Sikorsky S-43/JRS-1

[vhbob]

G'Day All

When George Diemer's Sikorsky S-43 was released a week or two back, I asked if anyone knew of alternate repaints for it. I only needed to exercise some patience. At the last count we had available-
S-43 Pan Am
S-43 Inter Island
S-43b new model with twin fins and longer bow
S-43b Pan Am
S-43b Pan Air Brazil
JRS-1 Navy version different windows
JRS-1 Six US Navy / Marines Schemes
If you haven't tried it you are missing the ideal machine to expand your routes into the Carribian or Hawaii.

Trev. (vhbob)

[Randy_Cain]

Hi Trev,

I didn't notice he'd uploaded the b model today...thanks!

I know some folks out there got impatient and started repainting his original S.43 as a JRS-1, but SURPRISE! He's built a genuine JRS-1... it's just not out yet! ;D

The problem with those repaints that are out all ready is they won't work on the JRS-1 model, so any one here planning to repaint it, you might want to wait for the actual model to come out. That info came straight from George. With the b variant released, I guess it won't be much of a wait.

On another note, I tried to help him out with the flight dynamics troubles he had with his original S.43 release. I did the best I could, but I'm really not qualified for that job. If anyone knows how to adjust the table for "flaps pitch" so it won't need 35% noseup trim when the flaps go down to 38 degrees for landing configuration, please tell me and/or George so he can get that fixed.

At least you'll be able to land the b and JRS-1 at about 40 MPH as it should be.
Yours,

P.S. If you'd like info on the adjustments I made to the original .air file, please pm me and I'll be happy to fill you in. I know we want both his models to fly just as beautiful as they look. ;D

[dc6tryer]

Hi,

I have been trying to fly by the numbers and am consistently down on the cruise speed at 8000 ft by about 40/50 KIAS .
Is this anything to do with the airfile parameters you write of in your post?

Andy.



Thank you to George Deimer for these cracking models !

[Randy_Cain]

Hi Andy,

I think I see the problem. All the flight notes and airspeed indicator in the plane are in Miles Per Hour, not knots. That's why you're seeing the 40-50 difference in your speeds.

On a seperate but related note, this plane is a beautiful model, but it's Flight Dynamics weren't fine tuned by a team of experts. I'd never taken the plane up to 8,000, but did just now to check your results. I see it flying at 150 mph....just under it's rated cruise of 157 mph cruise. That translates to 130 knots.

Keep in mind the era your flying in. You'd fly this much as you would fly the Grumman Goose. ...but the S.43 is a faster plane. It's landing gear, especially the tail wheel, is just as fragile. That was why I tried to help George with that part of the model. There was orignally no drag on the landing gear when it extended and you could only land the plane at 80 mph at minimum without cutting the throttles completely long before you would on the real aircraft.

When you take off for a flight, you'd get yourself clear of all obstacles, retract the gear and flaps (if used) before you reached 135 mph. The idea is to provide the smoothest ride for your passengers and keeping the engines within their parameters to avoid an engine failure. Your passengers don't have oxygen and you only have enough for yourself that that's only the one bottle. The closer you get to 10,000, the closer your less healthy and older passengers get to hypoxia.

Your ascent and descent would also be along the lines of passenger comfort, like in the range of 100-300 feet per minute. ...like the goose or DC-3. Your passengers have drinks and loose personals that weren't tied down.

The altitude for cruise was where ever the best wind was for the direction you were flying in. If you went to something like 8,000 feet for a better time, if the wind up there was a 20 knot headwind and wind on the deck was 2 knots, you were better off on fuel and time at 2,000 feet. (Like the flight I'm on now, I have an 8 knot crosswind up here, and I would have been better off at 2,000)

To navigation, you'd be using Radio Range Beacons and staying just to the right of the beam of the next station. You'd fly odd numbered feet traveling north or east, and even numbered altitude traveling south or west. In theory, avoiding traffic going the other way.

This plane broke a lot of speed and altitude records for it's day, but those numbers that George included with the plane are listed as experimental flights, not something used by any particular airline.

I hope someone does pick up the ball and run with it to getting the quality of the flight dynamics to match the quality of the model. I do give George 4 stars for making it easy to fly within the parameters that he's gathered in documetation he's compiled from Sikorsky. I only wish I knew more about the interactions of the .air file parameters.

Check out the Grumman Goose by Bill Lyons and Flight Dynamics for it by FSAviator here in the Planes and Tutorials sections of CalClassic. They'll give you a better feel for what this plane would have felt like. ...and the dangers of landing it too hard.

Yours,

[vhbob]

G'Day All

Randy's ideas on the Sikorsky's performance make sense to me. She is certainly not one for the FS-9 air traffic controller, just fly the beacons and use realistic rates of climb and descent. The lack of drag is notice able when descending while trying to keep the manifold pressure in the green. I can only endorse Randy's comments on the Flight Dynamics for the Goose by FS Aviator, a great improvement to an old favourite.

Trev. (vhbob)

[Randy_Cain]

Hi,

Andy, I just remembered something. When I first loaded that S.43 ..and the S.43B they had 5 degrees of flaps down. I had to retract them myself. I don't know why loaded that way, but they did. Make sure your not flying with 5 degrees of flaps at cruise.

Yours,
;D

[dc6tryer]

Hi,

I'm back here now as I cannot get onto the screenshot page!!!
Thanks for your replies Randy..I've always tended to try to come in on a gentler slope so as to (try to) keep at a reasonable speed, but that only works 2 times out of 3 at best!

Will also check the flaps; this co-pilot of mine spends half his time asleep.


Andy.

[Randy_Cain]

Hi,

I get it. Remember, on the Sperry comparison compass, you have to set the pitch also, once you've engaged it. ...to make sure your flying level. That's the way it really worked. You also need to check your pitch (Pitch knob on the Sperry HSI) from time to time. As your fuel burns, the Center Of Gravity changes and thus, so does your pitch....just like the real thing. There is no altitude hold. (but you can cheat and press Ctrl-Z and get it anyway. ..but you have to do that EACH time you turn the compass on OFF and off ON again) ..dyslexic little me.

Yours,

[Randy_Cain]

Hi,

I just heard from George. Two versions of the JRS-1 were uploaded to Flightsim.com today. Probably available first thing tomorrow.

;D

[vhbob]

G'Day All

I am downloading George's new version (dialup), it sounds like he has modified the interior layout as well as making a genuine JRS-1 and I look forward to flying it. Instead of just flying around the pattern as I have before, I loaded up the Inter Island S-43 and flew all of their routes using information from Bill Lyons' "Golden Hawaii" adventure flights and apart from the rather ineffective flaps mentioned by Randy, it was a great way to spend a few hours in the Islands. All that time spent watching "Hawaii 50" on T.V. years ago came in handy . At least the place names were familliar. An interesting point is that the Sikorsky seems to have been used mostly as a land plane with it's amphibious capacity a back up on those over water sectors. I suppose this is largely true of all amphibians, water landings and takeoffs are done only when unavoidable. I remember reading somewhere that "A seaplane is not a boat that flies, it's an aeroplane that floats'.

Trev. (vhbob)

[sunny9850]

Had a chance to give the JRS-1 a quick checkout flight and must say I do like what I see so far.
I think overall there is probably a little lack of drag in the FDE since even dirtied up with gear and flaps down the airplane still felt very slick and even held in level flight did not really want to slow down all that much.

One other thing I noticed was that when bobbing in the water the passengers would get at the very least wet feet if not more since the water level cuts right through the fuselage ;D ;D
Of course that is probably impossible to work around since the sim simply works off a few contact points and not an actual hull.

Very nicely done aircraft all in all.

Stefan

[Randy_Cain]

Hi,

I've been working on some improvements to the flight dyanamics for the S.43, S.43B and JRS-1s. They all use the same .air file, so I just picked one and tried to improve it's landing abilities. ..at least as best I know how. With George's permission, I've just uploaded that package, 1 .air file for each model, to Flightsim.com, so it should be out in a day or two. I hope you enjoy it. If anyone has any ideas on how to improve it further, PLEASE let me know.

Yours,

[vhbob]

G'Day Randy

Well done, I think you've nailed it. I installed your modifications to the Pan Am S-43 and got an instant improvment. I can now touch down at 55 mph and descend at 750 fpm and not exceed 120 with first flap and 20 inches. I hadn't noticed the auto mixture problem but you have fixed that too. At one stage I did suffer a flap failure at take off setting due to a total loss of electrical power but managed a circuit below flap operating speed. This was due to me forgetting to turn on the generator switches on the default Cessna when loading the flight. Any chance of making a couple of the spare switches operational ?. If not I can live with it.

Thanks Again Trev. (vhbob)

[Randy_Cain]

Hi Trev,

I'm really glad you liked them! I tested them for a week of flights to try to get the lift and drags balanced out. Sorry for the little over-modelling of the lift on the flaps, but I had to in order to get the plane off the water if you only have one engine, or an engine failure. ...Micro$ofts wonderful exageration of surface tension.

To the generator switches, sorry but that would be in George Diemer's hands. I was just trying to find those parameters in the .air file that kept the plane from flying an approach and landing within the numbers published by Sikorsky. ..the numbers George included in the package. I only needed to play with 5 parameters in the .air file to do that. Since there are all ready repaints for the models out there, I was really trying to avoid making changes to the aircraft.cfg file, as that would mean new ones for each package. I really wasn't looking forward to having to give that kind or amount of "tech support".

Oh, I did notice that George has no speed limit or damage parameters set for flaps or gear in the airfile or .cfg, so other than your power failure, they shouldn't fail...unless there's another way to do that that I missed.

Thanks for your comments! I appreciate it! ;D

.....and now for the S.42?

[vhbob]

G'Day Randy

I usually load a flight with the default Cessna 172 at Bremerton National with 40% fuel and cold and dark cockpit. I will just have to rember to turn on the gen switches before selecting the S-43, otherwise the batterys go flat in a few minutes, no flaps, no radio. At least the Sikorsky has a master switch, the otherwise excellent YS-11 dosn't have even this most basic control and must be turned on via another aircraft. I suppose I could start with every thing on but I enjoy clicking switches and poking buttons. The ideal setup is on David Maltby's BAC-111 (great plane, pity there are no props) which has a cold start button that turns off every thing. That's easy for me to say as I didn't have to work out how to do it. As for a future S-42, bring it on. Next time you talk to George, please pass on my thanks for a great S-43.

Thanks Again, Trev. (vhbob)