It's all OBIO's fault!

H

hawkeye52

Charter Member
He got me started looking through Ito-san's prolific output...and I found a few I did not already have. Among them the Blohm und Voss P.170, a three-engine beast that is fun to fly -- even without a VC -- but first you must alias it to Lawdog's BMW 801 soundpack, available here at SOH (search BMW). Yes, the contacts need adjusting, the prop blur can stand improvement and the oil pressure gauge is pegged, but the real problem is that IT SMASHES INTO THE TARMAC when selected.

Can someone provide a fix for that unseemly behavior?

- h52
 
Hawkeye -
The contact points show nearly 6ft of difference between the mains and the tailwheel,
but the static pitch is set at zero, meaning the plane is horizontal at rest.
My rusty old math suggests the static pitch needs to be something like 11 degrees, given that the tailwheel is 29.36 ft behind the mains.
I don't have the plane installed, but I looked at the aircraft .cfg in the flightsim View page. That's where these numbers come from.
Hope this helps
MikeW

[contact_points]
point.0=1,-16.340000,0.000000,-2.690000,6153.305130,0,0.625997,48.540000,0.305390,2.500000,0.726310,5,5,0,0,0
point.1=1,13.020000,-8.630000,-8.400000,6153.305130,1,0.625997,0.000000,0.407181,2.500000,0.726510,5,5,2,0,0
point.2=1,13.020000,8.630000,-8.400000,6153.305130,2,0.625997,0.000000,0.407181,2.500000,0.726510,5,5,3,0,0
point.3=2,2.083333,-27.083333,2.083333,2475.912819,0,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0,0,5,0,0
point.4=2,2.083333,27.083333,2.083333,2475.912819,0,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0,0,6,0,0
point.5=2,-25.750000,0.000000,-1.333333,2475.912819,0,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0,0,9,0,0
point.6=2,11.250000,0.000000,0.000000,2475.912819,0,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,0,0,4,0,0
static_pitch=0.000000
static_cg_height=8.400000
 
Hawkeye, try these values:

[contact_points]
static_pitch = 12
static_cg_height = 6.1
tailwheel_lock = 0
gear_system_type = 0
max_number_of_points = 7
point.0 = 1, -16.5203, 0, -2.6515, 6153.30513, 0, 0.95, 48.54, 0.30539, 2.5, 0.72631, 5, 5, 0, 0, 0
point.1 = 1, 12.8834, -24.0725, -8.936, 6153.30513, 1, 1.6, 0, 0.407181, 2.5, 0.72651, 5, 5, 2, 0, 0
point.2 = 1, 13.02, 25.1821, -8.9542, 6153.30513, 2, 1.6, 0, 0.407181, 2.5, 0.72651, 5, 5, 3, 0, 0
point.3 = 2, 8.0005, -27.1753, 2.0833, 2475.912819, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0
point.4 = 2, 8.5546, 27.0826, 2.0833, 2475.912819, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0
point.5 = 2, -20.4135, 0, -0.2014, 2475.912819, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0
point.6 = 2,11.250000, 0, 0, 2475.912819, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0
 
Hawkeye, when I was looking at the P170's .cfg file I noticed that the engine parameters are for a jet. Obio and a few other folks are more up on correcting this stuff than I am, but I suspect the plane would be improved substantially with the correct engine data. For example, the starter crank value could be tweaked so the props don't turn for so long before the engines fire up.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to state for the record that it is ALWAYS OBIO's fault and that he deserves a round of Guinness for it always cheerfully being so, eh wot?:guinness::guinness::guinness::guinness::guinness:
 
Taking a cue from emfrat, I calculated what the static pitch should be and it worked out to exactly 11.0056 degrees. I simply substituted that value for Ito's zero degrees and voilá!, no more crash-upon-selection and without having to touch the contact points. I learned something today.

However, the tires were a bit buried into the ground, so I did change the contacts after all:

point.0 = 1, -16.5203, 0, -2.9900, 6153.30513, 0, 0.95, 48.54, 0.30539, 2.5, 0.72631, 5, 5, 0, 0, 0
point.1 = 1, 12.8834, -24.0725, -8.8000 6153.30513, 1, 1.6, 0, 0.407181, 2.5, 0.72651, 5, 5, 2, 0, 0
point.2 = 1, 13.02, 25.1821, -8.8000, 6153.30513, 2, 1.6, 0, 0.407181, 2.5, 0.72651, 5, 5, 3, 0, 0

[TARPSbird, I changed the engine sections to that of an FW-190; it cranks but won't catch. Still WIP.] « IGNORE THIS; it applies to the Ju EF-112. I have too much going on, LOL

- H52
 
Balance

Here is what I got. I have right and left wheels spaced out the same from center (balanced?). Just for kicks. And you can't just accept what is there (as if it don't 'work') and need to also 'look' at the other parameters as they do interact. Trial and error will determine what you need. Math? Calculus? Naw-bigger hammer! (hehe).

[contact_points] //Orig but with c:b mods
point.0=1,-16.500, 0.000, -2.850, 6153.3,0, 0.626, 9.0, 0.300, 2.5, 0.896, 5,5,0,0,0
point.1=1, 13.020,-8.630, -8.800, 6153.3,1, 0.626, 0.0, 0.408, 2.5, 0.826, 5,5,2,0,0
point.2=1, 13.020, 8.630, -8.800, 6153.3,2, 0.626, 0.0, 0.408, 2.5, 0.826, 5,5,3,0,0
point.3=2, 2.083,-27.083, 2.083, 2475.9, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000,0,0,5,0,0
point.4=2, 2.083, 27.083, 2.083, 2475.9,0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0,0,6,0,0
point.5=2,-25.750, 0.000, -1.333, 2475.9,0,0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0,0,9,0,0
point.6=2, 11.250, 0.000, 0.000, 2475.9,0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0,0,4,0,0
max_number_of_points=7
static_pitch=11.500 //0.000000
static_cg_height= 8.100 //8.400000
gear_system_type=0
tailwheel_lock= 1

Cheers,
Chuck B
Napamule
Edit: You don't WANT to put the wheels that far apart (24.072 / 25.182) as you will have hard time making taxi turns. You can move out to 10.000 or so. More is detrimental. Use my head (hehe).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top