GeeBee R2 with Saturn V flight model

[Guest jonpoint]

Just for fun...When playing with flight models it's wise to make small changes, one at a time or amazing things happen.Here I was, sitting at NRA. Hit the starter, warm 'er up, call up to let 'em know I'm taxiing. So far, so good. Now, I'll just release the parking brake (the GeeBee doesn't need throttle to move away) and WHOOOOOAAAAAA...http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3dd96ff0556aa1da.jpgUp we go! Oh no, the engine's stopped from lack of air ;)http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3dd970205634dd0f.jpgAh, the Saturn V flight model works great huh? Sure beats crowded taxways. Just wish I could move FORWARDS :-hahJon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Guest R_Driscoll]

Did mission control complain about spilling coffee on this one?Now I don't want to get technical, but don't most planes go forwards?I know some planes would be better going backwards - Spifires, Camels and other taildraggers etc because you can't see where you're going. Maybe you've got something here. Big advantage in a crash too - the seat would be in front behind you and absorb some of the damage. But you'd get substantial neck strain from looking over your shoulder all the time while flying.Maybe time to pass this to Ansgar - he's the expert. Could he rebuild the B747 with wings facing backwards? A sort of canard arrangement. If it leads to a substantial improvement in performance (as your photos clearly show) I could send a little message to Boeing. Ahh, but the cockpits at the wrong end, isn't it. But its on a little bump - so just reverse first class with the cockpit, cut some new holes out the back of first class/new cockpit, and there you go. People make difficulties when its really quite simple - and I know nothing about engineering!Anyway, gotta get back to Earth now ... thanks for the shots Jon!Regards,Rob D,Design Engineer, Boeing (self-appointed)

[Guest jonpoint]

"Did mission control complain about spilling coffee on this one?"SPILL it? We climbed so quickly, the thermos exploded from lack of air pressure - looked like a shaken-up beer can :-lolActually, this may have something to do with the missing 747 wheel and the strange appearance of, well, strange appearances in FU3 land recently. Story goes that your 'inadvertent' landing in the 747 at CVA was actually a test trial for landing the shuttle at secretive locations. Apparently NASA is very impressed with your recovery efforts (with the Mazda) and have sold their large transport aircraft and bought lots of small oriental cars instead :-eekI narrowly missed one the other night on approach to AWO - automobile lighting isn't highly visible from the air. My attempts to get a shot failed 'coz the thing's too small. I'll have to catch one on the ground.Ha ha :-hahJon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Christopher Low 5,338]

Jon,Does the FU3 engine support satellite launch vehicles ? Maybe someone could develop a fully working version of the Space Shuttle, with expendable SRB's and external fuel tank. Perhaps we could simulate a realistic launch sequence, with the main engines igniting six seconds before the SRB's....the entire stack moving forwards in response....special effects for the shuttle engines........flames and massive clouds of billowing smoke for the SRB's........a roll program after the Shuttle clears the tower......realistic booster separation at 150,000 feet.......and then external tank jettison later on. Imagine being able to watch the ET disintegrating as it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere !When the launch is over, we could fly a realistically modelled orbiter back to an unpowered landing at one of the major airports (we could always use the MAYDAY command to clear the runway).So, what do you think ?Chris Low,ENGLAND.PS. You all think I'm joking, don't you ? :-)

[Guest jonpoint]

No Chris, I think you're on to something. Or is that ON something? :-lolSeriously though, the thought has entered my mind since this happened. I was amazed at the feeling of acceleration as the ground dissapeared below. I'm sure elements of it could be done - the flight model's certainly up to it :-hahJon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Christopher Low 5,338]

Jon,What about developing a Shuttle orbiter, and then getting a modified version of Ansgar's 747 to carry it up to approach and landing altitude ? Then we could REALLY test our flying skills :-lolChris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest jonpoint]

Now you're talking! I was thinking last night of how to create a 'takeoff' area at 200kft using POI or something. The problem is, 'Quick flight' doesn't let you start above 10kft which would make for a very hectic approach I'd think :-eekBut the 747 idea, pure genius! I don't know how you would combine two flight models together? The other way is to create the two as one aircraft, then somehow 'lose' some of it! Nah, if I can get over the 200kft high takeoff area, as a glider, we'd have a winner :-hah Jon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Guest Motormouse]

Jon,You could script it as a 'challenge', Zoar mode gets you to 50,000ft,and by saving the position as a start marker,when you start the challenge you'll be at 50,000ft (er, does this make sense).Trouble is you'll only be able to use the Shuttle like this within the challenge,maybe you should give it rocket engines and a 'normal' take off run :-lol:-wavePete

[Guest Dann]

Reminds me of a rule, regarding flying:Basic Flying Rules1. Try to stay in the middle of the air.2. Do not go near the edges of it.3. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground,buildings, sea, trees, wires, and interstellar space. It is much moredifficult to fly there.Also,Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death I Shall Fear No Evil For I amat 80,000 Feet and Climbing(Sign over the entrance to the SR-71 operating location Kadena, Japan).Though apparently the SR-71 has nothing on you!Dan

[Christopher Low 5,338]

Jon,I can't remember the altitude at which the Shuttle orbiter detached from the 747 carrier aircraft during the approach and landing tests, but it would be great to be able to do this. The 747 itself was modified to have a twin tail, since the Shuttle interfered with the aerodynamics when using the normal version.Does anyone know how much runway this Shuttle/747 combination required for take-off ?Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest jonpoint]

"Does anyone know how much runway this Shuttle/747 combination required for take-off ?"Dunno exactly although a blurb I read some time ago (from NASA) implied that a stripped-down 747 with the shuttle on it (and some fuel...) weighed about the same as a fully laden '400 with a full complement of passengers, cargo and fuel. This was when they were still using them as transport aircraft to get them back to the launch area, not the initial testing.From this I assume it's similar to a fully-laden aircraft but with a higher center of gravity.Jon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Christopher Low 5,338]

........so I assume that take-offs from Bonny Doon Village are out of the question ? :-lolChris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest Quaxo]

Pete, if you put the following line in your flt3.cfg file:no_zoar_ceilingthe zoar will bring you as high as you want... but be careful, at extremely high altitudes, the FPS drops well below 1 fps...Cristian