Classic British Flight Sim

Hi guys

Best in beta testing that if you see something report it for investigation rather than try to make changes youself

Just becomes a mess otherwise.

Garry

Congratulations Steve on a nice visual model and panel. I’ve spent a couple of hours examining it.

First impression: it takes-off and lands OK. Felt light on the controls – not as stable as expected. Flaps look remarkably large and their pitching effect is large – were they really like that? (It’s over 50 years since I last saw a Sea Hawk “in the flesh”.)

Wingspan of your visual model is 38.3ft rather than the authentic 39ft but a 2% discrepancy is quite common in freeware and is acceptable. I’ve compared the rest of the airplane geometry in the aircraft.cfg file with the visual model and made a few fairly minor changes to the former.

The Roll MOI seemed unrealistically high so I halved it.

Wheels are significantly misplaced (noticeable from dirt thrown up) as can be checked accurately by probing with a temporarily added light.

In order to achieve coincidence, in the aircraft.cfg file the nose-wheel needs to come aft by 2 feet and the main wheels need to move forward and the track needs to be reduced. So the undercarriage lines become
point.0 = 1.000, 11.750, 0.000, -4.500, 2776.283, 0.000, 0.700, 39.000, 0.150, 5.000, 0.790, 2.500, 3.000, 0.000, 145.430, 163.610

point.1 = 1.000, 0.000, -3.850, -3.820, 2776.283, 1.000, 1.000, 0.000, 0.200, 2.500, 0.780, 5.500, 5.000, 2.000, 145.430, 163.610

point.2 = 1.000, 0.000, 3.850, -3.820, 2776.283, 2.000, 1.000, 0.000, 0.200, 2.500, 0.780, 6.500, 5.000, 3.000, 145.430, 163.610

Consequently the C of G and the fuel tanks need to be moved forward to +1, +0.5 and +2.5 feet respectively and to avoid overbalancing.

I changed the wing incidence from +4 to -1 degrees and set tailplane incidence to +1 in order to get the elevator trim near to null at high speed.

To achieve the authentic max airspeed I swapped the .air file for that from the Jet Provost and in the flight tuning set the parasite drag to 0.8 and the induced drag to 0.9.

The plane now suits me fine, but of course it would need an ex-Sea Hawk pilot to give an objective assessment.

Cheers

BestofBritish

For Bestof British: Which Flight Sim are you using? FSX or FS9.

May I suggest thet you try flying an ILS approach by hand and a carrier arrested landing? The real test of any aircraft is in flying circuits.

Very interested in your comments to date.

Moments of Inertia are most important in defining the FS handling of an acft and giving that acft the correct 'feel.'

Hello BestofBritish,

many thanks for the email regarding the same post - the feedback is appreciated and Hobby and I will duly review the tweaks for possible inclusion in the final release. I hate to be the nagging wife again however, but if we can, as Garry just requested, report areas of doubt or email such FDE changes (as you did) rather than publicly altering things, it would help keep things under control for the final release.

Thanks a lot,

Steve

Could everyone posting on this thread please read ALL the posts including the post I made regarding feedback to the devloper

Don't post fixes here, leave that to the devopler

It really does get very messy very quickly otherwise.,however well intended.

Thank you

Garry

I have just had a look at the Seahawk & am well impressed the only thing imho is the size of the flaps when fully extended,I can't recall them being so big.

FS9 Version

The flaps on the Sea Hawk really are very big.

Please look at the photo on P33 of 'From the cockpit No.3 -Sea Hawk.'

Sorry can't post pictures - never acquired the skill.

Hi Hobby

Will this do??

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Nav ... 0919105/L/

Garry

Interestingly enough, I have had a few comments about the size of the flaps recently, but as Hobby confirms, the flaps are pretty big I suppose. I cut them out to 3 view plan drawings, so give or take a bit, they should be accurate in area. Here are a couple more pics showing the flaps off:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Nav ... id=1305602

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Nav ... id=0919145

Hi Steve

Yours show relitive to the one I posted that even though the flaps are big they don't away look as big as they really are, due to some angles

Perhaps unless you had a head on view the impression of them being smaller could be formed.

I had this with my 170.....the flaps looked too big but most pic were fly over angles and in that postion the inner was often invisible at mid setting

Fortunately I found some ground shots head on and they were right and every bit as big as I had made them off the plan but didn't look right to me as that is not how I remember them due to the angle I used to see them daily.

Garry