Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
A little "Recce" flying in the desert. : )
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
"F" for Foto
- Thread starter Bomber_12th
- Start date
Ian Warren
Charter Member
Was it not American Airlines who polished the skin so much and so often the skin had to be replaced many more times than the other airlines .. guess a P-51 is a lot cheaper to do 
Brilliant screens 
Brilliant screens
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
Thanks guys! It's a fun aircraft to fly, and is my idea of a perfect "civi" Mustang - modern coms, transponder, and VOR gauge w/ nav radio within an otherwise packed-solid, stock, Mustang.
Yes, the turtle wax and buffers are never kept too far away from this one. : )
(Note the checkers over the top of the nose are correct - I've been asked about that before. ; ))
Yes, the turtle wax and buffers are never kept too far away from this one. : )
(Note the checkers over the top of the nose are correct - I've been asked about that before. ; ))
Was it not American Airlines who polished the skin so much and so often the skin had to be replaced many more times than the other airlines .. guess a P-51 is a lot cheaper to do
American actually uses a different metal composition in the surface skin specifically designed for shine and polishing... supposed to save paint weight and be more environmentally friendly with less paint removal / repainting over the life of the aircraft.
Back on topic - awesome photos! er screen shots! Minor re-paint errata - one of those side views has the USAAF symbol overlaying the camera port (edit - the other screens have it correct - must be an earlier capture before repaint was finished)
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
Hi Mal,
First of all, I'm glad you like the screenshots! The graphics card I have, installed back in the spring of 2011, is the Nvidia N560GTX-Ti "Twin Frozr II" by MSI, and I have been extremely impressed with it. When I first had it installed, I had a 5-year old dual core processor, and it wasn't able to keep up and started over-heating and crashing. Once I got a new processor (just an Intel i5-2500 3.30GHz quad core), everything settled in just exceptionally well. I have my card settings setup for FSX with the special "AA_MODE_MEHTOD_SUPERVCAA_64X_4v12" setting under antialiasing, which results in a super crisp image but maintains butter-smooth performance. Usually this will maintain at least 30-fps no matter where I fly in FSX (except for downtown ORBX Seattle with full autogen turned up (medium to medium-high settings, it is no problem), or some of the latest Earth Simulations scenery products if full autogen is on (but again, medium to medium-high settings it is just fine). Perhaps I was most excited by the fact that I could also now have self shadows, light bloom, and max water detail with little to no performance impact. It all started with the goal of upgrading my existing computer at the time, with the "biggest bang for the buck", so it all being quite affordable was also a huge bonus.
Otherwise, other elements have just come together over time and experience. For instance, the sky textures are one of the key elements, in my mind, in either making or breaking the illusion of reality. I have been a long-time user of REX, and having experimented time and time again with different options, about two years ago I used the "Exact" version for the daytime sky textures, and I haven't used anything else, in that slot, ever since (based on the name alone, it makes sense). : ) From a lot of experience I've also come to know how to setup the weather for the different looks that I want for the clouds in the sky. And then it comes down to properly staging the camera distance from the aircraft (adjustable through Ctrl+Shift+ either the - or + keys). FSX does a really good job, I feel, of allowing you to recreate the same effects of taking a "photo" right next to the aircraft, or far away from the aircraft, when the telephoto lens type of effect starts to take place (always easiest to see when the wing tip farther away from the camera looks bigger than the wing tip closer to the camera) and the angle of the aircraft to the light source. I’m one of those people that can stare at air-to-air photos of warbirds for hours on end, and I have (through books and countless magazine publications), so also a big part of it is always wanting to recreate those same images (in sky, angle, distance, color, and other elements) stored in my head, using FSX.
Regarding the P-39 project, the exterior is getting finished and I hope to finally get into the VC soon. In addition to "Lil' Margaret", and others, I have been able to get the opportunity to spend some time lately revisiting these old guys as well:
First of all, I'm glad you like the screenshots! The graphics card I have, installed back in the spring of 2011, is the Nvidia N560GTX-Ti "Twin Frozr II" by MSI, and I have been extremely impressed with it. When I first had it installed, I had a 5-year old dual core processor, and it wasn't able to keep up and started over-heating and crashing. Once I got a new processor (just an Intel i5-2500 3.30GHz quad core), everything settled in just exceptionally well. I have my card settings setup for FSX with the special "AA_MODE_MEHTOD_SUPERVCAA_64X_4v12" setting under antialiasing, which results in a super crisp image but maintains butter-smooth performance. Usually this will maintain at least 30-fps no matter where I fly in FSX (except for downtown ORBX Seattle with full autogen turned up (medium to medium-high settings, it is no problem), or some of the latest Earth Simulations scenery products if full autogen is on (but again, medium to medium-high settings it is just fine). Perhaps I was most excited by the fact that I could also now have self shadows, light bloom, and max water detail with little to no performance impact. It all started with the goal of upgrading my existing computer at the time, with the "biggest bang for the buck", so it all being quite affordable was also a huge bonus.
Otherwise, other elements have just come together over time and experience. For instance, the sky textures are one of the key elements, in my mind, in either making or breaking the illusion of reality. I have been a long-time user of REX, and having experimented time and time again with different options, about two years ago I used the "Exact" version for the daytime sky textures, and I haven't used anything else, in that slot, ever since (based on the name alone, it makes sense). : ) From a lot of experience I've also come to know how to setup the weather for the different looks that I want for the clouds in the sky. And then it comes down to properly staging the camera distance from the aircraft (adjustable through Ctrl+Shift+ either the - or + keys). FSX does a really good job, I feel, of allowing you to recreate the same effects of taking a "photo" right next to the aircraft, or far away from the aircraft, when the telephoto lens type of effect starts to take place (always easiest to see when the wing tip farther away from the camera looks bigger than the wing tip closer to the camera) and the angle of the aircraft to the light source. I’m one of those people that can stare at air-to-air photos of warbirds for hours on end, and I have (through books and countless magazine publications), so also a big part of it is always wanting to recreate those same images (in sky, angle, distance, color, and other elements) stored in my head, using FSX.
Regarding the P-39 project, the exterior is getting finished and I hope to finally get into the VC soon. In addition to "Lil' Margaret", and others, I have been able to get the opportunity to spend some time lately revisiting these old guys as well:
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
Thank you Barfly! I would like to know which screen you might be referring to, as they were all taken with the same work (within the same hour). It might just be a faulty illusion in one of the screens (based on the glass reflection). For those that might not see it, the camera ports are actually modeled (per the real thing) and are not just there through textures.
As configured within "Lil' Margaret", a K-24 camera is installed in the bottom left-facing camera port. At any one given time, only one camera can be installed in the aircraft as there is not enough room for the K-24 and one of the larger types to be installed at the same time, and it would also off-set the center of gravity too far. Per operations, either the K-24 could be fitted, or the larger K-17 or K-22. Either of the larger cameras could be mounted facing out of the top left-facing port. While not featured in the restoration, most original F-6D's were fitted also with a downward facing camera port, in which any of the three camera choices could be mounted. Providing room for the cameras, the control-surface lines had to be routed differently, and some of them can be seen through the upper left-facing camera port. The red placard underneath the fuel cap, as well as being mounted to the camera access door on the starboard side of the aircraft, provided information on how much fuel could be put into the fuselage fuel tank based on which cameras were installed. Even with no cameras installed, the mounting brackets created enough weight, that only a limited supply of fuel could be put into the fuselage fuel tank for safe operation, otherwise the center of gravity could be shifted too far aft.
Here are some related photos that I may have or may have not shown before, related to the F-6D, and all accurately included in this depcition.
Note that through the upper camera port you can see some of the re-routed control cables, as well as the K-24 camera in the bottom port. Also note that there isn't any glass that is flush with the exterior of the aircraft on the smaller camera port, but rather it is inset - and that is the same way it was recreated for the sim.
Here is the hatch on the starboard side of the aircraft, to allow access to the cameras. A red placard was provided here and also below the fuel cap, to provide serious instructions on the fuel loading of the aircraft. As can be seen, these placards are only for the F-6D/K variants, and unfortunately they have shown up in some decals for regular P-51D's in the past.
This is the intervolometer that would control the image taking from the cockpit (in addition to the master camera control panel also installed in front of the engine controls).
And this is one of two original diagrams, with all of the measurements, for applying the camera alignment markings on the port wing and the side of the canopy (the other diagram just shows the port wing alone, and how to precisely layout those markings).
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
Rick, as would be expected, those long-range external tanks were actually designed by North American, and the original factory drawings for them I have found right amongst the rolls of blueprint drawings for the aircraft themselves. I suspect they were used when flying the aircraft from the Inglewood factory on the west coast to New Jersey on the east coast (where they were then shipped by boat to England).
And that is correct - there is some work having been done to update the B/C's a bit. New prop blades, exhaust, wheels and tires, drop tanks and drop tank hardpoints, pilot, collimated gun sight reticule, and new materials.
And that is correct - there is some work having been done to update the B/C's a bit. New prop blades, exhaust, wheels and tires, drop tanks and drop tank hardpoints, pilot, collimated gun sight reticule, and new materials.
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2025
Regarding the A-36A/P-51A/Mustang I project, the fuselage is just about done (having been built up in sections from the NAA blueprints), and I'll be working on the canopy framing and tail surfaces next. The destinctive Allison engine nose and carb intake have already taken form as well as part of the fuselage - the NAA drawings are wonderful for this (and other items like the radiator scoop), as they provide many cross sections so as to be able to form all of the contours correctly throughout.
