A new F4 view for the GeeBee...

[Guest jonpoint]

An unobstructed F4 view. One like you have never seen in FU3! This one is slung UNDER the aircraft, just in front of the wires. It gives a great view for landing or takeoff (you can angle the view down to see more ground) and you can pan around as well to see what's happening around and below you :-)Good approach view. Please excuse the EXTREME speeds here - I was having too much fun :-) http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e4ae06e07317d24.jpgHi-speed touch 'n' go - watch the torque now...http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e4ae0bb080ba5cf.jpgSee where you've been!http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e4ae12c097f5a2b.jpgOr where you may want to go...http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e4ae15c0a4274f5.jpgOr just check out the airport environs as you fly by ;)http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e4ae1a10afce033.jpgWhy didn't I think of this before?Jon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Steve Hess 1]

It's a neat view, but I must admit the cockpit view is more useful to me. Now that the F4 views are very good, they're a pleasure to use and make pattern landings easier. Sorry

[Guest jonpoint]

That's fine!So far it's 50-50, some people prefer the cockpit view, some don't (some want it on the tailfin!). I'm going to upload it with the 'underslung' view as I'm not really happy with the cockpit view yet. I will upload that as a separate binfile for those that prefer it. The textures are still in the resfile but these are what I need to change so I'll include them all together.If you export the binfile from what you have, you can re-import it into the V1.Thanks again for your help with this, Steve :-) When you get the 'true' V1, you'll notice I have trimmed the nose back a bit as the original shots weren't exactly level. It's still your panel though!Jon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Guest Allan_D]

Hi Jon,That looks like a normal panel for FU3 :-lolThe Renagade panel works the same way ?http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e4c621039308c47.jpgHave Fun :-newburnAllan and Puppyhttp://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Hans_Petter 1]

As I told Jon in a private email I can't land a plane while clinging to the main gear :-) The best approach would be the VFR cockpit of the new Stemme, the one with FS2002 style primary avionics only. But then, that's an F2 view rather than an F4 view and F4 may not accept any working gauges. If the F4 view needs to be a plain view of the 3D model (polygon) you might try to set the default eye point high and close to the panel bitmap. I prefer to see the top of the panel or the nose cone of the aircraft and use it as a "gunsight" to align with the runway. But then, the less I see of it the better since it competes with the visual cues from the outside view.best regards,Hans Petter

[Guest glidernut]

I think wat joh is doing is very interesting.But in the Stemme, insted of lowering the camara, I want it on top.In the Stemme,s F4 vew I would like it to be ferther back to the leeding edge of the wings and up about three feet so that when paning I could seethe tale and all of the wings inclooding the flaps alerons and airbrakes.But with my hed just abuv the canapy like this, the outside of the canapy cums into vew and I carnt see the F4 cocpit, which is a pity cus the Stemmehas wat is probably the best F4 cocpit in FU3.Wat is needed is Ansgar Avermeyer,s complete transparent windows canapy.I would like that alot.But I dont know how to change the stemme,s palet.If sumone can do this for me I would be very gratefal.Any takers?Glidernut. :-wave

[Guest Ansgar]

Hello Jon,I also prefer the real F4-view we have out of the cockpit (same as Steve). Only this view gives the most similar feeling of an pilot sitting in such an "extreme" bird. Especially in FU3 we can move easy around the view direction with the joystick an this makes me "feeling" sitting in such an bird and looking around. Sure I agree that your new point is more spectacular, but I would let this point of view to the people who wants to have it. By the way:Here is the bugfix in the physics to prevent the GeeBee engine from "dieing" directly after starting it://minPropPitch float 5.0, //maxPropPitch float 25.0, Inbetween I also experimented a bit with the masses and drags....but ..... boy is that bird nervous on changing this!!! I better understand your problems trimming it out now!In your situation I would start with an complete new trimming! First you should have ALL datas of the real thing! I especially mean the pivot "center-points of gravity" from the biggest masses like: the tanks , the engine, the fuselage. Direct at my short research I found out that the GeeBee R2 has two tanks in the fuselage! One directly after the engine and a second direct under or before the pilot-cabin. But you only have one tank in the physics.May it be possible you can contact an real pilot of an GeeBee to find out where are this important points of balance?My best results I had starting with keying in the correct masses at their real positions. After this you should trim the rest around this.Actually I

[Guest]

See post below >

[Guest]

Ansgar: In regard to contacting an R/C Gee Bee pilot, I am now in the process of building my 5th Gee Bee. I have built and flown 2 model Y's, and 2 model Z's, and now I'm building my 3rd model Z. As you know, it was the "Z" that preceded the R-2, and is essentially the same racing design. With the Granville brothers success with the Z in 1931, they streamlined it into the R-2 in 1932. The major difference between their full scale planes, and those that we use in R/C, is the airfoil. They used a thin racing airfoil, and we in R/C use a thicker symmetrical airfoil for "Sport" flying. The thicker sport airfoil, allows us to slow the ship down to more reasonable, efficient speeds for landing in limited areas. We modelers need to thicken our airfoils, because while we do scale down the aircraft, the air density remains the same ! Skinny airfoils just don't work out for modelers, and we need to compensate for that full scale air density, which is just too thin for our much smaller aircraft. I understand that Delmar Benjamin used the original racing airfoil, and set the CG at 18%. If I put my CG's at 18%, it would require a very high touchdown speed to just hold the nose up and flare a little. Not good on short fields. On my model "Z", I have had it as far forward as 21%, but it never worked out there. With the essentially constant chord wing ( except for the tips ), it works best at about 25%. Another thing that we have to remember, is that the wheel axles are ahead of the wings leading edge, and to touchdown on just the main gear, would slam the tail down, and result in bunny- hopping down the runway. I know of this first hand because of the many models that I have flown. Because the main gear is so far forward, I have best results putting all 3 points down simultaneously. On board mass - I have 3 very heavy NiCad battery packs buried in the belly as low as posable. (12 cells) This is of course to prevent a high CG, toppling, resulting in "wing walking". Get everything that you have on board as low as posable. They say that flying an R/C aircraft is more difficult then actually piloting a full scale aircraft. In that you have to judge perspective, and aircraft attitude from many hundreds of feet away. Whereby, when you are sitting in the aircraft, you strive to keep the wings level in relation to the horizon. Apples & Oranges, we are dealing with different pilot and aircraft requirements. One of the biggest problems with the original, is it's very close spaced landing gear, which caused it to crab and topple on a paved runway. Remember in 1932, they flew off of grass. This permitted the tires to skid some, and eliminate wing dragging. In R/C we cheat, and spread the main gear a little, it's a matter of survival.I know that Jon Points latest version that I have been test flying is a jewel, an absolute eagle in the air, but a little bit of a bear on the ground. (The way that it probably should be; even Delmar pranged his on occasion.) The new version is not entirely easy, but still very manageable. I think that you will find it a welcome addition to our collection of Golden Age Classics !> Jim

[Guest Ansgar]

Hello Jim,welcome in our small R/C club! I

[Guest]

>Hello Jim, >>Now what can or should we do? >Sure I know that you have set the center of gravity lower >than the real GeeBee, but for me it is interesting where it >should be in the real thing? FU3 simulates normaly a good >and realistic behavior if the trimming is set correctly. >Don