Conspicuous by Their Absence

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

This is a seriously goofy set of specifications.
My impression is that at the time, both Italy and England were designing weapons to subdue the primitive native populations rather than fight a war against a modern enemy.
The Vickers Wellesley was another such aeroplane.
Just about any aeroplane will do when the enemy's most high tech "vehicle" is a horse or camel.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
It must have been a lot of the specs that sounded goofy.
Possibly, after the experience of the Great War, governments of nations were relying too much on data from that time, and did not have enough practical futuristic vision to foresee their needs, and what the technological advances of the time could do for them.

Initially they all had some material from the between wars period, and manufacturers were only able to develop more modern stuff quite a few years into WW2, when authorities started realizing what was really necessary.

The Wellesley looks more like a powered glider than a fighter-bomber, and probably had many virtues that were not needed by a warplane, other than its range.

Sounds a bit like the evolution of simlulator-aircraft building programmes. Initially, they had many shortcomings which were not so apparent at the time due to the slow computers. Nowadays, they have evolved so much that you can create virtually anything and everything, but the learning curve is so high that they require a lengthy course to be used!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe there were quite a few pre-war designs that were quite viable through a good portion of the war.
Just about every nation that actually built aircraft had a few good designs that were not out of place when the war started.
The Spitfire, Corsair, A6M, Yakovlev fighters, were all pre-war designs. I am sure you can think of a lot more.

Regarding development tools, I believe the biggest issue is that the most popular tool was basically just a quick and dirty effort to push a product out the door with the hope that wanabe developers who had nothing else would be desperate enough to by something mediocre before seeing the limitations.

Just because a tool has a lot of capability and features does not necessarily mean it is difficult to use.
Consider how different the current MS Windows Operating Systems (much as I dislike them) are when compared to some of the older stuff like CP/M. Yes, I am old enough to have used CP/M and even used it professionally.

On a slightly related note:
About three days ago, I finally set up a Java development environment on my laptop to where my Son was running into problems debugging his programs.
The really funny thing about this setup is that I chose to do it with a separate editor and command line compiles rather than with an IDE. I do the same thing with C Compilers, so it must mean I am really old fashioned.
As a contrast, when my Son had finally gotten his programs to run and needed to check the output, I suggested that he do it with FC from the command prompt. He could not figure out how to start the command prompt because he never uses it and I have it on my Task Bar and have multiple shortcuts because I use it so often.....

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Kawasaki Ki 61-Id Hien

I wonder if the Ki 61 Hien or "Flying Swallow" fits into the category of "Conspicuous by Their Absence"?

The Army Type 3 Fighter was produced in fairly large numbers (for a Japanese aircraft) and had a very prominent role in Japanese Army service.
There already are several versions available for Combat Flight Simulator, so it is not truly absent, but my belief was that it had never quite gotten the treatment that an aeroplane with such beautiful lines deserved.

When I first thought of picking this as a design subject, I was somewhat reluctant because my perception was that this was fairly mediocre aircraft regardless of its fine lines and never really excelled in combat. It served because it was the best that the Japanese Army had at the time.
This was a very similar conclusion when looking at the P-40E Warhawk and to date, the P-40E project has led to more related offspring than I ever expected.

Here are a few screenshots of other Ki 61 designs that I have encountered for Combat Flight Simulator. If there are others that you know of please let me know. Each of them seems to be missing a few features that I would expect out of a full featured CFS project.... But do the missing features make the type "absent"?

Note that the BR version is really just a repaint with a different flight model but the whole package is nice enough that I keep it as a flyable selection.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Short Stirling

It turns out that I have actually had a Short Stirling installed on my Game computer for quite some time.
(Quite some time because I don't remember installing it.)
It isn't a particularly nice model so there is definitely room for improvement.
There also appears to be something odd going on with the engine face on Engine 1; Note the strange colour compared to the others.

I believe it also has a FS98 flight model:
All the engines start at once and the starter switch can be used to shut them all down.

....So there is room for improvement for the flight model as well.

- Ivan the Forgetful.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Despite probably being of the FS5 type, it does have the typical Stirling no-nonsense look and stance!
This could be an interesting project for the future.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

You are probably correct about this being an old FS5 project.
The shape isn't too bad, but the nose seems a bit strangely shaped.
I would need to look at a few more photographs to be sure.

If you like this kind of shape, then the Heinkel 177 would probably appeal to you also?
I had started one many years ago before I started working with SCASM and there are just not enough resources to to it properly in AF99.
Perhaps either this or my version of the Dornier 17Z would be a worthwhile subject for a try at AD2000?

At some point, I want to see what is possible (for me) to do within AD2000 not so much from a 3D design standpoint but more from a CFS variables approach. The code I have seen you and Smilo post looks amazingly like what I am already doing in SCASM coding only a bit less cryptic.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The Stirling´s straight lines, as well as the 4 engines, and even the transparencies in the cockpit area, seem to me not to be too complicated to build with AF99.

With Ad2K I´m sure a Do-17 would yield much better results because the details inside its large glazed nose section would come through very well. The automated "Z" Buffer in AF99 has limited ability, SCASM is very cryptic, so AD2k will possibly allow clearly understandable view-sequence organization, which will let the builder achieve his goals. I´m sure AD2K will be an interesting exercize for you if you decide to give it a try. Of course, as any new tool to be learnt, it takes some time!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

We just got back from our vacation this afternoon.
Traffic made the drive much longer than it should have been.

You are right, the Stirling does not look to be too difficult though even a simple project tends to push resource limits the way I build.
You do things with a lot of Structures which should work well, but I have never been comfortable doing anything other than fairly simple things with Structures with just one exception: The Eindecker's machine gun.
One fellow I knew was an expert with Structures, but I haven't heard from him in many years.
He actually built an entire Fuselage for a Curtiss Wright CW-21B with a single Structure and the shape was quite excellent.

For me, a Four Engine Bomber may not be complicated, but each Cowl, Supercharger Scoop and such would use up a Component and that would be the end of it. The Heinkel 177 isn't very complicated either, but was beyond the limit of what I could comfortably do within AF99 only.

The B-25 Mitchell was a special case. I was out to prove a point rather than just designing for fun and that project probably took about 4 times the work that it needed to because of AF99 limits and it really didn't have all the features I originally wanted. The same applies to the P-38 Lightning projects.

By the way, if you do a quick comparison, the general syntax for AD2000 that you posted isn't that different from SCASM; It is just much better organised and a bit more obvious as to what is going on. I suppose it is much like the difference between C Programming and Assembly Language Programming.
Some of the things Smilo was telling me a few years ago when he was working with his Arado 196 had suggested to me that the folks who designed AD2000 probably did a lot more thinking and addressed things using more typical 3D design methods. The only problem at this point is that I simply do not have a working development machine at the moment and the old Pentium 233 is probably not powerful enough even it was working.

If you look at what we BOTH have already been doing with the Virtual Cockpits in SCASM, you can certainly see the similarity of patterns between the sequencing of AD2000 and SCASM jumps.

In looking further at the Halifax, I can't decide which I like more: The Merlin versions with a Nose Turret or the later Hercules versions with a simpler nose. It isn't on the build list yet, but with these discussions, I have been looking around to see if I can figure out the differences in the various Marks.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I hope you´ve had a restful vacation.
It looks like the traffic is unavoidable nowadays in all parts of the world... I´m sure a more modern civilization would perfect public transport to such a point as to make having a car totally unnecessary!

Interesting thoughts on the different building programmes. After the last few years learning "extended building skills" of AF99 and SCASM with you, and now starting on AD2K, I agree with you that AD2K presents a more logical and understandable sequencing organization - even if this has to be completely hand-written, as compared to SCASM, which assists AF99´s often insufficient, semi-automated sequencing.

After one were to be more familiar with AD2K, it definitely offers more scope, largely due to its much greater parts count.
It is taking me a lot of time to master some things, because of the shortcomings this programme also has, but which Smilo is kindly helping me out with!

Anyway... I suppose your last comment on the nose refers to the Stirling, not the Halifax. I don´t really like the looks of the last unit produced the Mark V, with the longer, sleeker nose. The nose on the previous, shorter nosed ones looked more in proportion, with or without the turret. The Mark III is the one I´d perhaps go for!

Have a nice Sunday!
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

The vacation was actually much less than optimal. I only spent one day in the water because I got injured at the end of the first day and it did not seem like a good idea to get sea water into an open wound. Am nearly recovered now.

We made the same trip almost two years ago. My Daughter was injured last time.

Public Transportation would not work well for a fairly short trip like this one. With no traffic, it should only take about 4 hours to get there.
With rest stops and traffic, it is more like 6 hours.
With public transportation, we would need to pack much lighter than we actually did because we certainly could not carry all the luggage and beach gear that we had.
There is no way that public transportation could have matched the price (about $15 per person) and then we would need a rental van when we got there to be able to go out for meals and groceries with 6 people.

Regarding the British Bombers,
I am not really sure which post you were reading because I commented that the Stirling's nose did not seem quite right in the model I have for CFS AND that I was trying to decide which version of the Halifax I liked better: the one with the Nose Turret or the later version without the Nose Turret.
With the Halifax, I like the look of the Merlin engines on the earlier versions and the fact that they had a Nose Turret, but the later version is higher performance but some of them had a bulge in the belly of the aircraft which is a bit ugly.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Another interpretation of Conspicuous Absence.....

I was just looking over the various A6M Type Zero Fighters I had available on the game machine and came across this old airframe that was used to test fit pieces.
It reminds me of some of the old abandoned wrecks found on remote Pacific islands.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

i've just finished an article
in the september, 2017 issue of Aviation History
about the boeing-stearman model 75.
apparently, over 8,500 fully assembled were produced
with enough parts for over 10,000 total aircraft.
this was the ultimate trainer.
has anyone seen a quality cfs model?

btw, the article includes, what appear to be,
nice three X drawings and a spec sheet.
i don't know about the scale, though.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Smilo,
Check out Simviation. They have a very nicely built FS98 model by Chris Lampard, and it flies nicely too!
Scroll down the page a bit and you´ll find it.

http://simviation.com/fs98vintage16.htm

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Guys,

It seems like I have a different Stearman PT-17 installed on my game machine.
I was a bit curious when Aleatorylamp commented that it was a nicely built model and flew nicely, so I downloaded it from the link he posted.

Now imagine my surprise when I attempted to load it into the simulator and found that I had TWO Boeing-Stearman PT-17s.

Here is a screenshot of the one I have.
I did not have a chance to try it out tonight.

Please note that the version in my screenshot does not have a cowl ring though I believe they are both probably by the same author.

I believe one of these biplanes was in the air when the Pearl Harbor raiders arrived.
It was flown by a very experienced female flight instructor and managed to evade the attacking Zeros.
Unfortunately, she did not survive the war.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

being as the pt-17 was produced,
mainly, as a military trainer,
i prefer the military version
with the exposed pw radial
and bright paint scheme.

do you remember where you got yours?
or, would you please, send me a copy?

i've read that it was easy to fly,
but, also, could be a challenge
in certain circumstances.
it was a trainer, after all.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Cowled and uncowled PT-17 Stearmans

Wow! One Stearman was searched for and two were found!

As regards the airframe, the interesting thing about the military unit
is the exposed PW radial.

Without wanting to spoil the party, there´s one thing:
A closer look at the cowled model shows the build is a bit more advanced.
Wing curvature is smoother, wheels are rounder, there are strut wires, and the
tailplane is 3D. The uncowled model looks like a very nice but simpler FS5 build.

Initially I was going to suggest painting the cowled version with military textures,
but just before Captain Obvious came in wielding his club, I searched the web
for military cowled versions, but couldn´t find any. That kept the Captain at bay!

I also found an uncowled, military, FS2000 Stearman model... Although it loads
into CFS1, textures of course won´t show, and as there´s no Z-Buffer, it plays
havoc on the structure!

So, it´ll be hard to have a more advanced build of a military version with the
exposed pw radial unless we build one! Maybe we should?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Another idea

Hello Ivan, Hello Smilo,
I have discovered a new thing on the more advanced cowled version I found.
The nose on the real aircraft has a cowl that´s flush with the fuselage.

On the model, the cowled seems to be an added round part, fitted infront of the
original un-cowled fuselage. Of course, the physical shape doesn´t show the
individual cylinders as on the posted picture of the military PT-17.

The solution could be easy: To texture the plane with military colour scheme,
and to texture the round Cowl with the exposed cylinders of the uncowled version.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

well....you said,
you needed a change.
didn't you?
so, there you go,
a new af99 project.

why waste your time
correcting someone else's?
when you could have too much fun
building your own.
besides, today's build standards
are much higher than in the past.

so, go ahead, push the envelope.

 

[Ivan]

If you want to make the modification for an uncowled military PT-17 with the red model, you could of course just make the changes via SCASM.
I don't believe it would be that difficult to do.
That opens up the standard can of worms though: If you fix one thing via SCASM, why not fix other things such as the wacky windscreen frames?
How about some shape edits?

Hmmmm....

I test flew the Red version. The flight model isn't really that good.
The real PT-17 was basically a very agile "Cotton Ball" as can be seen in quite a few aerobatics videos online and also in the movie "Tora Tora Tora".
The one here can't roll fast enough to get out of its own way.
The acceleration on the ground also seems to be too rapid.
There may be a few more issues. I really did not do much testing.
I haven't tried to gather any data to see if anything else was odd.

- Ivan.