BBMF Updates

[delbydoo]

Hoping to get the BBMF up and running with up-to-date markings bearing in mind the models available - for example, there will be no Mk XVI and the Mk IX will be the Mk Vb in disguise......

JYAI Spitfire



Mike Cronin Chipmunk

[gsnde]

Daryl, I don't know by heart which versions are included, but have you checked John Youngs Spitfire models?

[delbydoo]

Daryl, I don't know by heart which versions are included, but have you checked John Youngs Spitfire models?

Martin, that is one of Johns Spitfires (JYAI) - there are only three models, the I, V and XIX. The I can be used as a II, the V as a very loose IX (without a four-blade spinner) and the XIX can also be used as a XIV and a F21; I'm leaving out other marks as the list goes on but they would be the base list......there is scope here for repainting a lot of civvie-owned Spits here

[delbydoo]

Whhops - forgot about the two-seater as well! Sorry John.....

[gsnde]

I sometimes have an abbreviation weakness

[Garysb]

Be aware there is a slight problem somewhere with them
We were going to add them to the Coningsby package

The spit has a problem on rotation if its unmodified
The hurri bounces a bit
There is also some sort of taxi problem as they taxi through each other and others

I will see if I can find the corrected files


Gary

[delbydoo]

Thanks for the heads up Gary.....I must admit I haven't got them in sim at the moment, waiting for all the paints to be done. Speaking of which....

Spitfire Vb AB910

[Garysb]

From Giorgio


I think this solves the problem.
At least in my setup, the Spit doesn't bounce anymore and also sinking wheels are sorted out.
Let me know if it works also for you.

[WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]
//empty_weight_CG_position = 0.13, 0.000, 0.000 // (feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical distance from
//specified
empty_weight_CG_position = 0.09, 0.000, 0.000 // (feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical distance from specified
datum

[contact_points]
point.0= 1, -21.570, 0.000, -0.36, 1500, 0, 0.400, 90.000, 0.300, 2.500, 0.750, 2.000, 2.000, 0
point.1= 1, 1.480, -2.61, -5.13, 1500, 1, 0.95, 0.000, 0.340, 2.500, 0.750, 3.000, 6.000, 2
point.2= 1, 1.480, 2.61, -5.13, 1500, 2, 0.95, 0.000, 0.340, 2.500, 0.750, 4.000, 3.000, 3

//point.0= 1, -21.570, 0.000, -.2, 1500, 0, 0.400, 90.000, 0.100, 2.500, 0.750, 2.000, 2.000, 0
//point.1= 1, 1.480, -2.61, -5.10, 1500, 1, 0.95, 0.000, 0.300, 2.500, 0.750, 3.000, 6.000, 2
//point.2= 1, 1.480, 2.61, -5.10, 1500, 2, 0.95, 0.000, 0.300, 2.500, 0.750, 4.000, 3.000, 3

@Steve:
Changing cruise speed solves the problem with flaps, but now it flies a little bit dived....

Giorgio

[Garysb]

From Steve


The DC-3 is an easier one to fix. The cruise speed is too low for the aircraft to fly w/o using flaps. The actual cruise speed of the C-47 is 139 kts so amend :-
cruise_speed =94.97914 to
cruise_speed =139

See if this fixes that.



Also from Steve

OK I have had a quick look at the DC-3.

The upshot of it is that the fde is balanced for the slow cruising speed that it was originally set for and that means the flaps lowered in cruise. There is no simple fix for a higher cruise speed.

Now there is a very simple fix but I am not comfortable producing this for a package, w/o the consent of three people.

So I believe that we realistically have two options. One, leave the BBMF out of the package so that all BBMF aircraft fde mods can be made and released together or you could substitute John's DC-3 with Jake's.

I do not really have a preference here, except that if you do substitute then you may still have issues with the other aircraft. Better to get them all fixed then release them, in my opinion.


We had the ok from john to try and fix the problems this is about as far as we got


Gary

[delbydoo]

I lied earlier when I said I haven't got them in my setup - of course, they are at Duxford......but I haven't really watched them whole-heartedly, so I will have a look at how they behave at Coningsby (purely for my own curiosity) and then take it from there. The Paints won't affect anything so will continue with those as is.....unless they have already been done. I don't want any confusion to arise like it did over the Typhoons. Am I wasting my time doing these because they have been duplicated, or will they be used? If someone wants to PM me about it, they can be assured that mum is most definitely the word.
But, I shall look and see if these symptoms represent themselves on my setup.......

[delbydoo]

Meanwhile.....this is the one that I'm not totally happy with, although from a distance, especially if caught in mid-air, it LOOKS like MK356, which is a Mark IX; the model used is the Mark V, so there is only a three-blade prop, as opposed to a four-blade one, and the D-Day markings do not cover part of the undercarriage covers nor the MG blisters under the wing, and it has not got a pointy tail.....other than that, it will do for me, others it may not.

[Garysb]

no you carry on
Only had one of each

You may wish to use Jakes DC3



Gary