Jump to content

buster_dee

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About buster_dee

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

477 profile views
  1. Beautiful plane. Well done. I was a mechanic in my distant youth. When I first heard of a Sabre, I was in heaven. So compact; so innovative; so much going on. The engine sounds will be a challenge. 'That can't be right. It's the size of a Griffon but sounds like a Formula I.' Zackly
  2. I would accept a real one as consolation. I'll turn the goat lose on the flower beds.
  3. Perrrrty Martlet. I agree that updates on bug fixing is interesting in its own right. I'm a visual guy, but I like 'under the hood' too. Thanks TFS for committing to the 'long game.'
  4. buster_dee

    CoD 5.0

    Thanks for link.
  5. No change for me. Still unflyable. I recall (imperfectly--I'm old) a discussion in which it was argued that skewing stick range when trimming is realistic, so no curve-centering as with Ride of Flight. I'll buy that, but why not make a centering for FFB only--that is, re-center FFB while retaining range skewing? To provide some context for those not having FFB sticks: in my case, at cruise with -100 trim, the stick is about 1 inch from the forward limit, the a/c is still climbing, and there's still a noticeable rearward FFB fighting me.
  6. A shameless aside. I was in the pattern in a C152 when I started getting frantic calls for my position. After turning downwind, I looked back to see who was annoying me. One of the Yak-9 replicas (built from original blueprints, but Allision powered) was coming up my tailpipe. I landed as quickly as I could (I don't remember why I did not roll out and give way). The new owner taxied in and braked one wheel to spin into parking. He got out and stared at it for a while, then turned to me, pretended his knees were giving out and, grinning like a child, said "I can't believe this is mine." I don't think anyone ever reported Sean Carroll's signature low, high-speed passes.
  7. I don't model much anymore, but I would love to help research a B24 if it gets a green light.
  8. Just being silly. The Sunderland was a combat tool, but also nearly a home--beautifully BIG. I like it very much.
  9. The mighty Sunderland. The plane that single-handedly drove up the price of real-estate. . . . and bent a lot of U-boats,
  10. Thanks. If two gunner slots (plus the nose of course) are the safest resource bet, then I would not bump the tail for it. I love the immersion of the ball turret but, without some artificial aid, it's field of view is poor. The K4 computing sight likely had as much to do with superior accuracy as did ball, guns, sight, and gunner being rigidly wed. Computing sights sometimes found their way to other positions, but the ball always had it. Apologies for shanghaiing your thread MP. Kudos for raising the poll.
  11. Love the Lanc as well, and it has fewer crew positions. Buzzsaw, I think you are mistaken regards B17/B24 turret similarity. The Ball was (besides the 24's retract gear), but the top turret wasn't. B17 used Sperry (hydraulic); B24 used Martin (electric)--very different. The B24 tail used Consul, MPC, or Emerson; the B17 was more of a hand-held. As you mentioned, the B17E/F and B24D (my favorite versions) had no nose turret. AAF hit results suggest the Ball was the most accurate (the Navy's ERCO nose probably similar). Anyway, I very much like your solution for limiting crew positions, except maybe for the Ball, which covered a lot of airspace (but is somewhat disorienting). I would go one further: if the hit on resources turns brutal, model the positions you stated, but limit the human seat to one person who can hot-seat. Blowing up the whole thing: love dual control--for those long, boring flights. I know: long-winded.
  12. A fitting tribute. Thanks for sharing Sita.
×
×
  • Create New...