Default DC-3 issues

[Willy]

Never noticed it before, but the nav and beacon lights on the default DC-3 are way off. They're way behind it when flying. This is in both FS9 installs one of which is untampered with. Here's the lights section:

[LIGHTS]
//Types: 1=beacon, 2=strobe, 3=navigation, 4=cockpit, 5=landing
light.0 = 3, -27.20, -46.3, 0.65, fx_navredm ,
light.1 = 3, -27.20, 46.3, 0.65, fx_navgrem ,
light.2 = 3, -64.00, 0.00, 2.72, fx_navwhi ,
light.3 = 1, -36.80, 0.00, 6.25, fx_beaconh ,
light.4 = 4, -6.00, 0.00, 1.80, fx_vclight,
light.5 = 4, -33.00, 0.00, 4.20, fx_vclighth,

It looks to me like the first set of numbers on all the entries are way off

Anyone have a corrected set of lights?

The other issue is a very fragile tailwheel. No matter how easy I set it down, the darn thing breaks.

 

[Moparmike]

Mine have the same numbers and they're in the right spot on the model.
Are you sure you've still got the default aircraft.cfg?
I kinda remember there have been several updates for the DC-3 (including one that was approved for the RTW Race a few years back) that juggled the CoG and ref_datum position. I never really had an issue with the default Gooney bird so I never made any changes to mine.

Here are my datum and CoG entries from the weight n balance section. This is from my "clean" testing install. No mods at all.

[WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]
max_gross_weight = 26200                         // (pounds)
empty_weight     = 16145                         // (pounds)

reference_datum_position     =   19.25, 0, 0         // (feet) distance from FlightSim Reference position: (1/4 chord, centerline, waterline)
empty_weight_CG_position     =  -20.90, 0, 0         // (feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical distance from specified datum

The damage threshold for the stock tailwheel point is 1200fpm where the main gear is 1600fpm.
Tailwheel is contact point 0. Check the 4th entry.
Mains are 1 & 2

 

[Willy]

I was using Jay "Farmboy" McDaniels "Authentic Flight Model". A little while ago, I changed it over to the Mark Beaumont/DC-3 Airways one which had the same numbers and the lights were right where they were supposed to be. Beats me what the difference is as the lights numbers are the same in both. But that CoG and ref_datum position thing could also explain why the tailwheel got so weak. It got me good last night when landing at Interlaken, broke the Goon in two right in the middle of the runway while slowing down with all wheels on the ground when I landed there to check with Merc Air's Swiss banker. O'course, I came in over the mountain instead of the lake as I didn't want to turn around in that narrow valley.....

(Got an idea for a Gooney Bird event for this summer that I'm working on. Trying to get my DC-3 back in shape for it after a few years of neglect)

 

[Willy]

Here's the numbers for the McDaniel AFM version:

reference_datum_position = 0.000, 0.000, 0.000
empty_weight_CG_position = 0.000, 0.000, 0.000

And the Beaumont/DC-3 Airways version:

reference_datum_position = 19.25, 0, 0
empty_weight_CG_position = -20.90, 0, 0 //same as the default flight model

That's quite a bit of difference there when you consider they both use the default 3-d model.

 

[Moparmike]

That datum position difference is why the lights moved. Lights, payload stations, contact points, etc, all reference off of the datum point which must match the centerpoint of the visual model in the MDL file.
And yup, that's probably what made your tailwheel contact point weaker than original too.


I think there is a workaround to tweak the datum point vs the visual MDL center point but I have long ago forgotten what/where/how that's done. You'd have to ask Farmboy or one of the 1% guys about that.
I kinda remember that Farmboy used to use 0,0,0 for most all of his flight models...one of the CFS1/2 airfile theories (long before the aircraft.cfg was used for aero info) to get true aerodynamic performance if I remember right.

I think Farmboy's update included both a new aircraft.cfg and new airfile but I don't remember. I had that one installed a long time ago too.

I heard a rumor about the event. Will need to get in touch with ya on the server some night to get more details.

 

[Willy]

You're probably talking about the spring event in the works. I'm also laying ground work for one later on.

 

[Willy]

It flew great tonight with no issues other than some operator errors.