Sign in to follow this  
Guest jonpoint

GeeBee pre-Beta issues

Recommended Posts

For those with the pre-Beta GeeBee, firstly, my apologies for the crashy issue. Indeed there appears to be an issue and it seems to be related to the cockpit setup(!). Due to time constraints, I hadn't done much taxiing for a while, all I was interested in was landing and takeoff (which I did from the quick flight screen). Last night I jumped in at NRA, fired her up and let the brakes go - bang! Helloooooo desktop :-eekThe fact that Steve's having problems with the cockpit leads me to believe it may have something to do with it. The other thing is model position and contact points. You may remember the logbook/taxiline problem with the DC3? Well, the GeeBee DID have the same problem but not now. If you fly (crash?) in to an airport it remembers where you were the next time you run FU3. Maybe this too is a problem?Meanwhile, if you can put up with not taxiing, please have a good play with it and keep the feedback coming! We'll sort it out somehow :-)Thanks :-beerchugJon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Jon: It's still a beautiful bird, and I'm enjoying it immensely. I simply find a spacious airport like McChord, or Paine, and then PAGE UP and immediately PAGE DOWN, and throttle down. You can now taxi to your runway and fly, land, and take back off anywhere in the Seattle area.Unfortunately, in the San Fran area, mine crashes to desktop while Map is loading. Thanks for our new Classic Jon. > Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,Thankyou for that one ;)This may help immensly because, as soon as you hit or , you have reset the flight (and trashed the logbook). This seems to prevent FU3 from remembering your starting point. Somehow, this must be tied in with the problem. As soon as you start moving at a controlled airport, something triggers FU3 to begin ATC procedures (the controller hassles you to 'say callsign' etc) and it must be this point that's causing it. My crashes to desktop as I turn off the runway after landing are probably again caused by ATC trying to call me up as I never actually hear either message, it's just 'desktop time' by then. Do you hear anything (directed at you) from ATC during all this? My bet is that you don't as by doing the above, you have effectively removed yourself from the 'running' game and are just a bystander now.Why it does it straight away in Sanfran is strange - all my testing with the Beta has been in Seattle, although I did fly Sanfran a lot with the Alpha. As both aircraft share the same (bodgy) cockpits, that cannot be the problem eh? This doesn't help Steve but I have another workaround for his issue - simply mod the Mustang resfile and I'll convert it to the GeeBee ;)Thanks again and yes indeed, as you can tell by the mountain of small details, I certainly intend the GeeBee to be as good if not better in quality than the standard FU3 aircraft. Your input has already helped immensly :-beerchugJon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Jim, >>Thankyou for that one ;) >My crashes to desktop as I turn off the runway after landing >are probably again caused by ATC trying to call me up as I >never actually hear either message, it's just 'desktop time' >by then. Do you hear anything (directed at you) from ATC >during all this? My bet is that you don't as by doing the >above, you have effectively removed yourself from the >'running' game and are just a bystander now. >YOU'RE RIGHT, I DON'T. ( gbj )>Thanks again and yes indeed, as you can tell by the mountain >of small details, I certainly intend the GeeBee to be as >good if not better in quality than the standard FU3 >aircraft. >THAT'S ALREADY APPARENT ! ( gbj )Your input has already helped immensly :-beerchug MAKE IT A FORSTERS, THE REAL KING OF BEERS. ( gbj )>>Jon Point >************************* >(effyouthree@hotmail.com) >*************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note: This is feedback on the latest beta that Jon has sent to some of us. It looks like a GeeBee in outside view but uses the Mustang cockpit.I taxied out at Halfmoon Bay and lined up for take-off. Taxiing works fine. During the take-off roll I experienced a tremendous torque but I managed to kick it straight. Well, actually more than straight since I did scrape both wings a bit before I was airborne :-eek I then cruised around and tried to get used to the trim, throttle and torque. With full throttle I may have to kick full right rudder to keep going straight and even nudge it a bit with the stick. I spent 15 minutes learning to ride this bronco and headed back for the airport. The aircraft seems to stall at 100 kias. I trimmed it up to 110 kias and adjusted the sink rate with throttle inputs. I came in all right and settled down but then I went scraping wings again. For the moment I've disabled "gear damage" and this seems to include wing damage. Also, I'm using the quick flight option to keep crashes out of my logbook :-) Anyway, it didn't crash and I managed to keep the sunny side up. I turned around and took off again. Then I spent another 20 min doing touch and go at Halfmoon Bay. Eventually I manged to land without scraping the wings. The crucial thing is to touch down with absolutely no rudder input. Other aircraft will accept a minor skid without toppling over but this bird won't. However, it does not seem to be prone to NOSING over. I'm in no position to judge whether this model flies as a GeeBee but I can attest that it flies as "hot", yet controllable taildragger. It's quite easy to scoot around at 110 - 200 kias and I'm surprised that I found it this easy to land. I'm not very good with taildraggers but my problem tends to be nosing over rather than toppling over. With this one it's opposite. Maybe it has bouncy struts / high spring loading? Actually, vintage aircraft WERE bouncy since the gear was poorly damped. Without flaps the only means of speed control is the angle of attack (trim), just like Sukhoi. I can get used to this one ;) Issues or features:Strong torqueHigh roll rateVery prone to toppling over / stiff gearNot prone to nosing overStable and predictable in flight, once trimmed and settledI'll emphasize that last point -- any real aircraft will act predictably and consistent within its "flight envelope". If you settle for a trim (speed) and throttle setting the plane should settle for stable flight. Then, if you bounce it around and let go it should settle again, albeit after a period of phugoiding (bouncing). Well, with this one we can't really let go of the stick since it will require small aileron inputs all the time to check the touchy roll axis but you know what I mean. best regards,Hans Petter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hans-Petter,Thanks for the feedback, it seems like flight model #64 is getting quite close now :-)>>I taxied out at Halfmoon Bay and lined up for take-off. >Taxiing works fine. During the take-off roll I experienced a >tremendous torque but I managed to kick it straight. Well, >actually more than straight since I did scrape both wings a >bit before I was airborne :-eek Yes, the torque effect is very high. It has a lot to do with the engine vs. total aircraft weight - about 50%. Also, in flight, the size and lightness of the wings (no fuel in 'em) and the 'barrel-like' fuselage allow the plane to roll very quickly i.e. the torque effects happens quickly. Roll inertia is minimal.>>I then cruised around and tried to get used to the trim, >throttle and torque. With full throttle I may have to kick >full right rudder to keep going straight and even nudge it a >bit with the stick. I limited the rudder angle a bit (+/- 30 degrees?) because, with earlier models I found myself sometimes kicking it too hard which, as soon as one wheel was off the ground, snapped into a roll. I could open it up a bit to +/-45 degrees.I spent 15 minutes learning to ride this >bronco and headed back for the airport. The aircraft seems >to stall at 100 kias. That should be correct :-)I trimmed it up to 110 kias and >adjusted the sink rate with throttle inputs. I came in all >right and settled down but then I went scraping wings again. >For the moment I've disabled "gear damage" and this seems to >include wing damage. Also, I'm using the quick flight option >to keep crashes out of my logbook :-) >>Anyway, it didn't crash and I managed to keep the sunny side >up. I turned around and took off again. Then I spent another >20 min doing touch and go at Halfmoon Bay. Eventually I >manged to land without scraping the wings. The crucial thing >is to touch down with absolutely no rudder input. Other >aircraft will accept a minor skid without toppling over but >this bird won't. However, it does not seem to be prone to >NOSING over. I moved the engine slightly back and lowered it too as I had lots of nosing-over in early tests. Regardless of this, the GeeBee does have a high C of G when on the ground. It's a small plane with short wings, long struts, a heavy engine and a BIG prop. If you shortened the gear, the prop would hit the ground :-( Also, again the light tail is easily flicked around. The aircraft has little effective inertia and will change direction quite abruptly, especially when you don't want it to.>>I'm in no position to judge whether this model flies as a >GeeBee but I can attest that it flies as "hot", yet >controllable taildragger. It's quite easy to scoot around at >110 - 200 kias and I'm surprised that I found it this easy >to land. I'm not very good with taildraggers but my problem >tends to be nosing over rather than toppling over. With this >one it's opposite. Maybe it has bouncy struts / high spring >loading? Actually, vintage aircraft WERE bouncy since the >gear was poorly damped. Without flaps the only means of >speed control is the angle of attack (trim), just like >Sukhoi. I can get used to this one ;) I assumed that the gear had essentially no damping. The tailwheel is certainly just a lever with a spring but I haven't seen inside the spats! Again, I assume there to be little absorbtion in the mains either. Hitting hard is similar to a 182 - you'll bounce a lot!>>Issues or features: >Strong torque >High roll rate >Very prone to toppling over / stiff gear >Not prone to nosing over >Stable and predictable in flight, once trimmed and settled >>I'll emphasize that last point -- any real aircraft will act >predictably and consistent within its "flight envelope". If >you settle for a trim (speed) and throttle setting the plane >should settle for stable flight. Then, if you bounce it >around and let go it should settle again, albeit after a >period of phugoiding (bouncing). Well, with this one we >can't really let go of the stick since it will require small >aileron inputs all the time to check the touchy roll axis >but you know what I mean. >Thanks for that, Hans-Petter! I really needed all of this. It confirms a lot of how I feel about it but I can't be trusted any more - I've flown the GeeBee in so many different configs now, it takes some time to adapt to the more stable model we have now. As a point of interest, if I switch torque off, I can easily fly from airport to airport purely using trims. I couldn't have done that a month ago :-hahAnyone else done any exhaustive testing yet? I have relaced the views (with GeeBee ones) in the cockpit and everything's OK. THAT problem was due to the pre-Beta resfile being trashed - my apologies :-)Jon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks,After a weekend of playing and sorting:1. ATC sounds are sorted now. I had a couple of 'rogue' files that were causing the s-l-o-w ATC voice problem. I have fixed these and tried them out OK. Thanks for the advice, Ansgar - I am surprised that FU3 will accept nearly every 11khz format! I am more surprised that it accepted 22khz as well (s-l-o-w ;) ). My version of Cool (unregistered) doesn't do batching and I'd somehow messed up the save settings. Like the graphics, I do all my editing at higher resolution (44khz, 16-bit) and down-sample. Somehow I'd missed a couple (although, how they ended-up at 22khz is beyond me).2. ATC is fine now. I had to replace the 3 files that affect where ATC gets the name from. Now, if you start taxiing away without talking to anyone, ATC calls you a GeeBee, not a Mustang!3. The cockpit seems stable now. I tried some judicious editing of both the F2 and F3 views with no hangups in CPD. All other GeeBee views installed OK (through CPD) and work fine.4. Logbook registration. This is definitely working now and I checked it with a number of flights in both regions. When you next fire-up FU3, it remembers where you were last time you landed!5. The Sanfran 'thing'. This is also fixed (was last week I think) and was caused by file 1 (ATC text file). I think I may have trashed Ansgar's file here because it WAS working. I had a backup at the office so I'll try that tonight :-)6. Flight model. I am reasonably happy with this although, after some flying on the weekend, I think we should probably REDUCE the power a bit (~10-15%??). Now that we've lost the extra drag caused by the strange offsets and effects, the thing goes like a bomb! ~250kts is easy to achieve in good weather whereas, the record for this aircraft is 257MPH (not kts). Climbrate is almost unbelievable! We certainly have extra power to burn here.At this stage, beyond the power issue (and Steve's cockpit), we're almost ready for release :-) Is there any point releasing it as a 'Beta' this time? I'm thinking that if everyone's ~80-90% happy with it I'll release it as version 1.0 and we can incorporate changes further down the track. As much as I'd like it to be perfect, I don't want to hold it back from the masses for a few puny details! Also, I can release my racing package :-beerchugAny input to add from the 'team'? Oh, and thanks for all the help with the project :-hahJon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "final" upload sounds fine to me. If someone is able to perfect various aspects later the "final" version will be replaced by a "post final" version :-) Seriously, let's get the best current version ASAP and then we may always consider possible improvements later. As it stands now we've got a nice-looking, perfectly flyably (yet challenging) aircraft.best regards,Hans Petter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this