• Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning old domain name stealing credentials

  • Special Server Maintenance

    Just when you think you have everything running some what better...

    You get a message from the Hosting company. Short story they need to move us to a new server. I have been working with them to plan a good date for all concerned. Here is what we have come up with as a schedule.

    1. November 4th 17:00 -5UTC shut off the forums and start backup proceedures. During this time there will be no access to the forums or the Resource Section.
    2. November 5th Continue with Backups and download same until complete.
    3. November 6th 7:00 turn over server to hosting company to move system to new server
    4. November 7th - 8th restore backups and upgrade forum software.

    If all goes well we should be back online on November 8th.

    To keep you updated we will post updates on AVSIM forums.

    Thank you for your support.

Conspicuous by Their Absence

Practice with the Stirling

I spent a bit more time over the last couple days (between other projects) editing the flight model of the Stirling.
Very early on, I found that substituting the Propeller Power Coefficient Table (Record 512) from the Spitfire Mk.I made a great improvement in general flight performance. The last Table was from the Hurricane Mk.I and while it let the engine achieve full RPM very fast unlike the original one which was probably from the P-51D, its power coefficient numbers were probably a bit too low.

The attached screenshot shows that with proper technique, it is possible to Take-Off even from the little Island Airstrip with full fuel AND a reasonable bomb load.

In this picture, the Zero Fuel Weight of the Stirling is 49,900 pounds so....

49,900 pounds - Aircraft
962.5 pounds - MG Ammunition - 14,000 rounds of .303
16,224 pounds - 2704 US Gallons in fixed Fuel Tanks
4000 pounds - 8 x 8000 ounce (500 pound) Bombs
---------------
71,086.5 pounds Take-Off Weight.

Two notches of Flaps,
Engines need to be held against the Brakes until they reach their maximum RPM (about 2350 RPM with no forward speed).
Acceleration once airborne is VERY slow and there is pretty much no margin for errors.

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • Airborne.jpg
    Airborne.jpg
    42 KB · Views: 13
First Successful Landing

After a bit more tweaking, I was finally able to land the Stirling successfully.
Conditions were: Full MG ammunition, no Bomb Load, 30% Fuel.
Surprisingly, there isn't a great tendency to nose over braking is very effective.
That combination has me a little concerned that some of the Landing Gear parameters may not be correct.

One other problem that needs to be corrected is the Cockpit Viewpoint.
While it is correct technically, its interaction with the MDL file is such that there is no view to the sides or rear and that makes orientation very difficult. If I build a replacement visual model, this situation should change.

There also seems to be a slight problem with No. 4 Engine.
In a flight that starts airborne, it is the only one that does not start automatically.

So far, there has been no checks for straight line performance at all.
My plan is to do that after doing some edits to the propeller tables.
Propeller Tables for Bombers tend to be MUCH easier to deal with than those for fighters.

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • FirstLanding.jpg
    FirstLanding.jpg
    44.2 KB · Views: 13
The Short Stirling definitely fits into the "Conspicuous by Their Absence" category.
I don't believe I have ever seen one for CFS other than the one I have been experimenting on.
Building the AIR file has definitely taught me a few new things about how things work and how things fit together.

I thought it was an unusual enough package that I uploaded it so that others can also try it out.
Stay Healthy, People!

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • Stirling1.jpg
    Stirling1.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 13
This is an odd beast I came across a few weeks back.

The general appearance is quite attractive but there seem to be quite a few issues with the aircraft as a whole.
The DP appears to be fairly good, but flight performance is very strange.
I have seen this model used elsewhere but the author's notes on editing and reusing pieces of his project are very restrictive.

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • KWZeke1.jpg
    KWZeke1.jpg
    50 KB · Views: 2
  • KWZeke2.jpg
    KWZeke2.jpg
    36.2 KB · Views: 1
  • KWZeke3.jpg
    KWZeke3.jpg
    82.6 KB · Views: 1
Back
Top