• 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.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

FS2004 Screenshots Here!!!

jackryan172 said:
man thats a great one, can that skin be downloaded?
Click to expand...
You want a download, you GET a download. :wiggle:
Note that these are Scott's textures, converted from DXT5(FSX) to DXT3(FS9) using FSRepaint, so no color shifts or "mashed potato" blurred effects.
I used my own "custom" alpha channels so the bare-metal parts (gun port and wing leading edges) are a little more shiny.
I also included a green-tinted center windscreen and "toned down" anti-collision lights at night.
There's also a better VICTORY call sign. Just import it using EditVoicePack, make sure you DELETE your old VICTORY call sign first.

Pay attention to the README file, these textures replace the 13th aircraft in the IRIS F-14A aircraft.cfg file. I changed the model from a slick nose to one that has the TV camera. You could also change the "model=" line to 3H, VF-84 provided TARPS missions during the Gulf War.

BTW, a while ago someone said the IRIS Tomcat is payware.
It was actually changed back to freeware years ago.

Simviation: Microsoft Flight Simulator Addons

Simviation: Microsoft Flight Simulator Addons
simviation.com
 

Attachments

  • VF-84 FS9 csf.zip
    2.6 MB · Views: 9
Last edited:
The big difference between the Horten and the Northrop design was that the Horten flying wings has been autostable, and the Northrop deseign needed constant control. At first by the pilot, later electronics contolled the 3 axis.. In a german book Reimar Horten explains very well the aerodynamis of their wings and why they have been autostable.
It must be a wonderfull feeling to soar with a flying wing and to be integrated completly in the wing.

flying in a Horten IV.jpg


Best regards

Michael
 
Another big difference between Northrop and Horton wings is that the Hortons never figured out washout. The Hortons reflexed the trailing edge from tip to tip to produce downforce, while Northrop twisted the wing so only the outer wing, near the tip, produced downforce. The trouble is, while downforce is necessary, it also produces drag. Since the wing is swept, the trailing edge is closer to the centers of pressure and gravity, and the downforce in the inboard part of the wing has very little leverage to make downforce, but it still produces the same amount of drag all across the wing. A washed out wing only produces downforce and drag out near the tips, where the downforce has the most leverage because the tips are the furthest aft part of the wing. The way the Hortons did it works but produces more drag than washout would, so it results in a less efficient wing.
 
reffering to the book written by Reimar Horten their wings where twisted too. I looked at the different profiles and all had a twist
Nevertheless I am astonished that even with modern materials and knowledge there where no more flying wings build for soaring or ultralight motorized aircraft.

Best regards

Michael
 
michaelvader said:
reffering to the book written by Reimar Horten their wings where twisted too. I looked at the different profiles and all had a twist
Nevertheless I am astonished that even with modern materials and knowledge there where no more flying wings build for soaring or ultralight motorized aircraft.

Best regards

Michael
Click to expand...
Well, Horton should know, so my source must have been wrong. Or more likely, since it was an apparently well researched book about Northrop, he really did say it but was mistaken about the Hortons.

Back in the 1970s I flew an Ultralight Products Dragonfly Mk.II hang glider that was a flying wing with washout. I've long suspected that the designer, Roy Haggard, must have been a Northrop fan because the planform looked exactly like Northrop's N-9/B-35/B-49 series. It was the highest performance hang glider of its day and a pleasure to fly.
 
Good morning Mick,
wow the feeling must have been wonderfull - how to fly nearer to a bird?
That is one of the rare experiances I miss. I am a bit jalous LOL

Best regards

Michael
 
US Air Force |
Northrop Grumman (General Atomics) MQ-1 Predator |
Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania | HTDA / DAR |

My Sim just got some of the most modernized Upgrades...

613421011_10240532744046090_3754574556128738725_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
michaelvader said:
Good morning Mick,
wow the feeling must have been wonderfull - how to fly nearer to a bird?
That is one of the rare experiances I miss. I am a bit jalous LOL

Best regards

Michael
Click to expand...
Hi Michael,

Your comment reminds me of a pilot who would come up from Connecticut to fly with us in Massachusetts, who was a licensed falconer. He would bring his hawk with him and take off with the bird perched on the horizontal section of the control bar. Once airborne he'd take off the hawk's blindfold and it would take off and fly along with him! It was a wonderful thing to see! I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself.
 
Mick said:
the planform looked exactly like Northrop's N-9/B-35/B-49 series
Click to expand...

It is surprising how close the original Northrop designs were to optimum. The B-2, designed with the best computers available at the time, is almost identical in size and radar signature, to the original XB-35, designed forty years earlier with drafting tables and slide rules.

FWIW, the original project wasn't cancelled for "poor handling" and "not an acceptable bombing platform". A flying wing set a record flying from southern California to Washington DC, impressive in itself, and wasn't detected by radar til it was almost in sight of the destination airport. This latter feat caused great consternation in the Pentagon, what if the Soviets got wind of this aircraft? So the project was quickly canceled and all existing aircraft, including those under construction, were ordered destroyed, under the official guise that it was too expensive and had too poor performance. Behind the scenes Northrop received funding to continue research.
 
jgf said:
It is surprising how close the original Northrop designs were to optimum. The B-2, designed with the best computers available at the time, is almost identical in size and radar signature, to the original XB-35, designed forty years earlier with drafting tables and slide rules.

FWIW, the original project wasn't cancelled for "poor handling" and "not an acceptable bombing platform". A flying wing set a record flying from southern California to Washington DC, impressive in itself, and wasn't detected by radar til it was almost in sight of the destination airport. This latter feat caused great consternation in the Pentagon, what if the Soviets got wind of this aircraft? So the project was quickly canceled and all existing aircraft, including those under construction, were ordered destroyed, under the official guise that it was too expensive and had too poor performance. Behind the scenes Northrop received funding to continue research.
Click to expand...
Well, there was another thing. The B-35 and B-49 didn't have a bomb bay big enough to carry the sixty-inch diameter Mk.4 "Fat Man" atomic bomb, the only nuclear weapon in the US arsenal at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top