Martin Marauder Gold for FS9 has been released

Milton Shupe said:
LOL Ivan; I have not seen an accurate or consistent drawing in the 14 years I have been modeling. If I waited for that, I would never get anything done.

Since 2011, I have released 35 aircraft, a Racing car, and HMS Bounty. IMO, we have to learn to deal with and use what we have. We are not design engineering here; we are modeling to available drawings and doing the best we can with what we have. We create likenesses; that's the best we can do.

If we stand around awaiting perfection; there will not be aircraft to fly in the sim. :)
Click to expand...

Hello Milton,

I actually have found LOTS of accurate and consistent drawings. Sometimes they don't look so good at first glance but the information is still there.
Most of the time, they don't line up with projects that I would like to work on but sometimes they do as in the case of the P-40E (not Wylam's drawing).
I guess our objectives are different. I am out to learn as much as I can about certain aeroplanes and how things work. Sometimes that translates into a releasable project. About half the time it does not.
There is no point in standing around waiting when one can actively look for the data; I figure I have easily 10 times as many references for the Marauder now as I did when I first started the project a few years ago. Sooner or later assuming I live that long, the drive to work on this project again will hit again.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan said:
Hello Milton,

I actually have found LOTS of accurate and consistent drawings. Sometimes they don't look so good at first glance but the information is still there.
Most of the time, they don't line up with projects that I would like to work on but sometimes they do as in the case of the P-40E (not Wylam's drawing).
I guess our objectives are different. I am out to learn as much as I can about certain aeroplanes and how things work. Sometimes that translates into a releasable project. About half the time it does not.
There is no point in standing around waiting when one can actively look for the data; I figure I have easily 10 times as many references for the Marauder now as I did when I first started the project a few years ago. Sooner or later assuming I live that long, the drive to work on this project again will hit again.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

Ivan,

Yes, we all work differently and have different hangups. Poor drawings with accurate data doesn't help much because they do not tell me if that window frame post is 2" or 2.5" wide. The lines are 1-3" wide when scaled up to aircraft size.

I look for ways to get the project moving and get it done, not reasons to put it on hold. That is, action, not words completes the project. Get the wing span, length, and overall shapes correct, get the "face" right, and no one really cares if the cockpit is 2" too far forward or rearward if they want to fly it in the sim. With that said, I am not sloppy in my work; I am damned particular but not to the point of being frozen in my tracks. Keep it moving; find solutions, and enjoy your work.
 
Hello Milton,

I would never call your work sloppy. I think your work is really excellent and even though I don't fly the same simulators, I look at your models to see how things SHOULD look. (Been looking a bit at your A-20 Havoc recently.)
My comment about objectives was that there are many people who read and research and do not build for simulators at all. Some people build in plastic, some are interested in history and such. My own objective is not really to build for the simulators even though I do it at times; My objective is to fill gaps in my knowledge and sometimes that takes me here and sometimes it takes me to IPMS meetings.
You are right about people not ever noticing errors. It looks like an aeroplane is about as far as most people get. I see many errors in posted screenshots but seldom comment unless I believe it is an easy error to correct.

You did not understand what I meant by quality of drawings. I would never use a drawing in which a line width scales up to 2 inches or so. If I can't get a large enough scale drawing, I keep looking until I find one or go to photographs. The drawings I use have lines typically no more than about 5 pixels wide when scaled up or down to my working scale of 0.01 foot to the pixel.

What I meant by accurate information is that even if a drawing is fuzzy or has artifacts from the reproduction process, sometimes the objects are still precisely located so that dimensions can be scaled from them reliably.
The idea is that if the major objects are located properly, the smaller features won't be too far off. In some drawings, I have found that the artist could not even put each engine the same distance from the aircraft centerline. In those cases, regardless of the line quality, I don't use the drawing.

Sincere Apologies for Hijacking your thread.
- Ivan.
 
Bjoern said:
The Marauder is hands down the best looking bomber of WW2 (the B-32 being a close second). There's just something about the round fuselage, clean lines and tricycle gear...

It even had a "what if" derivative!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_XB-33_Super_Marauder



May I suggest a civilian version?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...Marauder_N5546N_CAF_HRL_18.10.75_edited-2.jpg
Click to expand...

Hi Bjoern :)

Great to see you chime in.
I cannot disagree; she is a "looker". Some of my favorite shots and painting attached.

LOL Yes, I saw that Super Marauder ... kind of a "bridge too far" for me though. :)

Civilian version I guess is possible without too much effort by me but we'll see how it plays out.

Thanks
 

Attachments

  • air_marauder8.jpg
    air_marauder8.jpg
    70.5 KB · Views: 0
  • b26drop.jpg
    b26drop.jpg
    91.2 KB · Views: 0
  • martin-marauder_243-285.jpg
    martin-marauder_243-285.jpg
    110.8 KB · Views: 0
  • slider_img2.jpg
    slider_img2.jpg
    74.9 KB · Views: 0
Just starting out with my first Gmax project, I can relate about the 3 views. I found one that looked great at first and as I delved into it, the best I could do with it is just use it as a general guide while I redraw it in a layered format. But I am making progress with it. It won't be 100% accurate, but will work for my purposes. And I've learned a lot more about the aircraft in the process which is kind of the whole point of it to me. Learning new things. And if my little project comes out half as good as Milton's work, I'll be one happy camper.
 
Here's the "Wings" episode for the B-26 (others are in the related videos):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XjVpb3L8UE



Milton Shupe said:
LOL Yes, I saw that Super Marauder ... kind of a "bridge too far" for me though. :)
Click to expand...

If the regular version already was a flying coffin, the four-turner would have been a deathwish with wings.


Civilian version I guess is possible without too much effort by me but we'll see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, it was just a sugestion anyway. No hard feelings if there's no time or motivation for it.


I'm curious how this one plays out and how much community love it'll get.
 
Bushi said:
Sooo many cool schemes for this airplane... and some so weathered they are magnificent!

and there is that 'Midway' low level mission mentioned! LOL
attachment.php
attachment.php
attachment.php
Click to expand...

Bushi,

I prefer the weathered "in the field" look as well. Thanks for sharing the pics.
 
Martin Marauder B-26 Update

Ahhh, finally completed the fuselage and all attached parts. Now on to the wings. :running:
 

Attachments

  • HOMEUNIT-2017-feb-10-001.jpg
    HOMEUNIT-2017-feb-10-001.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 2
As intended, and after a lot of jostling of 3-views, the wing is under construction. :wavey:
 

Attachments

  • wingstart.jpg
    wingstart.jpg
    55.5 KB · Views: 3
Great work as always Milton! Love your taste in aircraft (old radials) I know this will be another top notch much needed aircraft.
 
Willy said:
Two P&W R-2800 radials and can be tricky to fly? It doesn't get much better than that for me.
Click to expand...

With, well...interesting engine out behavior, it could really benefit from RealEngine.

I want to remake that gauge anyway (for more efficiency), so the B-26 could provide a good testbed - provided one of the FDE wizards gets its vices and virtues right.
 
Fat boss

Milton, I was just wondering. Would there be any chance of including a version with the larger prop boss (as in the painting of a B-26 buzzing the Jap carrier)? Not sure if the painting is accurate, in terms of the boss, or even if that type of boss was ever used on production aircraft but it sure looks more streamlined and menacing to me. Of course, it could just be me. I never liked P-47s with skinny prop bosses. I always thought the bigger boss looked more aesthetic.

Here's hoping,

Taff

EDIT: Having just watched "WINGS: The B-26 Marauder" on YouTube it appears the larger prop boss/cover was certainly used on early variants.
 
rgatkinson said:
Milton, I was just wondering. Would there be any chance of including a version with the larger prop boss (as in the painting of a B-26 buzzing the Jap carrier)? Not sure if the painting is accurate, in terms of the boss, or even if that type of boss was ever used on production aircraft but it sure looks more streamlined and menacing to me. Of course, it could just be me. I never liked P-47s with skinny prop bosses. I always thought the bigger boss looked more aesthetic.

Here's hoping,

Taff

EDIT: Having just watched "WINGS: The B-26 Marauder" on YouTube it appears the larger prop boss/cover was certainly used on early variants.
Click to expand...

Hi Taff, thanks for your interest in the B-26. The early B-26A's and initial B-26B-MA had the spinners. Beginning with the B-26B-1, a lot of improvements were made, and the large propeller spinners were permanently removed to improve engine cooling and reduce maintenance. See HERE.

If I do a short wing/tail version, it will include those spinners. Doing the early version, unfortunately, calls for significant changes in the fuselage, wings, tails, gear, some glass, gun arrangement and so really would be a different model along with a faster flight model. We'll have to see how things go before I commit to reworking it all, but I know there is significant interest in that model, me included.
 
Last edited:
Milton Shupe said:
Hi Taff, thanks for your interest in the B-26. The early B-26A's and initial B-26B-MA had the spinners. Beginning with the B-26B-1, a lot of improvements were made, and the large propeller spinners were permanently removed to improve engine cooling and reduce maintenance. See HERE.

If I do a short wing/tail version, it will include those spinners. Doing the early version, unfortunately, calls for significant changes in the fuselage, wings, tails, gear, some glass, gun arrangement and so really would be a different model along with a faster flight model. We'll have to see how things go before I commit to reworking it all, but I know there is significant interest in that model, me included.
Click to expand...

I think part of the appeal of the early versions is pretty clear: Top speed of 315 MPH, while the late variants couldn't pass 287 MPH. That and it just looked so much sleeker. Still, any Marauder would be a wonderful addition to the sim.
 
Maty12 said:
I think part of the appeal of the early versions is pretty clear: Top speed of 315 MPH, while the late variants couldn't pass 287 MPH. That and it just looked so much sleeker. Still, any Marauder would be a wonderful addition to the sim.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the bad link in the previous post; now corrected.

Maty, agreed, fast and careful attention to takeoff and landing speeds. Those early birds suffered from bad prop governors, distributors, and one other issue that eludes me at the moment, plus inexperienced pilots and maintenance crews. The experienced guys in the Pacific loved these early Marauders and thought they got a bad rap ... which they did. The AAF also ruined the model's performance with its changing role and added weight over its original design philosophy. Much the same happened to the Vultee XP-54 in its changed role topped by engine requirements that were not met by two different manufacturers.
 
Well, lost all wing progress today due to my inattention to details. :)

Started out on the wings, got one about half done with ailerons and trim tab finished when I realized some errors on the 3-views, all of them regarding flaps.

The Marauder has split, slotted flaps inboard and outboard of the nacelles on the long wing variants.
All my 3-views show slotted flaps but not split flaps.

This was on top of some 3-views showing a conventional airfoil versus the symmetrical NACA 0017. Invested a lot of time trying to find the NACA 0017-64 and it was no where to be found. So I improvised creating the bottom curve to match the top curve. Went to measure my vertical distances at the root and tip and they were off across the whole wing.

Was not happy with all of that so I scrapped the wing to start over. Still trying to find the airfoil drawing before I restart. Anybody have access to the NACA 0017 and 0010, I would appreciate the help. LOL Such is life; I knew this morning that today wasn't a good modeling day; nothing seemed to go right. :)
 
Duckie said:
Milton, don't know if this helps but I turned this up.
attachment.php



Also found this one

attachment.php
Click to expand...

BINGO!!! You did it! Thank you very much. :)

Now I can proceed with the proper airfoil shape and can sort out the flaps issues no problem.

You are the man. :applause:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top