PDA

View Full Version : J7W Shinden...Just wondering if...



AFSG_Jedi
01-01-2005, 10:38 AM
I was just wondering if the J71W Shinden has ever been discussed for possible addition to the flyable in PF. I know it didn't quite make it into the war but like the I-185, YP80 & others It's just too cool to ignore. It seems fitting somehow to have this one "Exotic" in PF.

If there is just one aircraft I would ask for...but I'm not going to ask for just one...I want them all! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

If you don't know what it is check the link

J7W (http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/Design/J7W.htm)

DuxCorvan
01-01-2005, 10:47 AM
This was discussed much time before PF was ever released, when Luthier wasn't abducted by aliens yet, and he stated that he hated what-ifs, and that the Shinden would have to be put in PF over his body...

But, who knows? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

AFSG_Jedi
01-01-2005, 10:47 AM
Gee...After I posted I did a search...Looks like I should have done that before the post. O'well...Can't hurt to bring it up again...'

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Guess I shouldn't bother about bringing up the Blohm & Voss BV 141 either.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

p1ngu666
01-01-2005, 10:48 AM
funny, thought luther made some what if's

Eraser_tr
01-01-2005, 11:45 AM
Then why do we have stuff like the Go-229?

PraetorHonoris
01-01-2005, 12:35 PM
Because someone (Gibbage) modeled it and Oleg implemented it in the game.
If you model a plane and Oleg approves it, saying that it will be in the sim, you can have your favourite plane.

Eraser_tr
01-01-2005, 01:54 PM
"he hated what-ifs, and that the Shinden would have to be put in PF over his body..."

Yeah I know about the models, but what happens if someone models a shinden up to oleg's standards? Would Luthier prevent it from getting in or would he just deal with it?

VW-IceFire
01-01-2005, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eraser_tr:
Then why do we have stuff like the Go-229? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was a sort of plan to do what-if 1946 style stuff. I think its sort of fun...making a 1946 campaign right now. Plus, when Gibbage started...all the good planes were taken.

WUAF_Badsight
01-01-2005, 03:19 PM
the Propeller version would have better performance than the Jet Shinden , if it ever had been made

im amazed the search funtion worked for you AFSG_Jedi as it hasnt worked at all for me in the last 2 months

the very first thing Leuthier said about the Shinden was that if someone moddeled it he "wouldnt have problem with putting it into the game"

but then the very next month he said "No Way" to the Bearcat or Tigercat or Pancake or the Shinden ever being included

a complete about face

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 03:30 PM
I've had nothing but trouble getting it to search the PF forum, but it's worked fine for me in the others so far.

What on earth actually happened to Luthier? I remember reading even the modellers were having big problems getting in contact with him a while ago.

Daiichidoku
01-01-2005, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Propeller version would have better performance than the Jet Shinden , if it ever had been made

im amazed the search funtion worked for you AFSG_Jedi as it hasnt worked _at all_ for me in the last 2 months

the very first thing Leuthier said about the Shinden was that if someone moddeled it he "wouldnt have problem with putting it into the game"

but then the very next month he said "No Way" to the Bearcat or Tigercat or Pancake or the Shinden ever being included

a complete about face <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe that had to do with the recent corporate cr@p in PF that popped up

I love the Shinden...check out the JP anime "Wings of Homminase"...has prop and jet planes in it, easily recognizable as a ficticous series of SHindens, post-war (a war where, tho not said, is ewasy to surmise the JP empire didnt get their heinies kicked by USA...very cool

As much as I love the Shinden, I would hate to se it in FB...a type with what? 45 minutes single test flight, with gear locked down throughout?...could NEVER make an accurate FM for that

fordfan25
01-01-2005, 06:24 PM
its to bad. haveing al those what if planes would be kool. id LOVE to fly a bearcat.

LEXX_Luthor
01-01-2005, 08:47 PM
Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>a type with what? 45 minutes single test flight, with gear locked down throughout?...could NEVER make an accurate FM for that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Modern aviaton engineers CAN.

You can't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
01-01-2005, 09:26 PM
How can they, Lexxx?

There are so many variables, especially the ones that may exist that are lost in time

Would computers have fortold exactly the port wing stalling first on the corsair exactly? maybe, maybe not
A computer does nothing more than a human can do, just does it a helluva lot faster...when it was first designed, countless man hours of research and calculations were put into the design...almost any design, for that matter....there are almost always corrections or alterations that are needed to be made before it is right...and there are some things that a computer just cant predict, or will predict WRONGLY, cuz the universe aint digital (AFAIK), its not cut and dried

To think that you can just assume that our modern comps can solve anything and make it perfect is just silly...what comes out of a computer can only be as good as what is put into it

Heck, there is reams of RL data on the types in FB, and STILL they are not all correct, how can you expect to get right a type that barely flew and has little or no flight data?

Ok, I know you werent speeaking of computers exactly, but then, I wasnt saying (other than literally, my bad) that it could never be done under any conditions, I meant, and I guess should have said, that it could not be modelled accurately for FB

How do we know how the Shinden may have flown with different volumes of fuel in it? or torque? or when guns were fired at different AOA or G loadings? we dont, and never will, unless someone new-builds a Shinden

All we could hope for in FB is a close approximation, a GUESS....Id much rather have correct FMs on the stuff we have first, please...maybe then lets get the what if types

WUAF_Badsight
01-01-2005, 09:33 PM
the F22 posted performance stats that basically exactly matched the computer simulation of the A/C

they can get a 99% correct understanding from a design in the computer wind tunnel & find the same results from the scale model

aircraft design isnt magic , its a science

WUAF_Badsight
01-01-2005, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Maybe that had to do with the recent corporate cr@p in PF that popped up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
nope , he posted that in the second month of the PF forum existing , back in september(?) 2004

LEXX_Luthor
01-01-2005, 09:50 PM
Daiich:: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ok, I know you werent speeaking of computers exactly, but then, I wasnt saying (other than literally, my bad) that it could never be done under any conditions, I meant, and I guess should have said... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Yes, we were talking about computers in modern aviation engineering.

Such FM modding is the only way to create a realistic 1914-1918 combat flight sim, as the farther we go back in time, the less data is preserved or was even tested for (think, like, 1914). However, that may apply to construction data as well that would feed the FM variables, so...what to do?

Eraser_tr
01-01-2005, 09:56 PM
well the bearcat and tigercat would be out of the question with the whole northrop-grumman thing. all that aside, it would be really stubborn to not add them if made up to quality standards just because they were too late to see service during the war.

2 categories of what-ifs really
1. would have definetly seen service had the war been longer and served after the war.
2.*might* have seen service if the war lasted, *if* the prototypes performed well enough.

Bearcat and tigercat would go in the first, go229 and shinden in the second. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather see a good boomerang, meteor or more flyable currently AI planes first.

Daiichidoku
01-02-2005, 02:16 AM
Ok, thanks for clearing up if it had to do with corp cr@p badsight

But....remember, the F 22 was largely, if not entirely designed with computer aid...were talking about planes crafted by hand, with sliderules and even MkI eyeballs, in an age where "to make it go faster, hit it with a bigger hammer" was not uncommon

Sigh...yes, Lexxx, what to do indeed?
Only thing I can think of is, if we HAVE to have "what ifs" or other types that have little or no data, fuggetaboutem!....at least, lets get the types that there is plentiful, accurate data for, get them CORRECT, then maybe more on to frilly exotics, experimentals, one-offs and types that had production, but didnt see service for whatefver reason, mostly being too darn late for WWII

As I hav said, I do love the Shinden...and the Bearcat (heck, anything from Grumman)...I love warbirds, period....but it rankles to think we have crappy 38s, amonst other types that need tweaking, and rare types like Mig3U, 185 et al and no Mosquito, for example...or Typhoon/Tempest, Macchis, Dewotines..the list goes on

Its been civil, Ive stated my point, as have you guys, no more needs to be said, these things usually turn ugly, so lets leave it at that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ok, Ive added this comment in edit....and not to start anything, but one other reason NOT to have the weirdo types in FB (at least until any representitive types are completed) is that it opens the floodgates to other freaks of nature...we all know just how many types there were as one-offs and such...from any country...heck, the 109Z in FB is technically based on the never built G model 109...a paer plane, proper....does this mean that ANY type that was on paper 39-45 should be considered for inclusion in FB? ugh, I hope not. Vought Pancakes with a side of Northrop (can I say that?) XP-79 Flying Ram, plz? the flying ram even flew, making it mor elegit than the Z....

Anyone who finds a reference to a type that a designer sketched on a napkin should be included? along with its "estimated" performance? lets keep FB a "historical" based sim for as long as possible, crimson skies can wait http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 02:37 AM
people keep bring up the 109-Z

it isnt a PF airplane

how often in the last 2 weeks have you had the opportunity to fly one in a PF map hosted coop or DF room

it was made for & released into FB : AEP

only by combine installing (great feature btw) will you get a 109-Z in PF

same argument applies to the Go-229

also . . .

how many years was it before these planes were finally finished by a 3rd party moddeler for FB ?

think about that for a minute

FB didnt get inundated with Luft46 the moment it hit the shelves by the developer did it

it took the hard work of 3rd party people to make these planes a reality (sic)

how many years is it now that PF has been released now ?

how many updates have we been given for the allied 46 stuff ?

fact is , hardly anybody can be bothered to make the Pancake or Tigercat , or Bearcat

sad . . . . . but reality

& i think it bites on certian US plane fans irritation gland from the way they post about 1945 & 46 planes we have now

fact is that there refusal to include them is only a recent thing

with Maddox Games . . . there never was any hesitation with these A/C . . . . . just a lack of decent 3rd party people willing to put in the work of moddeling them

in other words . . . bagging on the Bf-109-Z & Go-229 is getting _O_L_D_

RocketDog
01-02-2005, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
....but it rankles to think we have crappy 38s, amonst other types that need tweaking, and rare types like Mig3U, 185 et al and no Mosquito, for example...or Typhoon/Tempest, Macchis, Dewotines..the list goes on
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree. One of the greatest frustrations of the IL-2 series has been the way that ever-increasing numbers of aircraft added in a very haphazard fashion (e.g., no Morko Moraine or Curtiss, but we get a Go-229 in FB). And all the while there are some long standing issues with core aircraft that we do have. The peculiar and incorrect way in which dive compression is modelled for the P-38 is a good example.

Regards,

RocketDog.

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
I have to agree. One of the greatest frustrations of the IL-2 series has been the way that ever-increasing numbers of aircraft added in a very haphazard fashion (e.g., no Morko Moraine or Curtiss, but we get a Go-229 in FB). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i give up

you can type out the reasons why in black & white & people will still continue to ask "why"

IL2-chuter
01-02-2005, 04:04 AM
Actually, it was two flights for a total of forty-five minutes for the Shinden. It could very likely had some issues in handling, either stable and not too maneuverable or . . . well . . . nasty at high AOA. Without good computer modelling to base the design on it's not likely that they got it perfect. Combat canards are a goofy lot, that's why you didn't see many before computers. Still . . . I've seen the bird first hand, stuck my head in the cockpit (not hard, the fuselage was on a palate), and checked out that motor and huge prop and spinner. Maybe you can't pick up chicks with it, but still . . . very high on the cool meter. And regardless of the stability, the Japanese would have adjusted the CG (if necessary) and pressed on with production just because of the projected climb performance and armament. Desparation will have that effect. And you couldn't argue the FM for it in the game with any certainty like some do with, well, name a production plane in the game. That's got to be reason enough for a developer to include something like that in a sim . . . and, besides, think of all the Crimson Skies based paint jobs . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


I'm havin' a great year so far.


.

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 04:12 AM
they hauled the flying example back stateside in 45

its now at the smithsonium museum in washington isnt it ?

restored ?

PICTURES MAN ! ! !

for teh love of gawd , wheres mr common sense with his camera !

IL2-chuter
01-02-2005, 01:30 PM
They started restoring it in, oh, maybe '90/'91 BUT it was in much worse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif condition than first thought and would have adversely effected their restoration schedule for more pressing (definition?) aircraft so they stabilized the aircraft and re-stored (don't get confused http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif) it. They've had a planning team working on a new restoration plan so it should be restarted, sometime http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.


.

Saburo_0
01-02-2005, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
They started restoring it in, oh, maybe '90/'91 BUT it was in much worse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif condition than first thought and would have adversely effected their restoration schedule for more pressing (definition?) aircraft so they stabilized the aircraft and re-stored (don't get confused http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif) it. They've had a planning team working on a new restoration plan so it should be restarted, sometime http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.
. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info! I rate the the Shinden as very cool. So is Bells Canard plane forget the designation.

Alot of the planes in FB PF I dont fly much but never regret getting them in the game. This series now has more planes than I ever dreamed of seeing i'm very happy. Would like to see an early model p-38 tho.

LEXX_Luthor
01-02-2005, 05:17 PM
Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sigh...yes, Lexxx, what to do indeed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We can start by covering ground we thought we covered earlier. Let us cover... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:Ok, I know you werent speeaking of computers exactly, but then, I wasnt saying (other than literally, my bad) that it could never be done under any conditions, I meant, and I guess should have said... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, we were talking about computers in modern aviation engineering.

Such FM modding is the only way to create a realistic 1914-1918 combat flight sim, as the farther we go back in time, the less data is preserved or was even tested for (think, like, 1914). However, that may apply to construction data as well that would feed the FM variables, so...what to do?

If you wish to respond to this, you may do so, but it may require you to read the post several times before you understand. Thanks.