Jump to content

Bronco X numbers ?


Recommended Posts

After a thorough look and flight in the Bronco, I have come up with some questions 1. Fuel ... I noticed the fuel quantity in your model is different than the american build is this something just from the Luftwaffe. The average Bronco had 252 gallons of onboard fuel in 5 bladders in the Wing, plus a selection of external 150 Gal, or 230 Gal, and 2 100 gal tanks on wing hardpoints... I dont get your number of 500. question 2. Your flight characteristics, are kind of limited, with NO full military warning by-pass...and a max speed of 221kia@15 thousand feet........... in the real world 310 kilometers was a real creation which equals around 244 knots @ 10k feet. comment You need to add a little more torque to achieve (almost reality) to match the incredable reality of the art. 3. last but not least NAV lights.... instead of the pear shape you give a tube shape ? one more 4. Why are the textures all done in 1024 resolute, when FSX allows 2048 (better detail). Not complaining...... just wanting to help better the project..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

Our sources states that 2 x outer+2 x inner + feed + 230 external = (2 x 39,3) + (2 x 71,4) + 223 = 221,4 int + 223 ext = 444,4 gallons total usable fuel.

Thats how it is configured in Our Bronco.

I´m not sure what You mean with "NO Full Militatry by-pass". The flight test of the real Bronco we used for comperisation (German 99+32) showed that our engine instruments never where more than 5% off the real readings. I doubt it can be much better - at least I think it´s the closest a FSX turboprop ever have been. I´m not sure where Your numers come from.

Not sure about the Navlights. We have added the standard FSX navlights to the model - FSX really sucks when it comes to lights and effects.

The 1024 resolution FSX uses. We kept to it cause we really wanted the Bronco to perform with good FPS. Right from the very start we agreed that this was one of highest priorities on this project. It´s true that details get better with higher resolution, but it doesn´t mean that it necessarily becomes more real or better looking. I think some of our customers have seen some bad shimmering with HD res textures. Labels become very sharp and clear, but not more real.

I know that some of the decisions we made on this project does not follow the common trend, one of them being high res textures. But sometimes You are better off following Your own preferences than simply do what thecompetition does.

As said elsewhere..

I personally always pick fps friendly addon aircraft if I just want to buzz around in FSX after a long day at work. I rarely think very deep about why I pick the addon I do, but it almost always turns out to be a FPS friendly one like that AS Catalina, Lotussim L-39, Realair Scout etc...

We just wanted the Bronco to be among those.

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get my numbers by 2456 hours of habitation within the bird, outside the bird, under the bird, over the bird. goto OV10Bronco.net, we posted the internal fuel stats their, I think 8 or 9 years ago, one moment and I can give you the exact fuel per bladder.... 252 "gallons US" was the standard vietnam bird, w wither 3 100, 2 100+1x230 Gal.... I guess the easiest thing to ask is are you utilizing metric here in measurements ? If so, It is understandable. I also am aware that when most B Broncos were handed over to the Luftwaffe, the were transferred via Ramstein AFB, where German counterparts, did not know what they wanted to use them for. A Second thing.... I just tried to modify the .cfg file on my Bronco, with no luck.... even better the whole bird does not show up anymore in fs, I have re-installed, went back in time............... geesh, did you put a lock in the .air file to avoid performance mods. FRUSTRATING........ Maybe the facsimile is not a substitution. Thanks anyway..... Guess I'll do my own version.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. sometimes the resolution does count, I will pm you a link to upload the mods I made to the Tim Conrad version, I think it will make you pull your hair out, the good thing is...... Performance, fuel consumption, flight characteristics.... are pretty darned good....... The bad thing was, his model was not even close, BUT the price was right... FREE

Link to post
Share on other sites

FINN after re-reading my post above, I above all wish to reiterate....... YOUR Work on this project is FAR MORE PHENOMENAL than any payware product I have, and words cannot tell you of my love for this bird........... of all the birds I have flown in my life before my permanent grounding...... this one "OV-10A is and has been the number 1 love in my heart....... SHOOT my oldest daughter was probably conceived in the "O" pit shhhhh !!! don't tell.......... Well that answers that question HUH !!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get my numbers by 2456 hours of habitation within the bird, outside the bird, under the bird, over the bird. goto OV10Bronco.net, we posted the internal fuel stats their, I think 8 or 9 years ago, one moment and I can give you the exact fuel per bladder.... 252 "gallons US" was the standard vietnam bird, w wither 3 100, 2 100+1x230 Gal.... I guess the easiest thing to ask is are you utilizing metric here in measurements ? If so, It is understandable. I also am aware that when most B Broncos were handed over to the Luftwaffe, the were transferred via Ramstein AFB, where German counterparts, did not know what they wanted to use them for. A Second thing.... I just tried to modify the .cfg file on my Bronco, with no luck.... even better the whole bird does not show up anymore in fs, I have re-installed, went back in time............... geesh, did you put a lock in the .air file to avoid performance mods. FRUSTRATING........ Maybe the facsimile is not a substitution. Thanks anyway..... Guess I'll do my own version.

I've modified the .cfg. There is no lock. Probably user error - detail what you are trying to achieve and how you are trying to achieve it. Sounds like you don't have Admin privileges on the .cfg file so we should also know what OS, where FS is installed and if Win 7 if you disabled UAC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind ............... background interference..... If you add 300 more pounds of torque to the cfg, you can achieve a decent handle response, change the roll rate to 45 degrees, and the fuel to 50.5 gals for each wing set you can achieve the factory build, 252 gals US in the wing 230 or 150 gals US in the ext Belly Tank..... and HOPEFULLY 100 gals ea. on wing hardpoints....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind ............... background interference..... If you add 300 more pounds of torque to the cfg, you can achieve a decent handle response, change the roll rate to 45 degrees, and the fuel to 50.5 gals for each wing set you can achieve the factory build, 252 gals US in the wing 230 or 150 gals US in the ext Belly Tank..... and HOPEFULLY 100 gals ea. on wing hardpoints....

Again, I'm confused. There is no such adjustment for `roll rate` within the aircraft,cfg file and if you change the fuel load on a per-station basis, you have also changed the polar moment of inertia about the roll axis, which would require mathematical calculation to restore instantaneous roll response as a separate equation from this `roll rate` .

The torque figure has no immediate effect on handling, except insofar as acceleration rate and ultimate rate of climb are concerned.

Can you explain in detail how you achieved these remarkable feats?

And while you're at it could you also provide a link that confirms you assertion about total fuel capacity and usable volumes? I don't disbelieve, merely wish to corroborate and long-distant memory is such a fragile thing. The simplistic statement of 252 US gallons is both unqualified and unjustified on the OV10Bronco.net site, so it would be useful to have further information.

Finally, did you also correct the aircraft .cfg file error about fuel?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

We have nothing against customers who are tweaking or modifying any parts of our products.

Just note that such files are not allowed to be distributed in any form.

We are always open for changing data if better exist. Problem is that the data must be verified to be more accurate than those we have used.

Our data comes from NASA docs and inflight videos of the realworld German Bronco.

Stories about "My uncle who served in vietnam, knew a groundchief that clearly told that the aircraft performed like this or that" cannot be used, neither data from books like "The Worlds Greates Attack Aircraft" etc..

Such data are mostly unconfirmed and more often than not - wrong.

I have no doubt about Your knowledge - just understand that we need a clear confirmation that Your figures are right and ours not before we will look into it. Confirmation requires more accurate flight test data.

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you definitely got the fuel weight wrong... You show the fuel type as `1` - Avgas, when it should be `2` JetA

FSX assumes thusly:Avgas = 6 LBS/Gallon; JetA = 6.7 LBS/Gallon

So it follows that if the fuel type is stated incorrectly in the aircraft .cfg (as it is here) then any and all calculations about fuel weight are likely incorrect - whcih could be a simple explanation of this apparent discrepancy.

Which is why i asked Ddeuce about his figures, as we've got specific gravity (weight) US Gallons and UK gallons all converted form Kilos to consider here..

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have nothing against customers who are tweaking or modifying any parts of our products.

Just note that such files are not allowed to be distributed in any form.

We are always open for changing data if better exist. Problem is that the data must be verified to be more accurate than those we have used.

Our data comes from NASA docs and inflight videos of the realworld German Bronco.

Stories about "My uncle who served in vietnam, knew a groundchief that clearly told that the aircraft performed like this or that" cannot be used, neither data from books like "The Worlds Greates Attack Aircraft" etc..

Such data are mostly unconfirmed and more often than not - wrong.

I have no doubt about Your knowledge - just understand that we need a clear confirmation that Your figures are right and ours not before we will look into it. Confirmation requires more accurate flight test data.

Finn

Finn My question is did you use metric weights, or US atomic weight, this could be the communications gap, also if you used NASA or Luftwaffe data then you were wrong because Luftwaffe data is "MODIFIED" data such as Bladder replacement, avionics weight adds, etc, etc... If you goto Boeing they surely will give you the data you require.... OR if you need more data GOTO any PILOT IN AMERICA, who flew the bird, or are still in the bird.... 50.5 gals per bladder... 5 bladders. NASA's 524, 526, 244 all had wing bladders removed during retrofit, and the fuel cells were replaced with baffled fuel cell Which is a 300 hundred gallon fuel cells........ In which we who were vertically challenged called WATERBEDS. This data is currently available anywhere on the Internet. or just a phonecall away.... IF you choose NOT to be believe knowledge of an individual... then look it up... OR ask I will give you a number for Chuck Burris, President of the OBA North America. OR the CACTUS Air Force in Carson City Nevada, WHO btw just so happens to own the former LUFTWAFFE bird 99-26... of which I have available for download...... I am so sorry that you choose not to believe me... Mathijs has a photo I uploaded to him of I believe to be the only in flight photo of the Bronco gunsight...... of which came from my photo album..... IF that is not enough kindly ask your 99-36 owner if I can borrow his bird for a fly-over (ROOFTOP) of your HQ. Snave....... Thanks I saw that discrepancy and corrected it in the 1st hour after dl (hadda do a check ride first,,, FINN I do not question your bird......... WE who enter these forums for the most part... choose to do so just to help you in errors and corrections as Snave has done......... REMEMBER IF NOBODY HAS YOUR BACK... YOU HAVE NO-ONE. And in the words of Thorow EXPERIENCE IS THE ONLY GENUINE KNOWLEDGE.... YOU ARE WELCOME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finn,

I think Simon has it right: the error is in the fuel type and the weight difference assumed by FSX.

I also came across this: http://www.ov-10bronco.net/faq.cfm

Under the weapons question (oddly enough), I found this: "The centerline station (only) can carry one 150 US gallon or one 230 US gallon drop tank. The under wing hardpoints can each carry a 100 US gallon drop tank. The five self sealing bladder wing tanks totalled 252 US gallons."

And also this: "The cargo capacity of an OV-10A is 3,200 pounds and 110 cubic feet." Interesting.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

Finn My question is did you use metric weights, or US atomic weight, this could be the communications gap, also if you used NASA or Luftwaffe data then you were wrong because Luftwaffe data is "MODIFIED" data such as Bladder replacement, avionics weight adds, etc, etc... If you goto Boeing they surely will give you the data you require.... OR if you need more data GOTO any PILOT IN AMERICA, who flew the bird, or are still in the bird.... 50.5 gals per bladder... 5 bladders. NASA's 524, 526, 244 all had wing bladders removed during retrofit, and the fuel cells were replaced with baffled fuel cell Which is a 300 hundred gallon fuel cells........ In which we who were vertically challenged called WATERBEDS. This data is currently available anywhere on the Internet. or just a phonecall away.... IF you choose NOT to be believe knowledge of an individual... then look it up... OR ask I will give you a number for Chuck Burris, President of the OBA North America. OR the CACTUS Air Force in Carson City Nevada, WHO btw just so happens to own the former LUFTWAFFE bird 99-26... of which I have available for download...... I am so sorry that you choose not to believe me... Mathijs has a photo I uploaded to him of I believe to be the only in flight photo of the Bronco gunsight...... of which came from my photo album..... IF that is not enough kindly ask your 99-36 owner if I can borrow his bird for a fly-over (ROOFTOP) of your HQ. Snave....... Thanks I saw that discrepancy and corrected it in the 1st hour after dl (hadda do a check ride first,,, FINN I do not question your bird......... WE who enter these forums for the most part... choose to do so just to help you in errors and corrections as Snave has done......... REMEMBER IF NOBODY HAS YOUR BACK... YOU HAVE NO-ONE. And in the words of Thorow EXPERIENCE IS THE ONLY GENUINE KNOWLEDGE.... YOU ARE WELCOME.

I think You got me wrong here.

Every help towards making the Bronco, or any other addon better are welcomed.

If we get clear evidience that we did something wrong, we will change it as far as possible.

Just note that on every project I have done, people have showed up telling us how things should be and how wrong we where.

Often the data they used came from sources like I explained in my former post.

Your initial post did nothing to prove Your data. Imagine if I we had to change stuff everytime someone would show up in this forum telling us how to change !

Until now we have tried to model this first release as close to the German 99-32 as possible using the data we got for that, which is to be regarded as first class.

We are always willing to edit, but please BACK UP YOU REPORTS WITH WRITTEN DATA FROM BELIEVABLE SOURCES !!

It´s a clear bug that we have set fuel type to Avgas and will fix this for the 2012 update.

Until then You could use this section for the aircraft.cfg:

[fuel]

fuel_type = 2

number_of_tank_selectors = 2

electric_pump = 1

fuel_dump_rate = 0.002 //!

engine_driven_pump = 1

manual_pump = 0

anemometer_pump = 0

leftmain = -1.0, -8.0, -1.1, 67.25, 1.95

rightmain = -1.0, 8.0, -1.1, 67.25, 1.95

lefttip = -1.0, -13.5, -1.1, 37.65, 1.45

righttip = -1.0, 13.5, -1.1, 37.65, 1.45

center1 = -1.0, 0.0, -1.1, 37.10, 1.10

external1 = 0.5, 0.0, -2.3, 230.00, 7.00 // 230 Gallon Tank center

//external1 = 0.5, 0.0, -2.3, 150.00, 1.00 // 150 Gallon Tank center

Please send us snippets of Your data and we will use it for the next versions in the 2012 update.

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

Finn,

I think Simon has it right: the error is in the fuel type and the weight difference assumed by FSX.

I also came across this: http://www.ov-10bronco.net/faq.cfm

Under the weapons question (oddly enough), I found this: "The centerline station (only) can carry one 150 US gallon or one 230 US gallon drop tank. The under wing hardpoints can each carry a 100 US gallon drop tank. The five self sealing bladder wing tanks totalled 252 US gallons."

And also this: "The cargo capacity of an OV-10A is 3,200 pounds and 110 cubic feet." Interesting.

Such numbers are fine - but still only numbers on a website and does not prove if they are right or wrong.

We would need some real documents as a prove before changing what we got - please understand !!

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

Never mind ............... background interference..... If you add 300 more pounds of torque to the cfg, you can achieve a decent handle response, change the roll rate to 45 degrees, and the fuel to 50.5 gals for each wing set you can achieve the factory build, 252 gals US in the wing 230 or 150 gals US in the ext Belly Tank..... and HOPEFULLY 100 gals ea. on wing hardpoints....

(Taking posts in rather backward order...)

Please note that changes like this might get You the right numbers at certain conditions, but probably will wreck realism in most other conditions.

Feel free to change as You like, but please uderstand that we cannot give any support afterwards. It´s like when You open up Yor brand new TV to tune some internal settings and then afterwards going back to the shop where You bought it and complain that something is wrong.

As said before:

Our data comes from NASA and the Bronco demo team, this has been processed by our flight model guru John, who has been working with aerodynamics in real life too. He uses complex tools to convert the data into something FSX can understand.

This does not mean that the flight model is 100% spot on, but at least we got very close here - also verified by the Bronco team and it´s pilot.

Please try to understand our point:

Our sources are well known and proven for us. We had hands-on data from reliable sources. We do not have any doubts about Your knowledge, but neither do we have other prove about Your numbers than Your own written words here.

We know about the OV-10Bronco.net website - I also looked in there during developement.

The current Aerosoft Bronco X is simulating the German 99-32 using data from the manual covering that and no other.

The 2012 update will bring more versions and equipment, so please hold on until then. We will strive to make them as good as the current Bronco + the fuel type fix.

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats fine........... I sent a light fix via Mathijs email early this am....... any data you require can be readily available to you, and As I assume your OBA German Air Wing is accurate, thus is the OBA North America........................ visit their website....... unless perhaps you would like to come to Fort Worth, Texas as verification seeing as how website info is not valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

I don´t need to vist Texas...

All we need are info on where the numbers on OV10-Bronco.net comes from - thats all ?

Like copies from the flight test, factory tests or realworld manuals. Thats what we use now.

Please PM me Your source data, and we will be happy to use them for the 2012 update.

Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've modified the .cfg. There is no lock. Probably user error - detail what you are trying to achieve and how you are trying to achieve it. Sounds like you don't have Admin privileges on the .cfg file so we should also know what OS, where FS is installed and if Win 7 if you disabled UAC.

I think he rather meant the ".air" file not the aircraft.cfg file so much although it seems he also tried to do some aircraft.cfg file adjustments. reread his post.

dduece.

I could open the air file and make changes. with "aired". My version I am using is product version1.52. Dont know what you use to edit air files.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually he said

I just tried to modify the .cfg file on my Bronco, with no luck.... even better the whole bird does not show up anymore in fs, I have re-installed, went back in time............... geesh, did you put a lock in the .air file to avoid performance mods. FRUSTRATING........

At no further point in the conversation has he actually told me, you or anyone else what he modified. Which was why I asked...The statement was that BOTH files were locked - I simply informed that I had found no such lock on the .cfg file and questioned what changes he had made as the .cfg file does not permit those independent, isolated adjustments - (in point of fact neither does the .air file, but that's clearly beyond your comprehension so we won't continue that here).

Only `huge difference` in this topic is in our relative contributions to the discussion at hand... I'm still waiting for Ddeuce to provide the changes. And so are you unless your prescience has once again expanded - in which case the result of the 2.30pm at Chepstow on the coming Bank Holiday weekend would be nice to know...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...