Aussie made F86??

[Professor Brensec]

I was also going to mention the Jug. I think that's due to the similar engine cowling. I've only seen the thumbnail in the CFS2 section. Maybe it's the particular markings that reminds me of a Sea Fury.

I'm at work, so can't jump into my CFS stable to look but I think the Fury is the same colour and of course the RAF and RAAF roundels are similar too.
I think the Fury also has the Dark 'saddle' on top too.

In fact, now that I see the thumbnail. It really does look quite a bit like the P47 (until you see the wing shape).
The same style 'bubble canopy' has alot to do with it too. It seems to be in the same position and the fuselage is 'fat' and round. Even the four blade propellor probably contributes to the P47D classic look

[Hagar]

[quote]In fact, now that I see the thumbnail. It really does look quite a bit like the P47 (until you see the wing shape).
The same style 'bubble canopy' has alot to do with it too. It seems to be in the same position and the fuselage is 'fat' and round. Even the four blade propellor probably contributes to the P47D classic look

[Professor Brensec]

I recall the designer (sorry, I can't remember his name), posted a preview of the plane in 'Raw Screenshots' prior to it being released. I hung out for it for weeks, until I finally saw it and got it.
It's the same bloke who did the CA15 with the Griffon. (That's a great fighter, I thoroughly recommend a download to everyone. It's very fast, and climbs at something like 4,000 fpm, at 140 kts.)

I vaguely recall he mentiobned having a drawing, but I don't know what kind. May have just been a 'sketch'.

The fact that the thing was never actually made, makes it impossible to get the performance and flight characteristics, as there are none. But, as I said, it doesn't handle very well. It's a real dog, actually. The Griffon version he made is a very manoeuvrable plane, with quite a tight turn for that size plane. I don't know, again, whether those handling characteristics are from any 'official' design info. After all, the only one that was made was flown by only 2 or 3 people, so there wouldn't be much to go on anyway.

[Hagar]

[quote]
The fact that the thing was never actually made, makes it impossible to get the performance and flight characteristics, as there are none. But, as I said, it doesn't handle very well. It's a real dog, actually. The Griffon version he made is a very manoeuvrable plane, with quite a tight turn for that size plane. I don't know, again, whether those handling characteristics are from any 'official' design info. After all, the only one that was made was flown by only 2 or 3 people, so there wouldn't be much to go on anyway.

[Professor Brensec]

Sorry Hagar, been offline for a feww days, working.

Anyway, re your last post. I wasn't aware that the flight dynamics part of building a Sim plane was so difficult. (But thern I know next to nothing about these things really).

Given what you have said about msot builders using, or at least starting with a 'stock' air file, and maybe, I imagine, making some possible mods to that, given known characteristics, what is your opinion about the accuracy, or lack there of, of the 1% planes? I think these are 'billed' at places like avhistory as "very close to behaving like the original plane" or words similar.
Do you think this is a realistic representation?  

[Hagar]

[quote]Given what you have said about msot builders using, or at least starting with a 'stock' air file, and maybe, I imagine, making some possible mods to that, given known characteristics, what is your opinion about the accuracy, or lack there of, of the 1% planes? I think these are 'billed' at places like avhistory as "very close to behaving like the original plane" or words similar.
Do you think this is a realistic representation?

[Professor Brensec]

Being a pilot, you obviously would have a much better idea as far as the difficulty or ease with which these things would have been flown.
As you know I've only flown a plane once (so far) and from that I learnt nothing that I didn't already know.
So my experience is not limited, it's non existent. However, logic dictates, as you say, that these things must have been easier to fly than the Sim versions. With the 1% planes, if you make one mistake at a critical moment, there is vitually (pardon the pun!) no chance of recovery. But then again...........many pilots were lost (both experienced and imexperienced) through pilot error, rather than maechanical failure or battle.....................So.....how hard were they.
Would a bloke who flew one at 22 years of age, 60 years ago, be now able to give a reasonable judgement of the accuracy, by flying the Sim version at the age of 82? I very seriously doubt it!

M$ make quite a big beal in CFS2 about Joe Foss and Saburo Sakai being advisors. So maybe the ease with which the "stock' planes are flown, is a better representation.........................Dunno?

As far as M$'s answer to the AIR files question..........

The .AIR files contain proprietary data that aircraft manufacturers have provided to us. To help protect that information, we don't release the internal details of the .AIR file

Aren't all of the spec's etc for all these planes, a matter of public record these days. I mean, whats the secret?

[Hagar]

Would a bloke who flew one at 22 years of age, 60 years ago, be now able to give a reasonable judgement of the accuracy, by flying the Sim version at the age of 82? I very seriously doubt it!

LOL Knock 20 years off that & it would apply to me. I've only flown light aircraft although I had a few minutes stick time on a Hawker Hunter advanced trainer. My latest experience in the Extra (back in May this year) was just like flying one of my RC models. I've never flown anything like a Spitfire or Hurricane (chance would be a fine thing) but I'm convinced I could do so now, given the necessary pre-flight briefing. I'm not claiming that I could take off or land it without killing myself.

M$ make quite a big beal in CFS2 about Joe Foss and Saburo Sakai being advisors. So maybe the ease with which the "stock' planes are flown, is a better representation.........................Dunno?

I'm in no postition to argue. We have to take their word for it. I have spoken to several ex-WWII pilots who have told me it's reasonably realistic.

As far as M$'s answer to the AIR files question..........
Aren't all of the spec's etc for all these planes, a matter of public record these days. I mean, whats the secret?

I've always thought this is just an excuse for not revealing their secrets, a poor one at that.

[Rifleman]

I knew Australia had them, but not Canada. You learn something amazing every day from Hagar. Cheers Doug

Mark

Not only did we have them Mark, but look into this display team and see, in what regard, they were held in their day.............

[Felix/FFDS]

and unless it has been disposed of, the Canadian Warbird Heritage Museum in Hamilton (Ontario) has an ex-Golden Hawks (or a Sabre painted as such) one.

Not only did we have them Mark, but look into this display team and see, in what regard, they were held in their day.............

[Professor Brensec]

Hagar,

I saw that bit about the supercharger anomally in the website for the Mossie too.
I suppose there are a number of similar.......trade-offs which need to be made, simply because the program would have to be so large and complicated to accommodate all the little quirks and characteristics of planes and engines which don't follow the 'general' rules that apply.
I must say though, it didn't surprise me all that much.  ;D