engines, there was a tendency towards flimsiness on prototypes, and structural failures were the order of the day, but I wouldn´t say that they were eyeballed. Also, new materials like glue and lighter canvas were not always reliable, and calculated specifications were not always true. Wood had to be selected and treated carefully, and this was also not perfect. With all this inexactness, the risk of accidents was not exactly low.

Engines were also evolving very quickly, and that was pure engineering, and soon aircraft factories realized that larger multi-engined aircraft were possible, and experimental designs with different degrees of success appeared. Including failed designs, they all contributed to the further evolution of aviation, and even if it started as an inexact science, it was a science.

Of course, there will also have been manufactures who weren´t as good as others, and who just copied some designs, possibly eyeballing quite a lot of it. A famous case apparently were the Rumpler aircraft! Although they were very successful, Mr. Rumpler had a reputation in Johannisthal for being quite a copy-cat, and others would scatter when he arrived!

Anyway, be it eyeballed or engineered, the budding aircraft industry must have been exciting times.

At the moment we can see something similar happening with the DIY 3D scanners and printers, perhaps?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am always open to these kinds of discussions.... I don't consider them more as explorations than arguments.
The reason I believe that aeroplane design up until the mid-1920s was more an art than a science and more of eyeball design than real engineering is because there were so many structurally unsound designs.

Although the Wright Brothers used a "Wind Tunnel" to experiment with airfoils, it is pretty obvious that some that came after them did not. How many times have we seen photographs and videos of the early "aeroplanes" that could not get off the ground?

I have a book called "Early Flying Machines" that illustrates many of the good as well as bad designs. Some designers had an instinctive understanding and put together pretty well balanced aeroplanes. Others' designs looked more like a bunch of aeroplane pieces attached together in some random fashion.

Think of how many of the Great War "Kites" would shed pieces of their structure in a dive or under hard maneuvering. Nieuports come to mind here. These aeroplanes looked good but it is pretty obvious in hindsight that there was certainly not enough consideration for stresses and loads which is the part I would consider "engineering".

I believe the reason that they were so often successful was because they tended to err on the side of too much wing area and too light loads, so the inefficient wings, weak structures and draggy airframes that were built to mimic birds or bats (like Rumpler's designs) still made it into the air.
I believe there simply was not the understanding of what we call aerodynamics today. I believe there was a lot of very good research on both sides of the pond after the Great War.
NACA Technical Reports written at that time are still very good reading today.

Aleatorylamp said:
I my opinion, even the first pioneers conducted more than eyeballed measurement on birds´ dimensions and weights, (that´s why for some years airplanes were all tail-heavy and had sustaining tails - I mean what is a bird´s head going to weigh anyway? It uses the tail as a fan not only for direction but also to adjust flight attitude). To make a plane like a bird is already an engineering exercize, I would venture to say.
Click to expand...

If a Bird is used as a design model and the big issue is that the bird's head is very light compared to an engine, then a bit more weight at the front would tend to move the CoG forward and increase stability. There would also be less lift required of the tail plane with a forward CoG.
Also, there is nothing really wrong with the tail surfaces supplying lift.
The only requirement in my not so educated view is that the Front Lifting Surface stalls before the Rear Lifting Surface.
I don't think God cares whether your aeroplane is a conventional tailed design, canard or has equal front and rear surfaces like Langley's aerodrome. If the rear surfaces stall first, he will kill you just the same.

On a minor side note, in another forum, I came across a discussion of propeller behaviour with increasing engine power and a constant speed propeller. I can say that there was never as much information presented as we have discussed here based on Jerry Beckwith's documents on flight simulator propellers.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
OK, I´ll go with that! Being more of an art than a science would include a lot of intuitive ability and feeling for a successful design, and your expression "eyeballing" would have a more sophisticated meaning to it this way. It would not only include the idea of haphazard approximation eyeballing that I´d interpreted before.
Given the lack of technical information available at the time, the success of a model would depend largely on the intuition of the designer and the ideas that were put into practice, some of which were evidently disastrous!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello all!

I have managed to complete the CFS1 upgrade of the German 1917 Albatros G.III Grosskampfflugzeug mid-range tactical bomber and its 1916 prototype. Apart from 3D crew figures and guns, I have been able to include several little improvements in the AF99 build. With all the struts, wires and the pusher props, it is actually quite amazing that there is only little, short, transitory bleedthrough in few places, so I suppose it is quite satisfactory. The unusually elegant design made it an appetizing candidate for modelling, as well as the reputation for good quality on the part of the manufacturer and designer.

Although of the G.II prototype only a single unit was built, it is interesting to experiment the difference in performance in CFS1, compared to the noticeably more powerful engines of the G.III.

The Albatros G.III Grosskampfflugzeug link:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=20835

The G.II prototype link:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=20834

I hope you will enjoy some leisurely flying to admire the CFS1 scenery...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Aircraft Trim Settings

Hello All,

Over the last couple days, I have been working on a high precision Trim Gauge that can show the current trim state as precisely as possible.

The first goal was to be able to indicate Trim for all three axes:
Longitudinal -- Elevators
Lateral -- Ailerons
Directional -- Rudder

I found after starting with the FS98 SDK Control Surfaces source that I had no trouble getting a very precise reading with the Elevator and decided to go looking for the variables for the other control surfaces.
Imagine my surprise when I found that there actually aren't any indicator variables for Aileron or Rudder Trim....

The next thing I found is that the way I THOUGHT the aircraft trim worked probably isn't accurate.
That would explain why I was sometimes getting inconsistent results in testing.

My next steps are to tune my nifty new test gauge to indicate what I BELIEVE it should indicate and then to work out another Trim Gauge that I can throw into an operational panel to replace the not so accurate SP,Trim gauge I have been using.

- Ivan.
 
Trim Test Gauge

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Yes, this development was very interesting. I am just not quite sure yet how to interpret what I am getting.
As I said before, I had certain ideas how things worked in the AIR file and this Gauge is telling me that I am not correct.

Here is a screenshot. It is on my Test Panel and is Screen 3. (Screen 1 is the Main Panel, Screen 2 is Engine Controls.)

As you can see from the screenshot, this Gauge reads exactly Zero as I enter the simulator and all trim settings are neutral.
As you can also see at the lower left, SP.Trim gauge reads slightly Nose Down.
I will most likely re program and replace my the SP.Trim gauge on my own machines with something that is lined up a bit better, but I have always relied on this as a stock gauge that is on everyone's machine and I can't replace others out there.

As you can also see, although the new Trim Test Gauge appears to be capable of fine accuracy, it is way too large to use in an operational panel.
It looks to me like I will be programming a normal looking Trim Gauge to distribute. It is a wonder that the first gauge I build and distribute publicly will have such minimal functionality. <sigh>

Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • TrimTestGauge.jpg
    TrimTestGauge.jpg
    64 KB · Views: 0
Lavochkin La-5FN

This aeroplane is the test subject for my Trim Test Gauge.
It was released quite a few years ago and has a basic non-jittery SCASM cockpit but that is all.

The Aeroplane has no significant bleeds and the general shape is fairly accurate so after the Warhawks, this may be the next subject for rework.
Since it was first built and released, I have gotten a little smarter with Aircraft Factory 99 and a whole lot smarter with SCASM, so this will be interesting.
There will be some new pieces added but I believe the Antenna Wires will not be staying. They are a bit distracting.

The AIR file definitely needs a bit of a rework, mostly for engine tuning.
I didn't have much information to work with when I first built this, but have found a Pilot's Manual for the La-5FN and a few flight evaluations by the Germans and also have an engine manual for the Shvetsov ASh-82FN motor that is installed in this aeroplane. The manual is in Russian but hopefully I can read enough to get what I need.

- Ivan.

P.S. Much of this Aeroplane's structure is Wood, so there will certainly be a bit of time needed by the technicians to become familiar with the different techniques.
 

Attachments

  • Lavochkin-La5FN.jpg
    Lavochkin-La5FN.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 0
Hello All,

Here is what I have figured out thus far.
(Please comment if you already know this or believe I am incorrect in my conclusions.)

I tuned the Gauge so that the pointer moved one tick mark per tap of the Trim adjustment keys.
When the Trim adjustment is pressed several times very quickly,
The first key press moves the pointer one tick, but
Each following key press moves the pointer EIGHT ticks.
This is very reliable and repeatable.

So.... Now I know that the Trim settings I had been listing in my Check Lists were really showing the Large adjustments and sometimes were not even showing them consistently depending on how fast I was making the adjustments.

I would also like to see if the Lateral and Directional Trim work the same way, but can't program the gauge to show it.

Next step is to program a Trim Gauge that can be added to an operational panel and maintain the appearance.
The question now is whether to include this gauge into the main panel as I have been doing or to put it into yet another pull up panel or perhaps even to add it to the engine controls panel.
It would be even more useful if I could make the new gauge react to mouse clicks.

- Ivan.
 
Hello No Dice,

Thanks for your post and your efforts, but I don´t exactly understand what you mean.
I had a look but it appears that nothing has changed either on the plane files or in the index where it´s mentioned - unless of course I´m missing something, which is not to be discarded nowadays, as my attention is starting to resemble my alias...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Well hell,

When I checked the site was gone...
Seems to be back up, I guess I thought I had accomplished something but did not.

Damn.
 
same here, Dave.
i don't know what you did,
it was gone, now, it's back.
what say, you do it again, please.
i wish i had the capability.
making a thief's life miserable,
might be kinda fun.
 
Curtiss Electric Propellers

Hello Blood Hawk.

There is actually a lot more to that story about runaway props on the B-26 Marauder than most people have heard of.
Some problems may have been due to the Curtiss Electric propeller itself, but consider how many other aeroplanes used a Curtiss Electric propeller and did NOT have a history of runaway propellers.
My belief is that most of the problems were due to other issues in the use of the aeroplane.
I am pretty sure that the F4F Wildcats used a Curtiss Electric propeller and even in a harsh naval environment were not noted for problems.
Many models of the P-47 Thunderbolt also used a similar Curtiss Electric propeller also without a great deal of problems.

From what I have read, the Marauder had a lot of electrical accessories such as the gun turret.
Although the manual stated specifically not to do it, sometimes when performing tests or maintenance, the ground crew would run the accessories off the batteries in the aeroplane. (The proper procedure was to power up the APU or to run from an external power source.)
Prolonged use would drain the batteries and although there was enough juice to perform the propeller pitch tests before take-off, there might not be enough power to run the propeller DURING Take-Off.... which would result in a runaway prop.
On some aeroplanes, a slight reduction in power might not be dangerous, but the Marauder was a "Hot Ship" with a relatively high Take-Off / Landing speed and a fairly high single engine control speed.

- Ivan.
 
Off Topic as Usual?

This thread has evolved into pretty much a catch-all so perhaps this discussion isn't really so far off topic.

I am pretty much finished with the P-40N / Hawk87W Project at this point.
What is left is mostly packaging, a little testing and thinking of something for the description.
I am amazed when I think back that the P-40N is the most recent of a series that took me over 10 years to build.

I was cleaning up some papers a couple days ago and came across a print out of a discussion between Hubbabubba and I and a couple other folks. The date was October 12, 2005 and was about Hubbabubba's Messerschmitt 108 Taifun. I had only released the P-40E in January of that year, so it was still a recent project. There was even a mention of the fantastic paint job done on the Warhawk by a fellow named PJ Dunbar.

It is amazing to me that some of the people from back then are still around and may be following the current discussion.
We also seem to have lost a few but also have gained a few along the way.

At this point with the P-40N almost complete, there is the same question about what to work on next.
Should it be an entirely new aeroplane (I have a bunch of candidates) or should it be a rework of one of my earlier projects that may not hold up under modern (CFS) standards. Should the time be spent on finishing up one of the many projects that have gotten pushed to the side of the Workshop as more interesting projects have occupied the center of the Workshop?

Perhaps this wasn't so far off the "Conspicuous" topic after all.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Not off topic at all...
I´d go for whichever has the most-interesting-of-all aspect for you!
That usually provides the most enjoyment - even though what´s most interesting often comes with the biggest load of unforeseen problems. Jump off at the deep end, as they say!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top