• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    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 politicion 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 amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

MS/Carenado Staggerwing Out!

modelr said:
I just noticed it also. Don't know why I never noticed it before. The "C" is missing from the wing registration.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the number on the rudder should be 80309 instead of 30809 , shouldn't it be?
icon12.gif
 
jankees said:
oh, dear, I feel really stupid now...
Click to expand...

We'll forgive you, this time. :mixed-smiley-010:

I missed the rudder one too. And I took the pictures of the 1:1 plane!

Obviously, I am not a "rivet counter" but I rather just see the overall picture. :angel:
 
jankees said:
oh, dear, I feel really stupid now...
Click to expand...

LOL,
If you knew how often things like this happen to me. . .
I didn't want to be a nitpicker, but it jumped straight into my eye and I thought better I might mention it .
BTW, many thanks for this wonderful repaints. :wavey:
 
I swear I can almost smell the minty freshness all the way through my monitor! And like Frank, I'm also more and more tempted...
 
dvj said:
Into the blue has a nice asessment. It's not a study sim, but a very good $15 aircraft. I agree with his assessment of the "bounce" on landing. Yet to get it to settle smoothly on any surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AoOuetXcsU
Click to expand...

I don't consider it a nice assessment, I found it rushed, lazy, and worthless to me as a potential buyer. There is no intelligent review of the flight model. At one point in the video he says the model has no documentation, so he's just guessing at the flight performance. He could have found an online Staggerwing POH in 5 minutes, tried to fly it by the book and see if it performs properly. That's the kind of thing that would enable you to pick up the kind of subtle issues that he has been missing lately such as, for instance, a P-51 with a 4,000 hp engine that is almost 100 mph too fast. Nope, apparently it's more important to get a video out the same day the plane is issued, I guess that gets you the most clicks and revenue. He's doing this a lot now, and I've lost interest in his vids. And I still don't know whether the thing flies right. Hopefully someone like EchoMikeDelta will do a proper review in a few weeks. I can wait.

August
 
is there a paint for the stagger wing thats pretty much overall yellow?

i havent a clue how to paint,too stupid to figure it out i guess.the paint programs i mean...

id like to have a stagger wing thats over all yellow with a red stripe graphic outlined in black (or trimmed ? ) with the "N" number of N43H i know thats not right,or legal or kosher or correct or whatever...but its
"my" sim and my plane...

if anyone would be willing to help me,id appreciate it. thanks..
ive added a pic of my hobby stock...not the best paint job id ever done,but id just rebuilt and repainted the car..was done in a hurry..points ya know..ScanImage002.jpg
 
K5083 said:
I don't consider it a nice assessment, I found it rushed, lazy, and worthless to me as a potential buyer. There is no intelligent review of the flight model. At one point in the video he says the model has no documentation, so he's just guessing at the flight performance. He could have found an online Staggerwing POH in 5 minutes, tried to fly it by the book and see if it performs properly. That's the kind of thing that would enable you to pick up the kind of subtle issues that he has been missing lately such as, for instance, a P-51 with a 4,000 hp engine that is almost 100 mph too fast. Nope, apparently it's more important to get a video out the same day the plane is issued, I guess that gets you the most clicks and revenue. He's doing this a lot now, and I've lost interest in his vids. And I still don't know whether the thing flies right. Hopefully someone like EchoMikeDelta will do a proper review in a few weeks. I can wait.August
Click to expand...
You should post this to his Youtube comments. Feedback is always appreciated.
 
So I caved in and bought this plane. Carenado should pay a commission to Jankees, his excellent paints helped seal the deal.

I also downloaded a bunch of Pilot Operating Handbooks and other materials and attempted a preliminary flight assessment. Here are my findings, for any who are interested.

Carenado identifies this plane as a D17S variant. I limited my references to those for the D17S, G17S (D17S built postwar), UC-43 (no letter suffix) and GB-2, all of which used the R-985-AN-1 engine. The weights and performance figures quoted by Carenado in its marketing are a decent match for this plane. They quote a ceiling of 25000' I more often see 20000', but that won't matter to most of us.

The fuel tanks in the Carenado are of the correct capacity (4x23 USG in the wings and 29 USG fuselage). It is hard to know if they are in the correct locations, weight-and-balance-wise, because of the encrypted files.

The weight and balance screen gives a CG forward limit of 20% MAC and aft limit of 75% MAC, with an empty CG of 30.35% MAC. All of these numbers are nonsense. The correct limits, per the G17S type certificate, are 4.9% to 23.4% MAC at gross weight. In flight, the CG seems about right, though, so probably this is just Carenado being sloppy in filling the values for the loadout screen, which don't really affect the flight model. So no harm, no foul.

I flew the model at the weights, altitudes and power setting specified in the Flight Operation Instruct Chart in publication AN 01-90CC-1, Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for Army Model UC-43, Navy Model GB-2 and British Model Traveller Airplanes, 7/10/44. Generally, the aircraft is moderately too fast. ranging between 10 and 25 mph faster than the reference says. For max continuous cruise, here is a comparison at different altitudes:

Sea level (35" 2200 rpm): Reference 197, Carenado 207 (all speeds mph IAS)
3000' (34" 2200 rpm): Reference 194, Carenado 210
6000' (full throttle, 2200 rpm): Reference 186, Carenado 210
9000' (full throttle, 2200 rpm); Reference 176, Carenado 185
12000' (full throttle, 2200 rpm); Reference 164, Carenado 190
15000' (full throttle, 2200 rpm); Reference 155, Carenado 177

The next fastest cruise setting (2000 rpm) gives:
Sea level (28" 2000 rpm): Reference 164, Carenado 172
3000' (27.5" 2000 rpm): Reference 165, Carenado 180
6000' (27" 2000 rpm): Reference 165, Carenado 172
9000' (27" 2000 rpm); Reference 165, Carenado 180
12000' (24.5" 2000 rpm); Reference 156, Carenado 155
15000' (22" 2000 rpm): Reference 146, Carenado 135

Best performance fidelity is at high altitudes at modest power settings.

At times when I was testing, especially when I changed power settings and was waiting for the speed to stabilize, there was a strange jolt in the airplane, the speed suddenly shifted up or down by 10 mph or so, and then stayed there. It seemed to me as if a correction or step in Carenado's performance tables was kicking in in a sudden and digital way.

The R-985 in Carenado's Staggerwing can still achieve 34" manifold pressure at 12,000 feet and 30" at 15,000 feet, which doesn't seem right to me. Based on performance charts I have seen for this engine, I would limit m.p. to about 26" at 12,000 and 24" at 15,000 for more realistic performance.

Fuel consumption also runs slightly higher in the Carenado than in the published figures, but it is hard to be precise about this since it depends on how much you lean the mixture. Carenado fuel consumption was drastically higher at max cruise at the higher altitudes (for example, 40 gph for Carenado versus 25 in the published data for max cruise at 15000'), where I obeyed the table and set the throttle wide open, probably achieving impossible power settings. Overall I give the engine aspects of the flight model an A-minus, as the actual speeds and fuel consumption usually are within 10% of published values.

Handling is more subjective but generally seems all right to me. On takeoff, the tailwheel lock helps a lot with directional control. Without it, lateral swing seems excessive as usual for MSFS taildraggers. On landing, it is difficult not to bounce, especially with a wheel landing, which is commonly used by real Staggerwings. The Alabeo Staggerwing in P3D is much easier to plant on landing and I tend to think the bouncing also is a feature of the generally skittish runway behavior of light taildraggers in MSFS.

Overall not a bad plane, certainly better than the last few "in cooperation with" Asobo/MS releases.

August
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top