Conspicuous by Their Absence

Hello, all!
My mind is like a sieve - I forgot to SCASM the Otto B1 Pusher Biplane´s VCockpit view, didn´t I?
I´ll ask Rami to slip in a new model file with the fix when I´ve done it.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Folks,
Now what would we do without your help, Rami? Thanks very much!

OK, I´ve uploaded the fix, and also managed to correct the display priority of the nacelle struts going up to the wing behind the observer/gunner - or rather...pistol shooter!

Anyway, it looks fine now.

I do apologize for the inconveniences.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • Otto BI VCockpit.jpg
    Otto BI VCockpit.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 0
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Do you know that you can change your own uploads in the library?
I have only done it once or twice, but I do know that it was possible.
Adding a panel to your aeroplane should not cause too many problems.
I think it makes sense to put the entire package in one place.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Yes, I agree it´s good to have the package in one place.
You had mentioned it, so I searched to find the way to do, but wasn´t successful.

Update: It appears that adding things to an upload is possible only as administrator, so I can´t do it.
I have just uploaded the Panel, and Rami has kindly seen to it, and has added it to the package.

There´s always something slipping my mind...
The amazing thing is that it still works, even if belated sometimes.

P.S. I´m always surprised at the download numbers for these old struts-and-wire contraptions!
...even though in this case, the 2 cockpit-related added uploads would of course somewhat distort the numbers.
There seems to be something about them that many find quite fascinating!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Hello all!
Good heavens! I´m quite impressed by the number of downloads the Otto_BI is managing.
Thank you all very much for your moral support!
What is it about these old machines? The sound of the wind in the wires, perhaps.
I don´t know if I have another one, but I´ll have another rummage around.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Perhaps a silly question, but do you actually HAVE a "Wind Through the Wires" sound effect?
I really should finish up a Biplane model except that I have no idea how to tune the AIR file for a Biplane.

Congratulations on the downloads.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Thanks!
I´m sorry to disappoint you, it was only a poetic or rhetoric comment, inspired by the title of a novel I once read, about someone who was barnstorming across the US.
Some people increase the chord to make up for the double wing, others just compensate by altering airfoil lift. I suppose it isn´t perfect. I know you don´t duplicate the wingspan because you don´t want to make it into a glider.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Ivan,
I was thinking of the best type of monoplane to compare to a ratherfast biplane, maybe like the Pitts Special:
Perhaps a kind of racer, with short, squat wings but greater drag because of the struts, wires and doubled sustaining planes.

Imagine an air file for the "affordable" Monnett Sonerai, with more drag and slightly increased roll inertia because of the mass of the top wing. Specs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monnett_Sonerai

Maybe a good idea? - or just a lot of Bull...?
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

As usual, I think our approaches are quite different.
My goal is to understand how the Biplane / Triplane / etc. configuration actually affects the basic numbers in the AIR file.
So, what I have been trying to find is the Biplane equivalent factors.
Getting the overall performance where I want is the really easy part, but that isn't quite how I want to do things.

I HAVE gone through the NACA reports written by Max Munk back in the 1920's but the math is way over my head.
Then again, up until a couple weeks ago, the idea of programming working Tachometer was beyond me as well.

There are still so many things I am trying to figure out how to do that the Biplane issue hasn't gotten to the top yet.
At the moment the prime topic is Gauges and I am still trying to quantify the weirdness that I have found in the SDK.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
You have all my respect for the way you are approaching the new subject of gauge creation, and especially in view of the recent and unexpected results and their quality. Your preserverance and meticulous endeavour is commendable, to say the least.

As regards .air files for biplanes, it seems we are faced with something similar to the lack of superchargers and turboprops in FS98. The parameters are just not there. Superchargers exist only from CFS1 onwards, and Turboprop parameters are only available as of FS2002. Behaviour has to be adapted and compensated using a jet .air file in FS98 and CFS1.

I don´t think I understand exactly what you mean by knowing and understanding the numbers for biplanes. Even if you knew them, where would they go? If at least the option existed of defining a biplane or a triplane, then the spec. numbers of area, span and chord could easily be entered, including interplane distances and stagger.

But, with those parameters lacking, what is there to do but try and compensate as many factors as one would imagine could be affected?

I think FS2004 offers something for Biplanes in the air file or aircraft config, but I don´t know how they implemented it.
It´s a difficult issue, at least for CFS1, I agree!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
There is a proper way to represent a biplane with monoplane statistics.
I just need to learn what it is and why.
Just do a search on "Munk biplane theory" and you will see what I mean.
It is on my list of things to do, just can't do them all at once.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Interesting, that theory, many thanks. I understand what you mean now.
It would be the correct, exact way of applying compensations and adaptations to the monoplane .airfile that I was imagining.
The concept explained in the introduction is quite helpful to understand what´s going on. It seems not to be as bad as one would fear, except for high pitch angles, although I would expect that it would not be as bad at low speeds.

Implementing the maths for a given biplane would be quite demanding, at least on my human mortal´s brain capacity. I´m sure Building things like aeroplanes or gauges, or even SCASming Virtual Cockpits is more pleasurable.

One thing is nice about biplanes, though: Apparently, at very low near-stall speeds, the lift available is remarkable. There´s a video of Ernst Udet´s Flamingo on the U-Tube where he recovers from a dive initiated at very low altitude, where you´d say he´d definitely be gone for a Burton.

Anyway, the more there´s on the "to-do" list, the better.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

One doesn't have to have a biplane to have very good low speed characteristics.
A nice high lift airfoil with flaps, slats, etc. and a very low wing loading will do pretty well.
Just look at the Westland Lysander and Fieseler Storch.
It says a lot if you can get airborne in around 30 yards.
How many biplanes could beat that?

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Hmmmm... with the availability of more modern materials and engines
you probably wouldn´t normally want a biplane anyway, unless you
were perhaps specifically looking for a short wingspan with enough lift
and robustness to throw around in the air.

I don´t know... A biplane would be heavier than the STOLs you mention,
but I don´t know if they´d stand acrobatics.
A few modern STOL biplanes also exist, so there must be some advantage
in the biplane concept. Maybe just the short wingspan?
Cheers
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe that for the same strength, a Biplane configuration is lighter than a cantilever Monoplane of similar wing area.
If you have an externally braced Monoplane, there is a lot of additional drag with all the necessary bracing.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Really, how interesting! That clarifies a lot to me then, and apart from being the best design layout
because of materials 100 years ago, nowadays it would also justify a biplane design. Great!
Thanks for your patient explanation.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Perhaps I generalized a bit as well.
A monocoque stressed skin construction is fairly light and strong.
If the construction is limited to wooden frames and fabric with wire bracing, then I am correct.
Flats are weak. Rectangles are flexible. Triangles are strong.

A friend of mine once showed me a piece of wing skin he had from a Japanese Ki-43 Hayabusa.
It was amazingly flimsy and flexible by itself without all the framework underneath.
Reading the specifications and thicknesses is one thing. Handling the actual part gives an entirely different understanding.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
The number of factors mentioned, that influence the difference between
biplanes and monoplanes seems to be growing all the time!

Obviously, the mathematics involved go straight over my head, I´m afraid,
and I can only apply an intuitive, non-mathematical grouping of all factors,
and try to sift them into manageable data for weight, lift, drag, stability factors,
moments of inertia, centre of gravity... etc.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

The factors for representing biplanes with monoplane parameters hasn't grown significantly since probably around 1930 or so.
The literature has been out there for many decades; we just have not had a chance to learn them yet.
My very old Albatros D.Va has been waiting for years for its chance to fly.
Then again, it is also waiting for a few bolts of Lozenge Camouflage fabric to be printed and our Art / Graphics Shop is probably the slowest of all.

- Ivan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top