Focke Wulf Fw200-A Condor

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I saw your post this morning but we have been out all day shopping with extended family.

Aleatorylamp said:
Something just occurred to me to do with a Hex-Editor:
As AirEd gives the Possibility to Hex-Edit each line in a record, including the Index number
line, it could perhaps be possible, if one knows the necessary Hex values, to change the
index numbers of the two first tank records 525 and 526, to read 527 and 528, also
changing name of the two records from Main to Aux, then save the .air file, and after that
copy over the normal Tank records 525 and 526 from another .air file with AirEd using the
Clipboard...
Click to expand...

<Big Heavy Sigh>

You are just picking a very complicated way of doing exactly what I was suggesting.
I extracted a copy of Record 525 from the stock Hurricane_I AIR File.
It is 56 Bytes long in all which is the same (obviously) as the size of the record in the AIR File.

Please take a look at the attached screenshot. It is the extracted file 525.air which is being shown in a Hex Editor (FrHed).
The first four bytes 25 05 00 00 is a single 4 byte integer displayed in low order to high order bytes (Little Endian).
The value in normal hex display would be 00000525 thus "Record 525" is really the AIR File record that begins with an integer of value 525 Hex ==> bytes 05 and 25.
THAT IS THE CRYPTIC HEX CODING!!! No mystery, no nothing else.

If you change the first byte so that it now reads
27 05 00 00
you now have "Record 527". It is THAT simple. There is nothing that says this is whatever Fuel tank.
That is in your AirED or FDEctrl file.

That is why I was telling you that I could make you a copy of which ever record you needed in about 2 minutes.

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • Record525.jpg
    Record525.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 1
As long as I am here.....

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Since I am already on the subject, there is a little more information on how to decode an AIR file Record.

Note from the prior screenshot and the one attached below that the second 4 bytes in the file is
30 00 00 00
This is a Hexadecimal number giving the length of the data contained in the rest of the record.

Note that I told you the entire Record 527 was 56 Bytes long. (Yes, I changed it.)
A long integer gives the Record Number.
A second long integer gives the Data Length to follow.
Actual Record Data follows.

The standard Windows Calculator in Programmer View is a very useful tool for converting from Hexadecimal which is hard to read to Decimal which we read much easier. 30 Hex ==> 48 Decimal, so.....

4 Bytes - Record Identifier
4 Bytes - Record Length
48 Bytes - Record Data
----------
56 Bytes - Total Record Length.

This matches up nicely with what we already know.
This is how the entire AIR File is structured.
It is really THAT simple.

And with that, you now know as much as I do about how AIR files are organised.

Figuring out the numbers to actually enter into the AIR file record for something like the Propeller Tables is not so easy.....

- Ivan.
 

Attachments

  • Record527.jpg
    Record527.jpg
    36.3 KB · Views: 1
Hello Ivan,
Wow! I hadn´t expected such a detailed answer. My post was more rhetoric than
anything else. Neither had I expècted the simplicity you are describing!

I´ve just seen all the Tank records in the Ctrl File - so that´s how it works!

Thank you very much! It is very intriguing, and I´ll give it a try later today, just
for curiosity´s sake. Some interesting experimentation. First I´ll print out your post!

After a couple of rainy days today there´s some sun. Even the cat is rather talkative!
As it´s mother´s day here, we´re going for a drive into the wooded mountains, perhaps
for some grilled chicken and a salad in one of the few road-side restaurants.

Update:
P.S.: Silly question: - how can I extract the fuel record so as to load it into FrHed? ...Sorry!
I´ve tried several different ways to no avail.

OK, then - Cheers!
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Hello Ivan,
I tried with AAM, but that won´t extract anything usable f FrHed either.
Nevertheless, I found the two records in the .air file with FrHed: 25 05 and 26 05, changed them to 27 05 and 28 05, and saved the .air file - but the .air file won´t work any longer. It seems that the .air file is ruined if the whole .air file is edited.
So, I will have to find the way to isolate the tank records so that I can alter them with FrHed, save them again, and
then copy them into the .air file with AirEd.
Cheers!
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Hello Aleatorylamp,

I suspect there are other means of doing things, but check your email.
My Technicians packed up a couple things for you.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Thank you for the Tank!
The penny has just dropped.
"Extracting" a tank record from the .air file is to be interpreted in a more ample more drastic way:
It´s like killing the tree to get the apple, i.e. remove all records except the wanted Tank... and
save the .air file!
That took some time to realize... and to do.
I´m still only half way through removing all the "trash".

More, tomorrow!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

My Technicians shipped off a heavier package with a rather useful shop tool that we just finished a week or so ago.
Customs would not allow the first two attempts at delivery, so we tried to find an alternate means of packaging that would still get the tools there.
Customs has not complained this time, so I presume the shipment went through.
It should make your work easier when you get this delivery.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
I have had my panelbeaters and plumbers making all sorts of different Tanks based on the one you sent over, and getting them ready for testing. We are especially interested in trying out the Tip Tanks they put together, to see how they work.
As regards the extractor tool, they are investigating how it works, and will report later!
Thank you very much indeed! Have to rush off now.

Update later:
As expected, left and right Tip Tanks have their contents included in the Cessna and Extra300 Fuel gauges, and seemingly, the gauges of CFS1 stock aircraft that use left and right tanks reflect this too.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Hello hello, Ivan,

My machinists followed your instructions and managed to run your super-efficient, custom-made Turbo-Extractor Tool very well.
Thanks very much again.

I finally remembered that in WinXP you type in Cmd into the Execute Option in the Startup Menu to get the black Command Line Interface window.
Then, typing in the tool name "ExtractRecord" gave the syntax, so after that, typing in the required Record Number and the correct paths and names for Input and Output Files was a piece of cake!

I immediately obtained an .air file containing the single, desired Record. It is interesting how the program makes a list of all the files it finds, and marks the one it copies with an arrow. Excellent!

Thanks a lot again.
Cheers,
Stephan
 
Some Time to Stop and Think

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Glad the utility worked for you. I am not sure how much it will help you, but it is there.
At this point with the Ki 61, I need to do a lot more analysis but am tempted to just leave things the way they are now because the numbers are pretty good.
I want to experiment a bit but there isn't much more to gain there and there is a good chance of really messing things up.

Now would be a good time for you to send me a current version of your FW 200 and I will see if my idea for how to implement a two pitch propeller will work there.
Since you don't really know what the propeller pitch range should be, I will not worry about keeping the same pitch values as you are currently using because my guess is that other pitch values may work even better.

Please let me know which performance numbers should not change and which ones should change and where they should be.

Thanks for the patience.
- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your post - I´ve been following your Ki-61 thread, but haven´t posted much because I don´t know enough to be able to comment anything.

You had called the aircraft you set your Ki-61 up against, "the stock Griffon-powered Spitfire". I presume this was because the 1800+ Hp at altitude would be far in excess for a Merlin-powered version, as it claims to be.

Thanks for your offer for looking at the Condor .air file. I´ll send it to you right away!

I still haven´t finished the Virtual Cockpit. I´m actually having a bit of trouble with a front tooth, antibiotics, painkillers and resulting migraines, until the dentist can kill hopefully the nerve next Monday. It´s all fleas for an old dog, like they say in Spanish.

I would still have to SCASM the separately built and textured VCockpit with co-pilot, and put in all the corresponding lines in the Condor .scx file.

A simple alternative which worked on the P-3 Orion would be a simplified AF99 internal view. The Condor parts count is only at 143.4%, so it might be allowed if it still compiles, and would only involve the view-point correction with SCASM. Of course it wouldn´t be as nice as the otherway!

I will send you the aircraft in a moment, with some explanatory comments as regards your performance question.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Rate Of Climb specs

Hello Ivan,
The specification lists I sent with the model for testing a possible 2-position manual propeller, were mainly maximum speeds, as Cruise speeds are given without Boost pressure reference, so they will pose no problem, and are stated as generally being between 0.7 and 0.8 ATA.

However, there WAS a important piece of information lacking:
Initial Rate of Climb, which is specified for this aircraft at 7 m/sec, i.e. 1378 fpm.

Other possible useful reference data I also have are the climbing times:
0 to 1000 meters - 2.6 min.
0 to 2000 meters, - 5.9 min.
0 to 3000 meters, - 10.1 min
0 to 4000 meters, - 15.5 min.
This does not mean I expect you to test all this, because I can do that as soon as you tell me!

Restly Performance specs (Fw200-A Condor, with 4 x 720 Hp BMW 132-G1 engines:
Ceiling: 19028 ft (because of the non-pressurized passenger cabin).
Max. Speeds:
226.8 mph at S.L. (Full 1.2 ATA Boost pressure maintained up to 1800 m, i.e. 5900 ft)
240-245 mph at 5900-9800 ft
243 mph at 8500 ft
Cruise:
208 mph at 3280 ft.
217 mph at 12467 ft.
Eco cruise:
197 mph, n.a. altitude.

The information should be more complete now!

P.S. On a general note, the airfile using the 9.7 ft diameter, 18-35 degree pitch, CV propeller is working very well along the whole performance curve, I think, including RoC. This is probably because our beloved CFS1 single-speed supercharger is doing its job!
As regards performance, I wouldn´t know where to change anything. Basically it is just a matter of converting the propeller into a manual 2-pitch position one and getting the same performance. I hope this will not make things more difficult!

Thanks again, and cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

I can guarantee you that the performance will be not as good with a two-pitch propeller.
I just did some more thinking about the first idea for a two-pitch propeller and while I am sure I can get the pitch to switch in a manner that resembles a real two-pitch propeller, it will tend to lug at low speeds at low pitch.
To some extent that can be addressed a bit by messing around with the torque curve as I did for the Ki 61, but it will be much more radical and the RPM will be inappropriately low for a while before the switch.

By the way, the data in your notes is good enough I actually can do quite a lot of calculation without actually doing any testing on the game computer.

Tonight I will work on the second idea I had because the first one is obviously not looking as promising right now.
This stuff really belongs in a separate Propeller thread, but just as obvious is the fact that I am really just experimenting rather than trying out known techniques so there will be no real theme or message to such a thread yet (at least not for two pitch propellers).

- Ivan.

P.S.
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

Because when it gets too complicated, even the author gets confused.
 
Hello Ivan,

Model performance is a bit too good as regards RoC, I must admit, certainly due to the CFS1 CV propeller the Fw200-A Condor Prototypes didn´t have.

The short production run of 6 units after the Prototypes, didn´t have CV props either, although they did have slightly more powerful 800 or 830 Hp engines. But then, they were heavier, so overall performance was very similar. It was with the military versions that the 3-bladed, geared CV props were implemented, and that improved performance considerably.

The model at the moment has the speeds specified for the 720 Hp prototypes, but with the accelleration and RoC of the better propellers!

The lower performance that you are describing with the lugging on take-off and the initially low RPM at the pitch-switch-point shortly after take-off, is exactly what I was expecting. If you can manage that, it would certainly be wonderful!

Another piece of information I found, and that I mentioned a while back, is that this plane had a 420-meter take-off run on asphalt, with flaps at take-off position. Flaps only had 3 positions - retracted, take-off and landing positions.

As this 2-pitch propeller sub-subject pertains to the Condor, it is not totally out of place here, and is probably not substantial enough for an own thread.

I was thinking I could later follow Smilo´s suggestion of building the Lockheed A10 Electra - come Ventura - come Harpoon, for which this propeller will also come in handy!

So, I hope you enjoy the experiment! Let me know if I can cooperate in any way meanwhile.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Enjoy the experiment? Maybe. Maybe not. We shall see.
It is basically testing whether my ideas will actually work as I expect without unanticipated issues as I ran into for the first idea.

I have been plugging in data from your notes and ran into a small issue:
You seem to give several different cruise settings; Are they at 1930 RPM?

What was the typical cruising parameters on a long flight?
Back in those days, I would expect them to cruise at pretty low altitude to avoid needing cabin pressure equipment.
I am guessing that it would be 8,000 to 10,000 feet.

You gave the best rate of climb, but what True Air Speed and Altitude was that achieved at?

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Specifications for the 720 hp powered Condor states continuous cruise at 550 Hp and 1930 RPM,
but I haven´t been able to achieve that with the sim. If you can do so, that would be fantastic!

Continuous cruising speed is given by one source at 335 kph at 1000 meters, (not at S.L.), and Eco-Cruise at 320 kph.
High speed cruise is stated at 365 kph at 3000 meters - which is also maximum speed at S.L.

Update: This I think is a bit high, because other sources state that 335 kph is high speed cruise, normal cruise is at 320 kph and Eco-Cruise is at 300 kph. (208, 199 and 186 mph).
In conclusion, I think that the faster scale mentioned above, refers to the units in the Fw200-A0 pre-production run, that had slightly more powerful engines with 800 or 830 Hp. Propellers were of the same type though - it was only with later militarized versions that 3-bladed CV props were used.

As regards RoC, best rate of climb given was initial RoC.
Steepest angle is at 165-175 kph, and best Speed and RoC is at 220-230 kph. The record-breaking Prototype versions had the best rate of climb of all Fw200 versions, because they were lighter, despite their slightly weaker engines. Cruise speeds were also the best. Maximum speeds with the more powerful engined versions went up to about 405 kph. Mitary versions of this type came to be the Fw200-B1 and B2 versions.

Typical long-range flights were done at about 9000 ft.

Update: Later, with the Fw200-C militarized versions, despite another huge power increase with 1000 Hp and 1200 Bramo Fafnir 323 and 323P engines, max. speeds, and all performances, because weight was increased tremendously, started going down again. This was an example of a stop-gap wartime measure, and it is said that the Condor filled more than one gap. What is clear though, is that as an airliner, the Condor had an impeccable design, that would have developed into a production run perfectly if it hadn´t been interfered with by the war.

Anyway, I´m still searching to see if I can find anything else that is useful. It is very confusing because of the two or three different engines used on two or three different initial versions, which leads to generalizatioins and contradictions by different sources.

For the moment, I hope this helps!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Hello Aleatorylamp,

For the moment, I don't think I actually need any more data.
I was looking for HP - RPM data. The speeds are not useful for the method I am trying to implement.
It will be one goofy looking graph if it works.
Actually it will be goofy looking whether it work or not!

Hopefully I will have a chance to start working on edits to the propeller records soon.
Helping my Daughter with her Physics Project takes first priority.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,
Yes indeed, I agree with what takes first priority! There´s no hurry for the propellers. Good luck for your daughter´s project!

I´m glad you have enough data to work on for the Condor Propeller. I was still looking around for extra details, but it´s just more of the same. Enough is enough!

I´m still working on the Virtual Cockpit. It´s impossible to add more than 2 individual parts before Af99 stops compiling, so my plan of a simplified interior view like on the P3 Orion with just the SCASMed viewpoint correction is not possible.
So, I´ll continue with my first plan and try to add the VCockpit completely via SCASM.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Condor Virtual Cockpit

Hello Ivan,
I added a Virtual Cockpit for the Condor with SCASM. It was much less complicated than I had feared.
I just looked at the ones you had shown me how to do, and then jumped in at the deep end. After one or two tries with a few error reports I got it right!

It´s complete with canopy spars, floor, textured cabin walls, dashboard, and cabin-back with curtain, and then there´s also the co-pilot in his seat who turns his head when you move the rudder.

Here´s a screenshot!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • vc.jpg
    vc.jpg
    40.6 KB · Views: 1
Hello Folks,
The next step in logical thought now, is trying to achieve a transparent cockpit for this aircraft. However, it is rather difficult or even impossible without sacrificing all the moving surfaces, which here, do seem to have come out quite cleanly, only habing a minimum of bleeds.

The nose and the forward cabin at the moment are two components which include forward and aft canopy spars, with insignia-tagged grey-textured windows added.

Making the windows transparent was no problem, but in order to get a stepped surface under the spars and transparent canopy, without bleeding through different parts of the cabin walls, modifications in the cabin/nose build were needed.

More components were not readily unavailable, so I took the 4 propeller components, leaving blades now separately included in the build. The price was that the Aircraft Animator Prop-Disks now bleed through different parts of the engine cowl sides... This in itself is of debatable acceptability.

The cabin now got an extra cabin-component under the pilot´s place, and a middle canopy component above. The transparency itself looked quite cool, and 2 textured crew heads could be added via SCASM (the Virtual cockpit is resolved with SCASM, comprising 129 extra textured parts), but there is a problem: Despite bleedless under-cabin walls, the canopy bleeds through the aft cabin wall under ther antenna, so this is the second case of debatable acceptability.

In conclusion, it was not very good, so the airplane is best with textured cabin windows and SCASMed interior cockpit view, as it is now.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top