|
Post by Roger on Jun 4, 2007 16:05:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spad54 on Jun 5, 2007 15:50:14 GMT -5
We're adding the Stinson Model A 2W to the package. This modification was built specifically for Airlines of Australia. AOA imported 4 Model A's. They did not have a sterling safety record, two being lost to crashes early on. During WWII as parts for the Lycomings became more difficult to obtain, the aircraft was modified, removing the center engine, enlarging the nacelles and installing two P&W 550 Wasp radials. The A 2w had improved performance and flew through the 1940's before being lost in an accident. We'll post some shots as soon as the textures are developed.
|
|
|
Post by bhk on Jun 5, 2007 15:57:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bookman on Jun 5, 2007 19:03:11 GMT -5
Does anyone have more information on the song that was inspired by this tragic event? I heard it once on an Aussie radio (via internet). Wish I could have an audio....
Anyone?
K
|
|
|
Post by Bookman on Jun 5, 2007 19:28:18 GMT -5
Gents, For those interested enough, I know of two books publsihged about the tragedy. You can get them from your local library (via Interlibrary Loan).
Green Mountains & Cullenbenbong. by Bernard O'Reilly. Brisbane: WR Smith & Paterson, 1962.
Once Upon a Mountain: The Story of the Search for the Stinson Airliner. by Bruce McDonald. Brisbane: Boolarong Publications, 1988.
|
|
|
Post by spad54 on Jun 5, 2007 23:25:01 GMT -5
Airlines of Australia: The City of Townsville, Stinson Model A 2W
|
|
|
Post by bhk on Jun 6, 2007 0:15:55 GMT -5
Fabulosa!! A lovely job, Paul. KevinYou aren't thinking of "Little Boy Lost", are you...about the child lost for several days in the New England ranges? EDIT. Kevin, I've searched high and low for a song commemorating this tragedy but can find nothing. In the meantime, here's a more in-depth story of the search and a memorial dinner held in 1967....... www.dotlit.qut.edu.au/200101/evening.txtBruce
|
|
|
Post by Bookman on Jun 8, 2007 0:32:49 GMT -5
Bruce, No I absolutely remember hearing the song on an Aussie station not that long ago. I'll see if I can dig up my notes.
The link about the dinner, yes, I saw that as well.
I'll keep digging. It's what I do best after all...
K
|
|
|
Post by bhk on Jun 8, 2007 3:12:23 GMT -5
Kevin, You've got me really curious now! I hope that you can find something. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by teisco on Jan 2, 2010 13:44:58 GMT -5
Wow,,very cool...Bill and I were going to do one of these years ago but never got around to it. I had most of the info and was in contact with the restorers of the real one up north.
Yours looks great, really glad there is a good one out now. I saw the red and blue one at Oshgosh and remember it darker blue with dark red trim, maybe a red or burgandy plush interior,,,not sure was a long time ago.
Thinking of getting back into fs again and maybe do a skin or two,,my waco skin for you was the only one I ever got on a magazine cover,,lol.
|
|
|
Post by jerkymiah on Nov 30, 2010 14:01:33 GMT -5
After much dithering, I finally bought this aircraft, and while I like it very much, the one thing that I can't get over is the inability to navigate it realistically. In the VC, none of the instruments are visible, which means I have to use the hat switch to look at anything, but the compass is down and to the left so far that I have to constantly pan down and to the right to keep a course. I can use GPS hold or NAV hold, but neither of these are realistic ways to fly for this period. Because of a lack of a 2D panel (which I disagree with, but seems to be becoming more prevalent, but that's another topic), you can't see all the essential instruments, unless you zoom back to .50. I thank you for all the great aircraft that you are producing, I just ask that you make it possible to fly them the way they were actually flown.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by jimslost on Nov 30, 2010 18:10:06 GMT -5
I fear that we are up against a limitations of the simulator display here. The text books say the normal vertical field of view extends from 60 degrees above the horizontal line of sight to 75 degrees below it. That means if you are looking straight out the windscreen and want to know your heading or airspeed, the appropriate instrument should be in view. In practical terms, it also means you will have to look down at that gauge to properly read because it is only visible peripherally. But at least you will know where to look.
How much you see in the real airplane depends on your eye position (which in practical terms means seat position). In most cockpits, if your eye position is such that you can see out over the cowling/nose in level flight, your panel will be in view but not necessarily readable. In extreme cases like the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, a seat position which gives you a clear view thru the gunsight will require you to lower your seat before you can fly the gauges. Conversely, in the Curtiss Robin or Convair 580, you sit far enough aft to to have a good view of both the panel and the world outside the windshield - but the windshield is so far away it a resembles the rifle slot in a pillbox more than a windshield. Nothing is perfect.
I do not know what the true vertical range of vision in FS9/FSX is with the zoom at 1.0, but it is far far less than the roughly 135 degrees available to the human eye. My guess is that it's probably closer to 20 degrees total. If the sim airplane designer builds an authentically scaled VC, using a 1.0 zoom in most VCs will result in an extremely limited view. I generally use .75 zoom in FS9 (below which setting distortion becomes visible when looking outside) and .50 in FSX. Others have told suggested different settings which I have not found particularly useful. Each of us must find his own "sweet spot."
Having built two FS airplanes on my own and assisted GAS with all their projects, including this one, I have not found a viable alternative to building the cockpit to scale and using the hat switch to pan. Every alternative method of trying to "skew" the view by building a "distorted model" so more would be visible has resulted in products which either looked cartoonish or nauseating - and I mean that last literally. Some people aren't bothered by it, but when my mind sees lines squirm and twist when it knows they are supposed to be still and straight, the stomach rebels.
Not having found a way to bend the panel to gain better visibility, I ended up following Bill Lyons' recommendatin to go into the Flight Simulator configuration file and change the Pan Rate from the default 400 to 900. I've done that with all my FS9 installs, though for my taste, 750 was always a better speed. I can't even find that parameter in my FSX configuration file. You may find that this change better approximates "flicking one's eyes down to the compass."
I know this isn't particularly helpful. If you have any other approaches to curing this problem, I would be delighted to hear them, as I know you and I aren't the only one who find this aspect of the VC to be distracting.
jim
|
|
|
Post by jerkymiah on Nov 30, 2010 18:57:22 GMT -5
I generally fly with the 2D panel, just because it allows me to see all the instruments with a flick of the eye. This is especially important on take off and landing because the airspeed and vertical speed are so critical during those parts of the flight. As a real private pilot, I was always taught to keep my hand on the throttle at all times during those times of the flight except when absolutely necessary like raising or lowering the flaps. This has saved me from crashing at least once, so I have seen the importance of it, so I fly on the simulator the same way. Having to constantly use the hat switch to keep my eye on the airspeed, vertical speed, glide slope, etc. means having to take my hands off the throttle many times on take off or landing. During the cruise, being able to keep the compass in sight enables one to stay on course, especially in the presence of turbulence. Flying an aircraft such as this one during a time period when navaids were virtually nonexistent means flying by the compass, especially in low visibility and keeping an eye on geographical features when visible. Bill Lyons' Goose is probably the only aircraft that I fly in the VC only, because it is so well set up that all of the things I mentioned are possible from the VC. I know that FSAviator is a big proponent of VC only flying, and I don't disagree with any of his points in favor of it, but to me, it is trading one unreality for another. Doing a final approach without vital instruments in sight, or conversely, looking at vital instruments on final without keeping the runway in sight is just not realistic. You must be able to flick your eyes back and forth to do it properly. I didn't intend to turn this into a 2D vs. VC post, but it bears on my original point.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by jerkymiah on Nov 30, 2010 20:01:54 GMT -5
I wasn't really trying to persuade you to do 2D panel for this aircraft, I can live with VC only, just not having any instruments in view, without having to use the hat switch constantly to keep tabs on them. Like I said, it is trading one unreality for another.
Mark
|
|