Among the flight models I'm considering for my generic cessna pit is the Cessna Skymaster 337. I'm looking for a good FSX version, but it seems there's not much out there. At least not that I've found so far.
Has any one had any experience with aircraft from "Flight SIm Developers?
http://www.fsd-international.com/Hangar/C337/index.htm (http://www.fsd-international.com/Hangar/C337/index.htm)
Or, do you know of other Skymaster's out there?
Tom
The Skymaster, built in Reims, France, was the ugliest Cessna ever made ... :P
Seriously, engine 2 is a pusher as you know, so being one of a kind design, whoever made a flightmodel had to innovate and tread between single for dynamics (only one thrust axis)and twin for performance. Not sure about the result....and its an ugly shoebox!
Just jokin'
Fsd made some nice airplanes years ago, are they still in business?
Cessna twins are many, some sleek ones, 310, 420 etc with superb performance
If I had to build a Cessna I would choose the Caravan amphibian,
Go anywhere, land and water, turbo prop, (accessing FL's) and many to choose from.
Was just dreaming aloud :laugh:
Quote from: jackpilot on July 14, 2011, 06:38:19 AM
. . . the ugliest Cessna ever made ... :P
No argument. Well, maybe Odd more than Ugly ;)
But it has the one feature I like more than any other. It's not popular or common!
There's a great You Tube about it called Skymaster History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR828wv6I0U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR828wv6I0U)
I need to do some digging to see if FSD is in business, but I also just found out that Carenado is working on an upcoming release as well.
Quote from: jackpilot on July 14, 2011, 06:38:19 AM
Tom
The Skymaster, built in Reims, France, was the ugliest Cessna ever made ... :P
Not sure about the result....and its an ugly shoebox!
Are you kidding??? This was my dream airplane in the days where I thought I would win the lottery so I could afford to buy & maintain a twin engine. ::) :)
To me, the Skymaster looks beautiful and the safety aspect of having 2 engines without any control problem if one fails makes that my preferred twin by far.
But I know you must have been kidding...there is no such thing as an ugly airplanes anywhere ;D
Maurice
Now if you really want an ugly Skymaster check out this single engine variation that the Navy has:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdrgG7O7j5c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdrgG7O7j5c)
One thing for sure it was controversial!
And had very limited success.
The plus was the in line engines, one minus was that in case of a crash the pilot and passengers ended up as a nice ham sandwich between two slices of cast metal. :D
Well the Sim is safe!
BTW is your shell wide enough for a Skymaster instrumentation?
Look at this busy Mil. version...super nice!
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cessna-O-2A-Super/1293521/L/&sid=5df4f4356f8af2eb72ec289104864838
It will be an interesting Sim. We have one of those out here at Aurora Airport in IL alot and it is pretty cool to watch it fly around in the pattern. Now if I were building a twin simulator I would probably have to go with the BN2 Islander. I have it on the desktop and it is sooooo much fun due to its pure simplicity. Great for flying around in Orbx scenery. Sometimes i Feel like loading into my 737 cockpit with my wrapparound visuals just to do some vfr island hoping or mountain dodging. I bet the Skymaster would be fun in this enviroment also.
Scott
Quote from: jackpilot on July 14, 2011, 11:15:39 AM
. . . BTW is your shell wide enough for a Skymaster instrumentation?
Look at this busy Mil. version...super nice!
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cessna-O-2A-Super/1293521/L/&sid=5df4f4356f8af2eb72ec289104864838
The instrument panel will need to be a compromise. It's a 172 fuselage so there's no issue with building it fairly accurately for something a bit larger like a 182 but much larger and compromise enters the design. But to be honest though I'm ok with that to a limited degree. SO I guess I'm not a purist. I won't try and fake a Citation in a 172 shell but I may go as far as the 337.
Other than white green and yellow ranges on the airspeed most of the primary flight instruments are fairly similar. The big variable would be engine instruments. One concept I am toying with is to use hardware based gauges at the pilots position for the common instruments. Then on the co pilots side use an LCD with face plate for the engine instruments. That way changing from the 182 to the 337 would require only a software change and few mechanical changes. Load the flight model, swap the "modularized" Single engine TQ controls out for a set of lever style twin controls, and swap the faceplate over the LCD for the engine gauges.
I know of one local 337 fuselage that's being parted out, but the owner knows what he has his hands on and won't let it go for cheap. While it may not be a popular aircraft those that own them won't let go of them and are willing to pay top dollar for the repair parts. So scoring a 337 shell is not likely nor is my wife letting me sleep at home if I buy a second fuslelage :-\