Conspicuous by Their Absence

[aleatorylamp]

Dottie Mae

Hello Ivan,
A couple of weeks ago I managed to rig up a very stable-working Win98
Pentium-III and have just put in your P47D-27, although I couldn´t fly it
because of the .air file, but that´s a minor issue.

I´m sorry to hear that you think your model is not as good as I do, and
I respect that, although I don´t agree at all!

I feel it looks absolutely fantastic - a clean, detailed build, totally up to full
Ivan-type building standards! I couldn´t get a screen shot because I still
have to install a programme that can do it.
Here´s a screenshot - the model looks really great!

The only thing of course, is that in FS98 the aft cockpit glass shimmers when
viewed from above the horizontal.

I ran the model file through SCASM, but of course I couldn´t identify the
canopy component because I haven´t got the AF99 AFX for it.

A pity! Generating the AF99 canopy component on its and giving it Alpha
Transparency 179 would of course give me the SCASM code I need to
identify the corresponding routine in the SCASM listing of the model to
substitute it for the correction.

In case you change your mind, please, do let me know, because Udo would
then be able to make the corresponding new metallic Dottie Mae Textures
to celebrate the restoration of the unit recovered from the Austrian lake
last year.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Your screenshot looks pretty good.
I believe you were misunderstanding me.
I do believe that my Thunderbolts are some of the nicest and cleanest looking ones out there for CFS.
I just didn't think that they looked good in FS 98 but your screenshot shows that there isn't much difference between FS98 and CFS.
Perhaps the settings on my computer are not correct for getting the best display possible.

The landing gear would not stop "dancing" when I tried out the D-27 out at National Airport.
I also don't know how to change the views around or even get a screenshot.
A couple years ago, I purchased a copy of FS 98 with all the manuals for $2 at a model show and perhaps I should read the manual.
I actually have about 4 copies of FS 98. Some are still new in the package but the newer copies came with just a CD and no printed manual.

I still have no intention of sending the AFX, but you actually don't need it for identifying pieces in SCASM.
This still isn't the correct model for "Dottie Mae" though. It still needs a Hamilton Standard "Paddle Blade" propeller.
The diameter isn't hard to find. I need to find the blade chord to adjust the model.
The version I have now is actually quite a bit better than what was released years ago. The most obvious change is in the Canopy Frame.
As I have commented elsewhere, the biggest problem is that the model was done by eyeball and some profile drawings rather than dimensional drawings and station diagrams.

I know from the last experiment with FS 98 that a "Smooth" Canopy doesn't get rid of the weird opaque business with the glass at some angles.
I take it you believe that the "Speed Below 179 Knots" Tag for Alpha Transparency in Aircraft Animator is a solution?
I can test that out in a matter of a few minutes.

I also know that BMP textures do not work for FS 98. The mapping ends up very strange.

If the changes are very simple, I can make them and send you the resulting model.
I don't guarantee a response time because I actually have several projects going at the moment, but this one looks to be very quick.

As for re texturing this model, it is actually very easy to do with a program that I wrote to do the Ki 61 paint scheme.
If I have a set of good profile and other orthogonal image, it should be pretty easy to cut them up to overlay on the model.
It was what let me match up camouflage patterns across the different pieces of the aeroplane without a lot of pain.
I did a quick search, but all I have found thus far are profiles for just one side and both sides are needed to get the lighting and colours consistent.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your comments!
I was just on my re-furbished Win-98 Pentium III at 800 Mhz with its
128 Mb acellerator card, which I thought was so stable.

No sooner I´d said it was stable, than the graphics card gave up the ghost!
Now I have to fix up another card before I can continue.
Never a dull moment - there had to be a kicker!

I had just been working on the unarmed Ju52/3m version with the cockpit windows
that were shimmering opaque in FS98. They were designated as Alpha Transparency 179,
but defined as regular instead of smooth AF99 components.

Being SCASMed models, I took the SCASM code of the cockpit windows of the other
Ju52/3m that worked correctly in FS98 (I noticed that there certainly were differences
in the SCASM text), and overwrote the old code that was giving problems, and the
windows display correctly now.

Anyway, I can confirm that with a cockpit-window component designated both
as Smooth AND with Aircraft Animator´s Alpha Transparency 179,
FS98 displays a correct and very soft light grey transparency.

Well, with this in mind, it looks like it probably won´t be too much trouble for you to
make the Bubbletop Thunderbolt´s canopy compatible with FS98.

There´s no hurry, and I appreciate your efforts - thanks in advance!

Udo wouldn´t be worried about the propeller, so you can skip that if you want.
It will be interesting to get his new textures! There is foreseeably no problem with the actual texture format either - He always uses standard 256 colour, 256x256 pixel .Xaf textures.

P.S.
I just put in another graphics card into my PIII Win98 computer, and found the drivers - it works again!
Just for you to rest assured that it looks fine in FS98, here´s another picture of your Thunderbolt!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Glad you got your computer working again.
I haven't actually bought a Desktop computer in over 10 years.
I had a lot of spares until the water leak in the basement.
There is still no shortage of actual CPUs that are reasonable for CFS, but the problem is in finding a matching 3D Graphics Card.
I had a couple spare PCI cards but no idea where Anna Honey packed them or if she just simply threw them out.
We also just bought a laptop computer for my Son last week for about $1450, and my Daughter got an even more expensive laptop late last summer, so we are not going to be spending much on computers any time soon.

What I really need to find is a few inexpensive older PCI (not express) graphics cards and set up a little test area.
PCI express cards are easy to find. Plain PCI cards are not.

By the way, In case you haven't quite figured out how I work:
I am actually not terribly concerned with what would satisfy Udo.
I don't know him and don't believe I have ever even run into him online anywhere.
What I do has to satisfy me or I won't do it.
If you look at my various stalled projects, they are all stuck because of limitations of what I can build or accomplish.
The Ki 61 waited many years for a decent paint job and I know there are folks out there who can do a lot better than what I can do even now.
There are a bunch of projects that are waiting for panels and gauges because my shop isn't quite up to speed on those yet.

My goal is really to learn how to do things rather than push out new releases.
(So the quickest way to get me to finish something is to teach me how to do it!)

Regarding Thunderbolt Propellers:
There were 4 different types that were used.
1. Curtiss Electric 12 foot (This was the first propeller and typically called the "Toothpick")
2. Hamilton Standard 13 foot "Paddle Blade"
3. Curtiss Electric 13 foot "Paddle Blade"
4. Curtiss Electric 13 foot Asymmetric Blade

I have a little trouble telling the difference in photographs between the Curtiss 12 foot and Curtiss 13 foot Paddle Blade propellers unless they are next to each other.
My Thunderbolts both carry the Curtiss 13 foot Asymmetric Blade propellers.

Note that any of these propellers would fit on any model of Thunderbolt and many newer propellers replaced the older Curtiss 12 foot propeller to improve performance.
Dottie Mae was a P-47D-28-RA. It currently wears a Hamilton Standard propeller but that is not really proof because just about all flyable P-47 regardless of model typically use the Hamilton Standard propellers.

From doing just a little bit of reading, it appears that aircraft originally equipped with H-S propellers were -RE (Republic Farmingdale) while most -RA (Republic Evansville) were equipped with C-E propellers. That would suggest that the original propeller on Dottie Mae was a Curtiss-Electric but not the 12 foot of course! These late model Thunderbolts had a lot more power than the 12 foot propeller could handle.

The question would then be whether it was the "Paddle Blade" or the "Asymmetric Blade" propeller that was originally installed.
For that, I will use research by some other folks. Please see the linked images.

First image is a painting, but from the lower propeller blade, it appears from the trailing edge that it is an Asymmetric type.
It is a little hard to tell though.

The second image shows the four types of blade side by side for comparison. Yes, they are plastic models, but it really isn't easy getting photographs of the real thing all at the same angle and same scale. Besides, these guys are typically much more nit-picky than I am.

The third image shows the colour scheme of Dottie Mae. Note that the propeller shown here is clearly the Asymmetric type.
It also gives a little more information as to what happened to her.


Additional Data from Joe Baugher's site:
1942-29150 (MSN 2812) 511th FS [K4-S], 405th FG, 9th AF; "Dottie Mae" - artwork of a young lady wearing a
Santa Claus outfit; Ditched in the Traunsee, Salzkammergut, Austria May 8, 1945 and sank. Pilot injured but saved.
Aircraft recovered by Sandy Air Corp, June 13, 2005. Brian Kenney/Trojan Aircraft Services, Chino, CA, 2005,
shipped to California July 2005. Registration N328FA reserved May 7, 2008; not registered; cancelled
June 24, 2011. Jack Croul/Air Corps Pursuit LLC, Newport Beach, CA, 2008. Restoration to airworthy
condition at Rialto, CA, 2008. Restoration project moved to Caldwell, ID, 2009. Allied Fighters,
Sun Valley, ID. Registered as N47DM to Vintage Fighters June 27, 2012; current [Jun17].
Test flights at Caldwell June 23, 2017.

Bottom line is that it appears that no modification is needed for a reasonable representation of P-47D-28-RA "Dottie Mae" to the extent that I can build.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
That´s a detailed research line! Interesting the number of differently shaped propellers. And... that Dottie Mae girl sure was a good looker! Dancing and singing is very important for the moral.

Thank you for your time and pacience explaining things! So, if I understand correctly, the existing propeller will not pose an obstacle for a correct model of the Dottie Mae model using your P47D-27 as a basis.

Udo is a friend and we have been working on FS planes for about 11 years now - we have also met twice when he has been on holiday here on the islands on two occasions. I know he likes WW2 aircraft as much as you and me do, and I have sent him FS98 compatible versions of my latest models.

At the moment I´m working on the texture bitmaps of default FSFS-Conv Engine 1 to 4 RPM and Boost/Fuel Flow gauges for FS98, as these were the only gauges missing to complete the engine-gauge set with the re-worked dials. Upto now, we were completely limited to the FSFS-Conv gauge set for FS98.

Like we managed in CFS1, the old-looking gauge frames and dials with metric conversion, give the FS98 panel a much better look.

By the way, I have a couple of old PCI Graphics cards here. They are not the fantastic 64 Mb or 32 Mb accellerator cards, more like 4 Mb or maybe even 8 Mb 2D-3D cards of the time. If you like I can post them to you. Do let me know if you are interested!

I dug up a couple of AGP accellerator cards. I think there´s a 32 Mb, a 128 Mb and a 256 Mb one. The one that blew was another 256 Mb one, and I´m just testing a 4 Mb one because of the power supply which is a bit small. Anyway... hardware tinkering is part of the fun too, I suppose!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Dottie Mae was the pilot's wife, but not the pilot who crashed the aeroplane.
I doubt she really looked like that. Most certainly she was not around to pose in a Santa Claus outfit.
Check out the last image I posted to get more details about why I believe this.
I don't actually have all that much faith in paintings for the most part.
This was basically a Alberto Vargas style painting probably with a lot of artistic license.

No need to send the PCI cards you have. I don't believe they would work because I have what I believe is a 8 MB card in the Game machine and it can't handle some of the models that work fine on the 16 MB card. I did have a AGP machine with a fairly hot graphics card for the time. I just need to figure out here it went.

The laptop computer that we bought for my Son actually would work pretty well if it were not a Windows 10 machine.
Problem is that a lot of the older tools won't work with the newer Operating Systems even if CFS does.
It has Nvidia 4GB 1060 and a fairly hot processor for a laptop. Only a 15.6 inch screen though so it is a bit smaller than I would like....

I actually have no idea what you are referring to with the FS 98 gauges.
I know that programming FS 98 Manifold Pressure gauges was easy. I never did have any luck with the FS Tachometer though. I never tried to do a Fuel Pressure gauge.
I believe I am pretty competent in C Programming but with Gauges, I am basically a "Cookbook Programmer".
I can follow recipes and maybe make a few small changes but that is about it. Sometimes the results are pretty cool though.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I see... Well, at least Dottie Mae then boosted the pilot´s morale!
Anyway, the plan behind all this is the new textures Udo can make - if in FS98 the model can display the canopy correctly, then we be able to have them! As it´s such a cool looking plane, it will most probably be worth while.

What I´m doing with FS98 gauges at the moment, is completing the multi-engine set for FS98, with old-fashioned frames and dials, for use with the unarmed versions of the Ju52/3m in FS98. Udo often does textures for me, so I help out with what I can to compensate.

Remember the CFS1 Engine 1 to 4 RPM and Boost gauges you programmed with the bitmaps of the default CFS1 Messerschmidt gauge bitmaps? I had then proceeded to adapt matching dials and frames for some of the other existing gauges that come with Flight Shop FS98 Converter: EGT/CHT, Oil Temperature and pressure, and fuel gauges.

The RPM and Boost gauges were still missing, and I´m adapting the bitmaps now to have a complete matching engine instrument set, and it´s coming along OK.

OK then! ...and good luck with your graphics hardware for the development machine!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Well, so it looks like the propeller needn´t be updated, and with the
Aircraft Animator Alpha Transparency 179 option, from what you
said, it will be quite easy to make the canopy of your P47D-27
compatible with FS98.

So, I was wondering if I could count on you to send me the new
model in the near future, so that Udo can start on the metallic
Dottie Mae textures, which he would naturally be glad to share
with the SOH community!

Thanks very much in advance!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I will get to the Thunderbolt but I cannot promise a time for response.
I currently have one project ahead of it which I do not want to pause at the moment for various reasons.
Anna Honey is out of town for a week, so I am also doing the single parent thing again and this is also the end of the third quarter of the school year and any requests for assistance from my Son come first as well.
Thus, I may spend a fair amount of time on my laptop on a browser but haven't fired up the Development machine since before Anna Honey's trip.

From what I can tell, the updated model for the D-28 will need just about all the changes minus the texture renaming and the reference point shift. With a good working computer, it should take a couple hours. With my current computer, it took me around two days each for the Ki 61 and Wildcats. (Graphics problems, programs that sometimes don't run, lock ups, reboots and chkdsk after a hard shutdown make the difference.)
You do have my permission, if you need it, to SCASM and edit the D-27 model for FS 98.
Please leave the copyright notice in place if you edit.

Even if you do not edit the MDL for FS 98, the mapping of the textures will not change when I update the model,
so even with the current MDL, there should be no limitations on re-texturing even if it is an issue for a release.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your coming help! I hope your development computer problem will be solved soon.

As regards the P47D-27 textures, they seem to be standard straight forward format, and I realize that the texture spread won´t be affected, so that will be nothing to worry about to convert them for the D-28 Dottie Mae.

Regarding the SCASM listing, I´m afraid I haven´t been able to discover the code corresponding to the aft canopy parts in question, so I´d prefer to wait until you send me the model with the compatibilized canopy.

Actually, I´ve just had an idea! Maybe it would be easier for you just to pin-point which SCASM subroutine refers to the aft-canopy, and I could try and make the necessary corrections myself.

On the other hand, it probably wouldn´t! It would entail having to compile a separate individual transparent aft canopy with AF99 twice and pass it through SCASM: Once without Alpha Transparency 179, to identify the SCASM code, and once with it, to make the necessary corrections, so in reality it would not be much of a difference for you...

Update:
P.S. I tried inspecting the model file with a program called MDLVUE.EXE which can identify polygons and gives their addresses, to identify them with a hex editor, but it´s a bit difficult to see what I can actually do with that.
Anyway, I can tell Udo to go ahead and start with the new textures, as that will take quite some time, and later the textures can be fit into the P47D-28 when that´s ready.

Thanks very much again!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Quick Edit

Hello Aleatorylamp,

While my Son was eating dinner, I decided to see how difficult it was to edit the P47D27 using SCASM.
It turned out to be pretty trivial even without AF99.
It took about 15 minutes to identify the code and make changes and test.
It actually took a bit longer to package everything up in a ZIP file which is now an attachment in a thread called
"Thunderbolt".
Except for going online to use a calculator, this was all done on my game machine which is light in the way of tools.
(My Game Machine isn't networked.)
At some point I should install a Hex Editor on it but it wasn't necessary to accomplish this task.

Time to go clean up after dinner.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
That´s very nice and forthcoming of you. Thank you very much indeed.
I´ll have a look and do the download.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Folks,
I was wondering if an Il2 Shturmovik, a Petlyakov Pe-2 or an
Australian CAC-12 Boomerang would be of any interest for CFS1.
Any opinions?
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

P.S. Being quite a fan of twins, I tend towards the the Petlyakov PE-2FT light bomber/heavy fighter. It seemed to be quite a performer. Vmax is given as 360 mph, with its two impressive 1210 hp (2700 RPM) Klimov V12 engines, developments of the Hispano Suiza V12, with refinements including a 2-speed supercharger. Critical altitude: 13000 ft. Emergency boost(max. 2 minutes): 43.30 MP at 2,800 RPM.
It would sound fun programming the performance into the .air file...

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I had not responded because I personally don't have any great interest in any of the aeroplanes you listed. Perhaps others do.
I know there is a very mediocre Commonwealth Boomerang out there and a reasonably fair IL 10 Sturmovik that might substitute for a IL 2. I believe there is also a Petlyakov Pe 2 out there as well though I can't find it at the moment.

I do find it rather surprising that there has never been a very good Yakovlev single engine fighter of any model available for CFS.
A couple Yak fighters are on my build list but they are not anywhere near the highest priority and with my speed of building, they may never even get started.

I figured that for this poll, you really needed opinions other than mine because if I wanted something bad enough, I would just build it myself. My choice of ideal subjects and things I would want to see are quite a bit different from yours.

Last night I ended up working pretty late on edits to the P-47D-25 Thunderbolt and decided to do a little looking around at other projects afterward. Recently I have been involved in several discussions about the P-39 Airacobra and decided to see what I had.

The AFX I have is from Eric Johnson and is very old.
The shapes don't look too bad in the simulator but it was built to a way different standard than we are using today.
The total Parts count is only 460 while current projects seldom run fewer than 1150 Parts unless someone got lazy.
Working with someone else's AFX always SEEMS like an easy approach, but has never really worked well in my experience.
Looking at other AFXs are great ways to learn different build methods though.

The Airacobra has been on the build list for a long time but always gets put off for something more interesting.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Not to worry! I realize out tastes are different, but thanks for your comments anyway.

I find the design of the IL-2 Shturmovik and the Petlyakov PE-2 quite appealing, and
their performance quite worthy, so they are next on my building list.

I remember Christoph Ruhtenberg some years ago re-worked the flight dynamics for
a series of quite well made FS98 Bell Airacobra models. There are a number of them
about on the net, of about 640 Kb, as well as some older ones of about 71 Kb, but
none with AFX. Anyway, I was never very interested in it, although the Russians
did put a number into good use!

Regarding your comment on improving existing AFX, I quite agree with you!
Of course it is always interesting to see how others approach a building project,
but it can be very irritating or even a nightmare. Often whole sections from other
planes are used and are just "pushed" into position, where they continually exasperate
you because they never stay put, and end up flying around all over the place all the time!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I believe I have most of the Airacobra versions that you mentioned.
There may be more features, animations, refinement on some details and such but if you look closely, they are probably based on Eric Johnson's AFX.

Are these the versions you are describing? Look at the descriptions and you will see what I mean.
http://simviation.com/cfs1aircraft41.htm

As is mentioned in one description, the original AFX was from FS5 and was probably pretty good for that era.
There is one other Airacobra out there that appears to be from a different AFX and has a clear Canopy, but it has more shape problems.
The descriptions on the Simviation page are not very accurate from a historical perspective.

If I were to build this aeroplane, it would most likely come in two versions. The first would be the P-39D and the second would be a Thompson Trophy Racer. If I got really ambitious, a P-39Q might also get built.
This is yet another one of those that I do not believe was a particularly good fighter but it would be nice to own one and the build does not look that complicated except perhaps for the flight model.

Regarding the IL 2 Sturmovik:
My belief from what I have read over the years is that it really wasn't very "worthy" from a flight performance perspective but was quite effective in its role as for ground attack. Even the slowest, most clumsy aeroplane is going to catch the most agile ground vehicle. It carried a lot of armour and was very resistant to ground fire which is what really saved it.
I actually picked up a pre-built 1:72 model of this aeroplane when the local Hobby Works store closed earlier this year.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Yes the Airacobra on this page is one of them.
The model is quite good, especially for the time it was built, as you said.

I also saw the IL-2 Shturmovik on that page - I had been looking, but
hadn´t seen it before. The model is also quite good, and, as always happens
when I see an existing model that´s quite good, I completely loose interest
in buiding another one.

I have read the historical details, and I would agree with you, but it certainly
played an important role in stopping the enemy. With 15% of its flying weight
in armour plating (it was called the flying tank!) I suppose that would account
for it not being so agile in a dogfight, and also not easy to shoot down.
The rear gunner was apparently very important.

Anyway, the Il-2 is not conspicuous for its absence after all...

P.S. ...and I´ve finally also found an existing PE-2 model along the same lines as
other two mentioned in this post, so that´s another one that´s not conspicuous
by its absence either. I´ll have to decide if I have enough gumption to undertake
a new build. The three models are quite cleanly built, without bleeds, and their only
shortcoming would be the opaque cockpit. Well, we´ll see...

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I picked what I believe was the best P-39 - The USAAC 1941 version.
As usual, not everyone has the same priorities in design features.
I prefer to have a model that looks as close to the actual aeroplane as I can get within the limits of the design tools.
I will put shape and lack of bleeds before animated parts and priority for representation are for pieces that would indicate some kind of status before just plain eye candy.
This model has quite different priorities, but the assembly techniques used are actually pretty good.

Although this is a "CFS" aircraft, the flight model is for FS98 which of course means that there is no supercharger and other CFS-only features.
The Checklist also has numerous issues that differ from how the aeroplane would actually be flown.

Attached is a screenshot to show the similarity to the original Eric Johnson model and to show a couple other rather silly errors.
Please note that the Flaps are lowered. This model has plain Flaps while the actual Airacobra had Split Flaps.
The Flaps were the reason I had deleted this from my computer earlier.

Note that there is only one national insignia on the wings but it is on the wrong side (as it was on the original).
If there is only one insignia, it would be on the upper LEFT wing.

Regarding the IL 2 on the same page:
If you are really interested in building THE Sturmovik, don't let this model's existence stop you.
Do you believe you can do better?

Why are you letting the existence of THIS model influence your decision to build or not to build????
How much research have you already done on the IL 2 before starting your project?
What do you consider the definitive version of this aeroplane?
(Why did I just ask you all these questions; What am I hinting at?)

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The existing FS98 and/or CFS1 models of the IL-2 and PE-2 are
shaped quite well as far as fuselage and wings are concerned, but
could do with some improvements:

3D tail surfaces, properly shaped transparent cockpits, 12-sided
wheels and spinners, wheeldoors, and a more convenient CFS1 .air file.

Thus, perhaps there ARE enough reasons to undertake the two projects.

The CFS1 IL-2 is one of the very easrly, less powerful single-seaters,
and would not be so representative of the model in my opinion - it would
be the one with the rear gunner.

The Airacobra model, incidentally, apart from the flaps issue, is actually
a better model, having 3D tail surfaces.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I guess you figured out the point I was getting at.
That rather fair model is a IL2. I also believe the definitive version was the two seat IL2/3M so it made no sense when you were discussing rear gunners with the single seat IL2. These aeroplanes were terribly underpowered and had no hope of dogfighting anything.

As for the Petlyakov Pe-2, I believe there is room for improvement. Look at your screenshot as compared to the attached image.
The canopy on the simulator version is oversized but perhaps some of it can be corrected by texturing.

I don't think we agree on the aesthetics of flight simulator models.
While the tail surfaces of the Airacobra are "3D", they have diamond shaped cross sections and are not much better than a 2D piece.
I prefer pieces that are more airfoil shaped.

The nose also isn't quite right in my opinion but I will need to line up the model against a good drawing to confirm what I believe.
It looks to me like the thrust line is too low.
I have actually looked at a LOT of drawings and photographs of the Airacobra over the last few months and while I am not a "P-29 Expert", there are a lot of details I can pull from memory now.... And a few that I am still trying to figure out.
Note that the Fuselage of the simulator Airacobra sits pretty level and the nose slopes down from the cockpit.
The real Airacobra tends to sit at a very nose-high attitude which seems to vary with the load condition and the highest point is about half to two thirds of the distance forward from cockpit to propeller.

One thing I found really amusing last night when taking a P-39 out for a short flight was that the 37 mm cannon on this version carries 500 rounds of ammunition. The actual aeroplane only carried about 30 rounds if I remember correctly.....

It seems to me that the Airacobra might be worthy of a Design Study at some point.

- Ivan.