Sign in to follow this  
Guest effyouthree

Aircraft from the dusty hangar...

Recommended Posts

Whilst resurrecting my FU3 'extra' stuff, a few things fell out of the closet :-roll One was the T6 (half-finished & uploaded recently), and here's another one:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156742.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156743.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156744.jpgMight have some promise, actually (with a yellow/black paint job) :-waveRegards,**************Jonathan Point**************"I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than up there wishing I was down here"

Share this post


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

I'd fly it! it reminds me somehow of a cross between the Tigermoth and the BeeGee (umm I mean GB). Open the cockpit up and replace the motor with 35 hp (or whatever they had back then) and it could be a Camel. What is it really?Suggestion for all scenery developers: Why not put that beautiful cockpit *underneath* the plane? RobD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it really?????Oh, just one of these...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156895.jpgA Beech 17 "Staggerwing" - the last truly high class biplane built for the more affluent flyer. These things actually sold well during the depression, 'coz there were still plenty of people with serious money! And being a 450HP biplane, it lifts off in a trice and flies nice and slow (landing speed = 50MPH!) and will operate almost anywhere. Replaced by the Bonanza (V-tail) in 1949 but never surpassed in style ;-)Theoretically, an ideal aircraft for FU3 :-rollAs to the cockpit position, if you remember i did a version of the GeeBee with the view underneath the cowl, between the gear legs. It was great but made the F2 and F3 views look like someone had sawn the gear off :-eekHence why I did the bird(s)! I still take the Butcher bird out sometimes...Regards,Jon PointGlide Distance: About 50% of the runway length when you hit a 20kt headgust on flare...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,Thought you might surface for this one! Yeah, yellow/black, yellow/blue, yellow/red - they all look great. I've got pics of a maroon/white one too that's very classy but we don't have reflections in FU3 so it would look a bit plain. The model is actually a 17DS, which is fairly late and was produced in the greatest quantity (but you know this...). I had originally intended to do the original type, with fixed gear, no flaps (some silly split rudder airbrake though - apparently it made crosswinds murder...) and a smaller cowl but I couldn't get any photos of one, only the 3D drawings from the Staggerwing Museum. Seeing all those lovely restored 17D's kicking around, I chose that model.Funny thing is, I was interrupted at the 3D model stage and never got any further (problems with the S340 + hundreds of new models). Interestingly, I did the model 100% from 3-views and it only took 2 evenings to get what you see here (it looks much better now, with the wing edges fixed). I'd have to do the gear next (and yes, I know I said I wouldn't do this but...) and a cockpit, but it's not so far away.Maybe I can enlist some helpers? It would be great to do a team effort again. This is why I got so down-mouthed about the S340 - I had nobody to help me/whinge to! I can look after the 3D model but if anyone wants to help with an alternate livery, callsign voices, instrument bitmaps or panels, let me know! I will obviously need some beta flyers too ;-)PS Love the closeups ;-) If you have any other detail shots (I'm trying to find good panel/cabin shots but only found a couple of partial panels), please email them to:jonathanpointgmailcomS'funny how some planes have a romance about them. The '17 definitely does, so did the GeeBee and the L-13. The S340 was more like an ex-wife :-lolRegards,Jon PointGlide Distance: Excluding the tree in front of us, about 200 yards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,Just wanted to mention that I am seriously in awe :-yellow1 of you guys who build these models. I have started to have a bit of a fool around, but ...... the prospect of getting to build something that will actually FLY in the FU world escapes me at the moment.Given that one day I "might" be able to build a flying bathtub or something, what control do we have in FU3 over things like flight dynamics etc... is all that hard wired, or are there ways of getting into that stuff?OZ scenery is coming along slowly, I should have North east available in some form shortly if anyone would like a beta test. No models or nuffin, just the bare bones.CheersBruce H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,I don't have the ability to help with the design and construction of the S340, but I'm ready for a test flight whenever you have something to send :-)Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll test fly anything (wings or not) - add me to the list. I agree with Bruce - I can't believe you can make such accurate and realistic planes, and I know you said it only took two nights to do this, but I seem to remember some long difficult battles getting the GB's launched! So I know its not easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce,... says the guy doing the Oz scenery. Modest, very modest ;-)Rob,Yeah, but throwing sheet metal (or timber and cloth in this case) around is easy. The following shots show another 2 evening's work - one gear leg, some polys for the engine and spinner, and the cowl set at 2.5 degrees.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157141.jpgMore gearleg detail...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157142.jpgHere I had to cut out the wing and fuse half to fit the gear wells and doors. Then I had the gear pivots too far apart and the doors would close with a huge gap. I've fixed the positions but now have to wait to run BSP before I know if it will work :-rollhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157143.jpgBut of course it's easier than using Cockpit Designer :-lolTom,As you can see, I decided it was worth it... :-waveRegards,Jon Point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jon,Do you buid this from scratch all with anim8or ? or a first part with Gmax ? :-wave agtim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andre,No, I just did it from scratch in Anim8or. I used the 3-views (which included cross-sections!) to create a 'frame' and stuck polys on it. For such a small plane with lots of rounded features, it was by far the easiest method - kinda like 'join the dots' ;-) I wouldn't do it with a larger, angular design - it would take forever - for those, I'd start with a cylinder for the fuse, and push/pull it into shape (the Dash-8 was soooo easy in this respect - basically a tube with tapered ends).Tom,My, those are juicy shots! Cabin and panel details would be great, if you've got 'em. I cannot find much at all. I have lotsa detail shots but I can't really use much in the 3D model or the poly count goes over the top. For example, the gear legs and doors have as many polys as the rest of the entire plane right now :-eekRegards,Jon PointGlide Distance: ...was reduced substantially by the effect of full right rudder, as the student couldn't extract his foot from under the panel (quote from ATSB report).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,I guess it all comes down to familiarity... Given the tools Andre has put together plus a few of my own, after a lo...ng time of sorting your head and the job out, then building the scenery almost becomes routine.I don't know that you can say the same for models, especially the flying variety. Each one must be different with it's own special quirks, then there is getting the dynamics sorted out... big job I think.I think the FU community is fantastic, the way different people have different skills and interests, and work together so well. :-beerchug And then of course there are those who just enjoy the flying. :-kewl At the end of the day (I hate that expression) I guess that's what it's all about.Now if only there was a really good way to get a coordinated development / distribution system working.... perhaps another day.CheersBruce H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I've come back I guess. I enjoy working as part of a group rather than on my own. I don't have skills at making planes or new areas or whatever, and I think I generally create more chaos than new stuff, but there's enough people here still with the the right skills and so we keep creating new things. Speaking of skills, where has Mr Ansgar got to these last few months? I was looking forward to the Concorde, and I'd even extended the Sky Harbour runway by over 200 m ready for it. Still working on its parking spot, and I think I'd better time takeoffs during milking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce,Models CAN be routine - when you're making 54 trees :-eek Planes involve a lot of different skills, but some things are quite repetitive. For example, cutting and pasting sounds is fairly tedious, and you have to do at least 2 for each pilot voice, and 3 for ATC voices. 3D models are all different and often don't compile under BSP.exe. This requires jiggling the 3D model around a bit, or even deleting parts until it runs, then trying to figure which part is causing the problem. This part is super tedious when stuck with landing gear issues (pick a fixed-gear plane if you can) :-( Texturing is quite fun ;-)Cockpits are hard because many options interact, and some things just don't work if you don't use them 'right'. Flight modelling is fairly easy actually! The FU3 flight model simply requires you to enter sizes and masses to duplicate flight characteristics. You can set heaps of engine parameters and things like lateral wheel friction and braking force. Test flights are then used to verify the 'numbers' against published specs. Of course, the options for variation are vast but if you're methodical, it isn't impossible for one person to do it in a few months :-rollRob,Over 200m? :-lol :-lol :-lolAccording to the numbers, you need:"Length of runway for landing - Longueur de la piste d'atterrissage (Avec poids maxiumum / with maximum weight) 2200 m - 1.3 miles"This may require a lot of fill :-lol More interestingly (to those that find these things interesting):" * Concorde flew fast enough that the weight of everyone onboard was temporarily reduced by about 1% when flying east. This was due to centrifugal effects since her airspeed added to the rotation speed of the Earth. Flying west the weight increased by a smaller amount (about 0.3%), because it cancelled out the normal rotation and with it the normal centrifugal force, and replaced it with a smaller rotation in the opposite direction. * Concorde also flew high enough that the weight of everyone onboard was reduced by an additional 0.6% due to the increased distance from the center of the Earth."(from Wikipedia)Combined with a bowel movement after takeoff, one could lose a few pounds. Unfortunately, (most of) it comes back when you land ;-)Regards,Jon PointGlide Distance: "Uh, 1500ft at 30 to one. Was that 30 to one or 33 to one? What's 1500 divided by 33? Oh ####!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, 54 trees? Yes, I can understand that could drag out a bit after a while. And I can understand the frustrations with trying to get models to compile :-roll But it must be compensated for by the feeling of acomplishment (did I spell that wright?) when your new whatever takes to the air for the first time.I guess scenery is a bit similar... when you fly over a newly created area, and get a birds-eye view for the first time, you do get a buzz.Still think I'd like to try some modelling when I get a break in the traffic. I have in mind maybe a Rockwell Commander 114TC? Any interest out there? Bearing in mind your advice above tho, it does have retractable gear.. so, I guess it depends...And I understand the Concorde actually stretched in length by about 30cm during flight on account of the heat stresses. Too bad if the 30cm happened to be where your seat attachment was. :( CheersBruce H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon;I think this is a wonderful bird , Would like to be included in flight testing CaptRolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain,No problem ;-)The BSP 'friggly' issue is a strange one. Sometimes there are real errors, sometimes not. For example, and this should be embarassing but when working on the B17's gear last night, it compiled straight off! Surprising as this was, I went back to it after posting the shots (somewhere else) and discovered to my horror that the left gear was attached to the left flap :-lol... and it compiled first go :-rollAfter fixing some part names*, it took 6 more attempts to get it to compile OK. In the attempts, I moved cutting planes^ or the gear itself by small amounts until voila** - it worked.* To avoid confusing BSP.exe, avoid duplicating the first 2 letters of ANY parts! With complex models, this can be murder, and results in totally illogical part names :-(^ Mysterious things applied out of desperation, to make models compile. The birds are vaguely life-sized, and have tiny motors. They are based on my L-13 glider, which is technically non-powered (download it and read the enclosed files for more info), so the birds just glide. Being super light (a pound or 2), they glide quite well. Just hit and dive back down ;-)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157243.jpgIt should be possible to model a high-torque, low power motor with a huge prop but I didn't bother. These are the things we do when we're frustrated with BSP :-lolI can email them if you'd like :-waveRegards,Jon PointGlide Distance: About 50% of the runway length when you hit a 20kt headgust on flare...

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