eaglewing7

T50, is that the AN-2 that is being developed over on the Russian forums? I remember seeing something about it a while back, was it released?

It would probably be best if you specified for which aircraft you are looking for LIT textures...

Flown on: Air Canada 767 Westjet 737-700/-800 Piloted: C-152/ 152 II C-172R (fuel injected) C-172R (Tielert) C-172P (Tielert) PZL Wilga 2000 (on CAP3000E straight floats) C-172N (on EDO2130 straight floats - aircraft was destroyed in a crash a few months after I finished my float rating, killing the instructor) American Champion 7ECA Citabria Piper PA-34-220T Seneca III

Are you properly intercepting the localizer and glide slope? Find an airport with a full ILS and GS, and then follow the proper IFR approach procedure for said airport, runway, etc... If the aircraft will still not intercept the ILS, then there is likely an issue. ILS approches need to be attempted following the correct procedures. You need to be at the correct altitude, and location as you intercept the LOC and GS. If your too high, or too low, your going to have issues with the approach.

Looks like a Beechcraft T-6 Texan II.

Complete and total idiocy. Are you always this big of a troll on internet forums? Do you seriously think that your behaviour here, is possibly a reflection on what your behaviour was previously like on the .org before you were banned?

Whats the old saying... "...Absence makes the heart grow fonder..."

Ah... Never did understand all that Binary stuff, I remember in an ICT class having it explained, but I never "got it". Edit: Next guess, Canadair CL-44 or CC-106. Originally I would have sworn it was a Britannia, but, it's similar, so next up is the Canadair.

Huh?

Bristol Britannia.

Never mind...

Sorry can't help you there. The only one I know about is the Ice Pilots site... Maybe send the guys at Buffalo Airways an email, and see if they are willing to help you out?

Ah the Commando, quite an interesting aircraft. I hope your aircraft is quite accurate, because I really have the urge to take it out in the future and test the crosswind handling, which I have heard is atrocious. Apparently, the rudder on the '46 is too small, along with the vertical stabilizer, but the problem is compounded due to the fact that the fuselage is shaped like a football, which negatively affects the crosswind stability...

Looks great. The rudder and vertical stabilizer look pretty much right on to me. The horizontal stabilizer is at the same level, the elevator just needs to taper back more from the outer edges to the fuselage, just a bit more. As for the cockpit, looks great, although I can't say I've ever really seen the interior of a B-29...

Nice work on the rudder position, it looks good. Although it does look like the rudder extends to far down now, and looks like it might be cutting into the top of the tail gunners position. Can you by chance post a top view of the aircraft, just to check the wing, and horizontal stabilizer/elevator shape?

I think the cockpit windows also need some slight adjustments. The windows that run along the sides should come a bit lower on the fuselage, to offer a greater amount of view towards the wings, and also around the nose of the aircraft. Also, the scoops on the bottom of the forward engine cowling could use a bit more rounding out.

Water is hardly something you can scoff at, especially if it has been in the crates for the better part of 65 years. Even if it has only been in the crates for the last decade or so, it could have done some damage. On the other hand, I have seen the lengths that the British have gone to, to preserve, or at the very least, store items, and I can say it is pretty extensive. Here's hoping that a nice cache of 36 damn near new Spitfires is unearthed.

Tried her out last night, and was thoroughly impressed. Alabeo and Carenado are certainly taking the payware market by storm these days. Seeing as how Alabeo modelled the Waco optional 300 hp Jacobs radial engine, I figure they should also throw in the 93 in diameter Hamilton-Standard constant speed prop (also a Waco option for the aircraft). The sounds are awesome, and it really sounds like your sitting behind a large radial engine. This would be the kind of aircraft that you could hook your computer up to a good stereo with a lot of bass and really get that rumble from the radial engine.

Just purchased the Waco and the Pitts, here's hoping there worth it. But, I'll admit, the price is pretty good for Carenendo quality. Carenado has been getting more expensive with there recent releases, but they do have decent sales from time to time as well.

Looking good, and as for having both cockpits, as long as it isn't too much work for you. As for the aircraft as a whole, it looks good. The wings need a few more degrees of anhedral, and need to be more elliptical like the horizontal stabilizer. As for the horizontal stabilizer, it is the correct shape, but the elevator needs to taper a bit more from the rounded tips of the stabilizer, to the gunners position. It is a relatively subtle taper, but it's there... As for the engines, looking good, and yes the inboard engines certainly were much longer than the outboard, because of the landing gear being stowed in the nacelle.

I had a feeling that it would be released right after the Christmas sale ended. Looks great, and if the reviews from FSX users are anything to go by with regards to Alabeo's modelling, this will be a beautiful aircraft to fly.

FiFi must not have been a Silver Plate model, because they removed almost all of the defensive armament from them, because they were not necessary at that point in the war. Then again, even non-Silver Plate models that were dropping conventional ordinance usually had the majority of the turrets and guns removed because they were unnecessary. Although, I have heard stories that the remote turrets were a major pain in the arse for aircrew and mechanics... Seeing the whole aircraft in the second shot, I think you might be right, the aircraft does look a bit short, but I think there is a different issue that may be causing it to appear shorter than it should be. Looking at drawings, and a model I have of the "Enola Gay" made by Boeing, it appears that your model's fuselage is tapering down towards the tail too far back. That is, the fuselage begins to taper down towards the tail before the last "porthole" style gunners window near the last rotating remote turret. From the three view drawing I posted, the fuselage actually starts to taper down near the rear end of the aft set of bomb bay doors. Progress looks great, by the way. I noticed that you are going to model the somewhat more modern cockpit of FiFi, any chance of having another cockpit available as an option so that you could swap them out, and use a purely Second World War pit, without the aid of more modern instruments?

After the rear end of the fuselage is rebuilt, it should be in much better shape than the original. I guess the question I have to ask though, is what variant of the B-29 are you looking to replicate here? Are you going for an early model, with all of the remote control turrets? A Silver Plate version (nuclear bomber)? Etc...? There were some differences when it comes to smaller details on each different variant, but generally your model should be fine. I came across a three-view drawing that gives a good representation of the vertical stab and rudder, to show you what I meant about the size and shape of the stab, and the size and shape of the rudder. It also gives a good view of the horizontal stab, which is looking pretty good. With that drawing posted, it gives a pretty broad view of what the '29 looks like. A book like this might be useful as well, although the price is a bit high. Your local library might have a copy, sometimes it's good to check with them. http://www.amazon.com/Boeing-B-29-Superfortress-Warbird-Tech/dp/0933424795 Here are some more pictures of the tail: The three-view should be pretty good for helping with the horizontal stab changes needed. Keep up the good work.

I have no idea then why the stabilizer looks off to me then. If the plans you have appear to match, then it must be fine. It could be the fact that the pictures are fairly small, so the general scale could be skewed because of that... One thing I will point out though, is that the rudder is definitely off, because the edge where the rudder connected or hinged to the vertical stabilizer should be a straight edge, with no angles or bends in it. Also, the rudder is too wide, and needs to be made a bit skinnier. As for the horizontal stabilizer, your changes are definitely an improvement, but it still needs a bit more refinement before it will be completely accurate. I'll try and find some pictures to show what I mean more clearly next year.

I'm starting to think that it is a combination of proportional issues... From what I can tell, the rudder may actually be too big, or rather, too wide as a whole. From what I have seen, the rudder should not extend to or past the peak of the vertical stabilizer. As for the vertical stabilizer, I think it is actually too small. Finding a good set of three view drawings would be a great asset to help ensure everything is scaled correctly. And, a thank you for taking the constructive criticism as such. I look forward to seeing further development screen shots as they come in.