PDA

View Full Version : Pete'n Poke morf


dhk79
02-22-2012, 10:12 PM
Based on a special request for a Pete'n Poke, I've decided to take my existing model of a Slow Poke and morf the aircraft into the new model. After only a couple hours, the basic fuselage is done.

jeffpn
02-22-2012, 10:14 PM
Looks great, Doug! Is it done yet??? :p

dhk79
02-22-2012, 10:48 PM
About half way there, Jeff.

Here's the wing and at a quick look the tail feathers are nearly a 100% match between the two birds.

Now I've got to go read that stupid manual to find out what the dihedral should be. I think the Slow Poke has a higher one.

dhk79
02-22-2012, 11:38 PM
OK that's it for tonight. All that's left are the wing struts, windshields, and moving/adjusting the main gear. Current poly count is 10,787 with the four stroke engine and pilot.

smcnally
02-23-2012, 10:41 AM
Wow! That looks great! Thanks so much. I don't know what the actual dihedral angle is, but I know when I built the wing assembly it said to put a 1/4" x 1/4" stick under each wing tip to provide the proper dihedral.

smcnally
02-23-2012, 11:22 AM
Would that be at both top and bottom wings?
I'm not sure what you mean. This isn't a bipe... or am I misunderstanding you?

smcnally
02-23-2012, 11:28 AM
No problem, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I'm new to building so I thought maybe I just wasn't familiar with the terminology.

dhk79
02-23-2012, 01:53 PM
I got the dihedral set by using the rib angle guage on the plans, just had to find it.

dhk79
02-23-2012, 11:05 PM
Model is done. I'll get the linking, pivots, and mapping set up tomorrow. Do we have any takers for doing a CS?

Boof69
02-23-2012, 11:32 PM
seems to be a straight forward CS. I'll pick it up if you'd like. Are there reference picks for the CS you want?

dhk79
02-24-2012, 06:41 AM
Scott, check with McNally about CS preferences. I have none myself and was planning on replicating the scheme that was shown in the original request (http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/showpost.php?p=222628&postcount=208), if I did it. It's pretty straight forward too, I just don't have a whole lot of time to get creative at present.

Thanks,
Doug

smcnally
02-24-2012, 10:42 AM
That looks great, Doug! Thanks for taking the time to build it. Hi, Scott, thanks for offering to do the CS. Here's a picture of the standard Pete 'n Poke design from Great Planes. I can also take a closeup of the decal sheet tonight if you'd like.

I'd be happy with the color scheme in my original post too, but that is another persons personal design over at RCGroups.

dhk79
02-24-2012, 11:16 AM
No problem. It really has taken very little time to model since I started with the Slow Poke and one of my stock motors, then just rescaled most of the parts. The only real modeling effort has been expended in redoing the cockpits, windshields, and adding the struts.

The pic of the standard Pete 'n Poke has an additional outboard wing strut that I did not note before. Are you building yours with that brace?

I'll also answer for Scott. A picture of the decal sheet would be very helpful, if he tries to duplicate that scheme.

smcnally
02-24-2012, 11:52 AM
Yes, I will be putting the outboard wing struts in place. I wonder why that person in that build thread left them out? I didn't even notice that until you just pointed it out. I'll get a closeup of the decal sheet uploaded here, tonight, once I get home for Scott.

Thanks again, I really appreciate all the work you guys do.

Boof69
02-24-2012, 02:56 PM
Make sure you show the bottom of the model and wings if there is something under there to represent.

Boof69
02-24-2012, 03:20 PM
@smcnally are you just looking for this to be a simple CS? If there are any special details that you would like to see added list them here or in a PM.

smcnally
02-24-2012, 04:38 PM
Hi Boof69, I'll take whatever you guys are willing to put out there. I'll get the decal set uploaded tonight and will try to think of any special details that would be nice to have. As for the bottom of the plane...I don't think there is anything special going on there, but I will certainly look to see if I find anything I've missed.

Thanks!

dhk79
02-24-2012, 06:07 PM
Scott, here are the files you need to do the CS. I added some wood grain for the struts, drew in some servos where they should go on the wings, added an alpha channel for the windshields, and pasted in a pilot. I can't do faces worth a darn (pasting is about the best I can manage) and I don't remember if you free-hand faces or not. So keep or discard as you see fit. Engine, gear wires, wheels, and spinner are baked. If you don't like the materials or rather have something mapped, give me a yell.

Everyone else, the physics are pretty much done (unless someone spots an error) so enjoy the preview.

Doug

dhk79
02-24-2012, 06:14 PM
Yes, I will be putting the outboard wing struts in place. I wonder why that person in that build thread left them out?In researching the strut issue, I found that they are non-functional on the model and are just placed in slots for appearance. So adding them is a matter of choice.

Boof69
02-24-2012, 06:42 PM
Doug I load up the pete and it says it wasn't set up for RF 6. Was this intentional? What version is the requester using? I assume since this is found in the RF 6 designers corner it should be set up for 6. :confused:

Madratter
02-24-2012, 06:59 PM
Doug I load up the pete and it says it wasn't set up for RF 6. Was this intentional? What version is the requester using? I assume since this is found in the RF 6 designers corner it should be set up for 6. :confused:

Also running under 6. I didn't notice this, but it might of happened. I immediately edited it because I found it to be way way tail heavy as configured. It flies much better with the COG moved forward about 2 inches. Where it is at, with any throttle it needs considerable down trim.

Other than that, I enjoyed it although it was much peppier under throttle than I had thought it would be from the name.

Boof69
02-24-2012, 07:05 PM
I see dhk's screenshot is G4.5. It is way to peppy and is tail heavy. Doug do you have RF 6?

Boof69
02-24-2012, 07:07 PM
smcnally, I can only find the one picture of the CS your wanting. Is the right side of the model the same as the left? Does the blue on the nose just connect straight across the bottom of the model or is there a stripe there too?

dhk79
02-24-2012, 07:26 PM
I do have 6 and will release another a version for that. Do you understand the concept of PREVIEW? As far as being peppy, quite possible. I power my Slow Poke with a Saito 72 and used the same here. I like its performance a bit on the hot side. :

Madratter
02-24-2012, 07:43 PM
I do have 6 and will release another a version for that. Do you understand the concept of PREVIEW? As far as being peppy, quite possible. I power my Slow Poke with a Saito 72 and used the same here. I like its performance a bit on the hot side. :

Sorry. Was just trying to help out. :D

Boof69
02-24-2012, 07:44 PM
Yes I do understand that concept. Sorry.

dhk79
02-24-2012, 07:50 PM
No problem, it does point out the deltas between RF versions.

dhk79
02-24-2012, 08:05 PM
Fuel tank was in the wrong spot, throwing off the CG.

willsonman
02-24-2012, 08:37 PM
To be more realistic the wheels could stand more heft. I would rather not put foam tires on a plane of this size. The weights reflect more of a foam wheel. The Tank location for sure should be up against that firewall and should have a realistic weight as well. Other than that you have done a fine job. The fuselage airfoil defaults are actually close so setup is a snap there. Great job Doug.

dhk79
02-24-2012, 08:39 PM
Yep Joshua, did all of that already and stiffened the mains. Also cut down the exhaust smoke, version 6 makes it look like a forest fire. Thanks for the review.

Boof69
02-24-2012, 08:51 PM
Got it started.

dhk79
02-24-2012, 08:54 PM
Looking good, I like it.

smcnally
02-24-2012, 09:09 PM
Hi all, sorry for the late reply...I just got home from work not too long ago. The only pictures I can find that show the bottom are on this page (http://www.greatplanes.com/reviews/gpma0493-rcm.htm) l and, unfortunately, they are in B&W, and it has a different color scheme. It looks pretty plain on the bottom side, though. I believe the blue on the bottom side of the nose mirrors the top. And the left and right sides are the same design. I scanned the decal sheet, too, and that can be downloaded from here (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792321/pnp-decals.png). Let me know if you need anymore info and I'll keep checking here throughout the night as glue is drying :)

BTW, you guys are amazing...I wasn't expecting this to all get done this quickly.

dhk79
02-24-2012, 09:15 PM
Here's RF6 export with all the tweaks that have been made so far.

abaser
02-24-2012, 09:52 PM
Hi all, sorry for the late reply...I just got home from work not too long ago. The only pictures I can find that show the bottom are on this page (http://www.greatplanes.com/reviews/gpma0493-rcm.htm) l and, unfortunately, they are in B&W, and it has a different color scheme. It looks pretty plain on the bottom side, though. I believe the blue on the bottom side of the nose mirrors the top. And the left and right sides are the same design. I scanned the decal sheet, too, and that can be downloaded from here (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792321/pnp-decals.png). Let me know if you need anymore info and I'll keep checking here throughout the night as glue is drying :)

BTW, you guys are amazing...I wasn't expecting this to all get done this quickly.
Just to let you know, your fist link doesn't work.

Madratter
02-24-2012, 10:14 PM
Here's RF6 export with all the tweaks that have been made so far.

Much better. Inverted flight is pretty easy with this. Knife Edges doable although the coupling is something fierce. :eek: Obviously, this wasn't how this plane was intended to be flown. Probably my favorite thing to do with it is doing really low radius rudder turns. You can really sling it around. :D

Norton
02-24-2012, 10:22 PM
Ouch!

phrank
02-24-2012, 10:28 PM
Both a slow and a pete? :eek: Ouch!
That guy needs a Sim. :p

smcnally
02-24-2012, 11:44 PM
Just to let you know, your fist link doesn't work.

That's weird... Here's the link http://www.greatplanes.com/airplanes/gpma0493.html Then click on [ Click here for a review by R/C Modeler Magazine ] . For some reason, the direct link isn't working.

dhk79
02-25-2012, 11:27 AM
Probably my favorite thing to do with it is doing really low radius rudder turns. You can really sling it around. :DThe Slow Poke is like that too. One of my favorite birds in real life, until it met its demise. Todd's shot of the crashed Poke was nothing compared to mine. I previously noted that I had mine powered by a Saito 72 and a 13" 3-Blade and for a plane with the word "slow" in it's name it could move. One day I was flying around fat, dumb, and happy and I had the power switch on the plane fail while at full power (failure determined through post mortem exam).

With no radio, the plane flew off toward the sunset and started descending thereby gaining even more speed (I always set my planes up to descend in case of failure, so they don't fly off into a populated area). Take a close look at the attached pictures and note the rubber extension on the exhaust. Well when the plane hit the hard Arizona desert, only 1/2" of that tube was still above ground (the second picture will give you an idea of what the ground was like). The rest of the plane was, well shattered (tooth picks is a fair image) not much was salvageable without at least some damage. One of the wheels was even broken in half.

The long and short of this story is that I liked that plane so much that I've already bought another Slow Poke kit to replace it, and once my shop is finished it'll be near the top of my project list.

Madratter
02-25-2012, 01:07 PM
Take a close look at the attached pictures and note the rubber extension on the exhaust. Well when the plane hit the hard Arizona desert, only 1/2" of that tube was still above ground (the second picture will give you an idea of what the ground was like). The rest of the plane was, well shattered (tooth picks is a fair image) not much was salvageable without at least some damage. One of the wheels was even broken in half.

Wow. Talk about dust to dust. 1/2" above ground. Ouch!!! :eek:

dhk79
02-25-2012, 02:34 PM
Some place I've got a picture of the crash site, as it was stunning. Looked like a stick of dynamite was on board that plane. Three of the servos had gears stripped, one servo had the case ripped apart with the little circuit board split and so was a total loss (cost more in parts than to replace). The battery pack was damaged and while a volt meter said it wasn't shorted the pack was dented such that I wouldn't trust it. There was about $80 in damage to the engine; but after complete disassembly, a bunch of parts, and a full rebuild I got it running again. I was using a light-weight case-less receiver and as it was completely wrapped in rubber it only had some bent pins and so was about the least damaged item salvaged from the rubble.

Madratter
02-25-2012, 02:50 PM
Just your description has me wincing. I don't even want to think about how long it took to get that engine running again.

BTW, I have played some more with the RF6 version and how strong it is attaching the wings needs to be upped. I can pretty easily tear the thing apart in midair. The first time it happened, I thought there was something wrong with the terrain for the airport. But that isn't the case.

You can duplicate it fairly easy. Go full throttle and then do full left aileron full right rudder. You might need to wiggle the elevator a bit. But then it comes apart in rather spectacular fashion.

smcnally
02-25-2012, 03:08 PM
Got it started.

That's looking really nice already!

smcnally
02-25-2012, 03:15 PM
BTW, I have played some more with the RF6 version and how strong it is attaching the wings needs to be upped. I can pretty easily tear the thing apart in midair. The first time it happened, I thought there was something wrong with the terrain for the airport. But that isn't the case.

You can duplicate it fairly easy. Go full throttle and then do full left aileron full right rudder. You might need to wiggle the elevator a bit. But then it comes apart in rather spectacular fashion.

This might actually be realistic based on what I've read about this plane. Built by the plans I hear the wing rips off fairly easily. I'm going to beef up the main struts with gussets to prevent that on mine. I think the 3 blade prop might make it a little too powerful (for this model). I switched mine to a 2 blade 12X5 Zinger (which is what is going on mine) and it's a much slower plane.

dhk79
02-25-2012, 04:08 PM
BTW, I have played some more with the RF6 version and how strong it is attaching the wings needs to be upped. I'll take a look, but smcnally may be correct as I've upped the power on the bird and that could stress the airframe more than designed.

Did you happen to note where it was breaking (i.e. did the central strut cage stay with the wing or the fuselage)?

Maj. Numbskully
02-25-2012, 04:20 PM
This might actually be realistic based on what I've read about this plane. Built by the plans I hear the wing rips off fairly easily. .

IMO ...........Not really surprising given the cord of the wings .

Madratter
02-25-2012, 04:50 PM
I'll take a look, but smcnally may be correct as I've upped the power on the bird and that could stress the airframe more than designed.

Did you happen to note where it was breaking (i.e. did the central strut cage stay with the wing or the fuselage)?

Well, if it is realistic with this bird, so be it. I know I'm flying it not as intended.

Here is a screenshot of the fuselage after the wings separated in mid-air.

willsonman
02-25-2012, 07:45 PM
These planes were not designed for such high-speed and maneuverability. They were more or less a Sunday-flyer. The weights seem right. If you are breaking it mid-air you are really jerking on the sticks. This is a GOOD thing.

Edit: Along these lines... Doug, I've been messing with your Polaris recently contemplating a build. I'm hotrodding it to see what motor battery configuration I want. Seems like past 90 mph the tail just wants to disintegrate. Its pretty entertaining.

dhk79
02-25-2012, 09:12 PM
LOL, a T-tailed foamy at 90 mph... I can see where that would be entertaining.

EDIT: Here's something else you might find helpful. It's a spreadsheet I worked up to help with motor/battery/prop selection and comparison. If you have any questions about its use, shoot me an email or give me a call.

dhk79
02-26-2012, 10:54 AM
I've done a few more tweaks to the physics, but have not significantly changed the strength of the wing joint. I feel the weights and strength of the wing are appropriate to this models construction. Anyone is more than welcome to disagree and edit their own copy as they like, but here I'm basing this on many years of RC experience (and the joy of actually having ripped a wing off in flight).

An interesting note to Scott's original comment that he got a warning that this plane was not set up for RF6, that seems to be a feature of the latest update (which I hadn't downloaded). Also interesting was that I never had a wing detach before updating :eek: coincidence :confused:, who knows.

Boof69
02-26-2012, 01:43 PM
Doug,
I've just been flying your last PREVIEW and I noticed that the main wing, wing, and tip all carry the ~CS_LMW and ~CS_RMW component frames. This allows the model to continue to fly once it has lost it's wings.
Also what do the two large structures hanging from the wings do for this model and are they necessary for proper flight characteristics? I assume they are helping maintain a fore and aft balance during flight but I'm unsure.

dhk79
02-26-2012, 02:02 PM
I'll fix the multiple refs to the wings, that's a holdover from the first import. The two large looking structures are the struts and they'be been set to have minimal effect, but more than none.

Boof69
02-26-2012, 02:36 PM
Sorry this wasn't done the first night. I've been helping a friend with a motorcycle conversion project so I haven't had much time. If something else should be added let me know. I included the psd files for anyone who may want to dink with the CS.

smcnally
02-26-2012, 05:07 PM
Sorry this wasn't done the first night. I've been helping a friend with a motorcycle conversion project so I haven't had much time. If something else should be added let me know. I included the psd files for anyone who may want to dink with the CS.

That looks great, boof! when I import this it says its missing the PnP texture. Should I be importing to CS some other way?

Boof69
02-26-2012, 05:10 PM
I'm checking into it now. I'm not sure whats happening.

Boof69
02-26-2012, 05:38 PM
Let me know if you have problems with this rfx.

dhk79
02-26-2012, 06:22 PM
Thanks Scott, it looks good. Although I think I'm going to change out my doofus pilot before it gets posted to the swaps (I was kinda hoping you'd take care of that for me :p).

Madratter
02-26-2012, 06:25 PM
I just tried out the CS. It looks good. :D

Boof69
02-26-2012, 06:26 PM
Well The stretching around the face would be hard to contend with. Maybe if you could unwrap that a bit more and I could do a fair job. I guess I could go over it a bit more. Let's call that a PREVIEW. :p

willsonman
02-26-2012, 06:28 PM
Yeah, those boxes are worth the ugliness in the editor. Struts add some pretty good drag that would be otherwise missed. One of the reasons WWI bipes are so slow is because of drag issues... usually they have lots of struts and rigging wires=drag. Easy to add it in and dial down the settings. I'm with Doug on that one.

Boof69
02-26-2012, 06:52 PM
That's why I asked. If it is a good way to represent those extraneous parts then so be it. Sounds like a technique.

smcnally
02-26-2012, 07:08 PM
Laet me know if you have problems with this rfx.

This one loaded up and looks great. Thanks!

Boof69
02-26-2012, 07:13 PM
Every time i go into the editor or choose the CS for the Pete n poke it does a quick dds creation. I've never seen RF do that before. Is anyone else seeing this problem? Maybe it's something I did wrong.

dhk79
02-26-2012, 07:19 PM
Let's call that a PREVIEW. :pFair enough :D, but I've already updated to a more period pilot (that looks a lot better). It'll be heading for the swaps after dinner and I check out a couple more things.

Boof69
02-26-2012, 07:28 PM
Looks great.

dhk79
02-26-2012, 07:41 PM
OK it's posted.

Scott, I'm not having any DDS issues even with switching between RF versions. Some file must be referenced incorrectly on your system. Do a full replace of all files with the posted version.

Doug

Boof69
02-26-2012, 09:17 PM
will do.

smcnally
02-27-2012, 10:37 AM
OK it's posted.

Scott, I'm not having any DDS issues even with switching between RF versions. Some file must be referenced incorrectly on your system. Do a full replace of all files with the posted version.

Doug

Looks awesome, Doug, thanks! Thanks for creating the CS, too, Scott, you guys are both great! I did have the DDS issue with Scott's file, but assumed it was just something with my machine acting up.

Now I just need to finish building my model so I can compare the flight characteristics :) It seems to fly pretty much how I imagined it too, though. this is my first kit build, though, so I'm hoping I don't screw it up. Here's a link to my build log if anyone is interested http://petenpokebuild.blogspot.com

dhk79
02-27-2012, 11:02 AM
I checked out your build log and it looks like everything is progressing well. I have built many kits and/or scratch builds over the years and usually find that covering the model, while not overly hard, takes practice to do a good job and takes about twice as long as you'd expect. The up-side is that you will find that your finished kit build will be much more durable than its ARF counter part.

Madratter
02-27-2012, 12:45 PM
<startRant>

I went over to the swap pages, and someone has already rated this a 6. It kind of ticks me off. I know the safest thing to do is to take Jeff's attitude and just ignore ratings altogether. But I really just don't understand where these people are coming from. I have to assume this got a 6 because it can't do cart wheels, boil water, and maybe because it has coupling issues. I'm getting the impression that some people rate a plane low just because it isn't the best flying model in Realflight.

I don't know any way they can totally fix this problem, but I think two things would make this situation much better.

1) You can't rate anything unless you have submitted something (even an AV) to the swap pages.

2) Do away with anonymous voting.

</startRant>

smcnally
02-27-2012, 01:11 PM
<startRant>

I went over to the swap pages, and someone has already rated this a 6. It kind of ticks me off. I know the safest thing to do is to take Jeff's attitude and just ignore ratings altogether. But I really just don't understand where these people are coming from. I have to assume this got a 6 because it can't do cart wheels, boil water, and maybe because it has coupling issues. I'm getting the impression that some people rate a plane low just because it isn't the best flying model in Realflight.

I don't know any way they can totally fix this problem, but I think two things would make this situation much better.

1) You can't rate anything unless you have submitted something (even an AV) to the swap pages.

2) Do away with anonymous voting.

</startRant>

I agree! I was shocked to see that as well. It's probably dumb kids that don't understand that a the planes in RF are supposed to fly as much like the real thing as possible. They probably expect every model to be able to hover and be flung around easily :rolleyes:

jeffpn
02-27-2012, 01:36 PM
You can rate me a 6 if it makes you feel better. Heck, make it a 1!!

willsonman
02-27-2012, 02:39 PM
hehe, I was shocked the magic 5er did not show up on my last post. The Aviatik has not even been rated!
http://knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=16277

(could not help the self-advertisement here) :)

dhk79
02-27-2012, 03:02 PM
Welcome to the designer's side of the forum guys. The ratings system has been FUBAR for years and you've got to ignore both the kids and the morons. To look at the ratings system from my perspective, the Pete 'n Poke has not been rated yet. That is to say any score without a valid comment to go along with it doesn't count. An anonymous 10 is just as effective as an anonymous 5 and counts equally in my book. I don't care if something gets rated as a 1, if there is a valid comment to go along with it. Note that "valid" here does not mean correct, but having force, weight, or cogency. So just saying something sucks is not enough, you have to say why YOU think it sucks.

One of my aircraft (http://knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=6851) has a 1 evaluation with the comment "12 pounds and powered by .25 engines? Wow... I lowered it because i'm an idiot". A truly honest comment and it ranks high in my book.

Doug

Madratter
02-27-2012, 03:20 PM
Well, I haven't rated it yet, because I haven't actually downloaded and flown the version that is in the swaps. But suffice it to say, it will be getting a rating well North of a 6 unless something has gone seriously wrong between what was posted in this thread and the swap pages. I don't anticipate that happening.

And I have to admit, since I fly 3D foamies that I tried various 3D moves with this plane just because I could. Knife edges suck (too much coupling), hovering doesn't happen, etc. etc. But if this thing actually did have good knife edges, hovered, etc., then I would be giving it a bad rating. Because there is absolutely no way that would be realistic for a plane like this.

dhk79
02-27-2012, 03:25 PM
Thanks Madratter, that's exactly the type of evaluation comments most of the designers would love to get. Everyone has their personal preferences as to what they like, but the insight into WHY is invaluable.

jeffpn
02-27-2012, 03:26 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the only way to fix the ratings system is to have the same panel of judges rate every file that comes down the pike. Not rating a file because you don't think it's a 10, and you don't want to be "mean", is just as much an abuse of the ratings system as the reasons that Doug pointed out. If you only rate 10s, you are not being honest, either. Posting a file does not make it tenworthy.

The panel of judges would need to know enough about RF models to rate them accurately. If anyone wants to nominate me as a judge in the panel: if nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve. There are about 4-5 users who are qualified to accurately rate a model, in my opinion. I am not one of them. Until I can start redeeming ratings for mortgage payments, I couldn't care less about them. They really do mean nothing.

phrank
02-27-2012, 03:30 PM
Hey, it's ratings rant time again, we haven't had one in a while. ;)
That anonymous 6 is no more meaningful than those malicious 10's.
So what if it didn't have working dials, etc... that is what the new downloaders are expecting to see at the swaps.
In the sprit of R/C simulation purists, it is very cool, but that is not what the leeches are expecting, they want supersized scale, with guns and stuff. :D

smcnally
02-27-2012, 04:04 PM
In the sprit of R/C simulation purists, it is very cool, but that is not what the leeches are expecting, they want supersized scale, with guns and stuff. :D

It's sad, isn't it? IMO, RealFlight was built to provide a realistic simulator to help teach people how to fly the real thing. I understand the want for the extra games and fun online stuff, but how do people expect to learn to fly a specific model when it's RF model characteristics are so far off from the real thing?

12oclockhigh
02-27-2012, 07:30 PM
took comments off-line

dhk79
02-27-2012, 09:39 PM
12oclockhigh,
Feel free to post your comments here. They are valid (go see my definition of valid above) and I'm sure others would be interested in what you have to say. I may or may not agree, but what's nice is that I don't have to.

Madratter
02-27-2012, 10:47 PM
I also don't understand why 12oclock took down his post. I can also get it to torque roll. In fact if you try to hover it, you pretty much will torque roll as there isn't the aileron authority to stop it.

I have now uploaded an AV using the OS52 four stroke with a 12x6 prop which is closer to how this plane is usually powered. It still has plenty of oomph even with the 52.

smcnally
02-28-2012, 10:17 AM
I checked out your build log and it looks like everything is progressing well. I have built many kits and/or scratch builds over the years and usually find that covering the model, while not overly hard, takes practice to do a good job and takes about twice as long as you'd expect. The up-side is that you will find that your finished kit build will be much more durable than its ARF counter part.

Thanks! Yeah, I figured the covering will be the biggest learning curve for me. I plan on getting some extra covering and practicing on some scrap first :)

dhk79
02-28-2012, 11:44 AM
If this is your first covering job, I would highly recommend looking into a product called Balsarite (http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXB356&P=7). It prepares the wood prior to applying the film covering and greatly increases the bond of the film's adhesive. Plus it is a waterproofing (fuel proofing if flying with glow power) agent that increases the model strength without adding a whole lot of weight.

12oclockhigh
02-28-2012, 11:50 AM
First and foremost, I like the plane.

I got a mistaken impression from other comments here that the objective was a very scale flying feel for the plane... if that were the case, it is overpowered and can be torque rolled and somewhat of knife edged. The roll rate is excessive and the dual rate switch is reversed from the normal/usual operation of the switch. As I progressed with my flight testing, I found that I could fly it inverted endlessly and outside loops were easily possible. I think it is a bit wild for what I would call a Sunday afternoon flier.

As with most of Doug's efforts they are great and he listens to comments.. Doug's skin may be a bit thicker than some others on alternating Thursdays towards the end of the month on even numbered years. Your mileage may vary.

Madratter
02-28-2012, 12:48 PM
I was also really surprised how easily I could fly this plane inverted, given the high wing layout. My impression is that inverted flight with airplanes is, in general, too easy with RF. For example, you can fly the B-17 inverted all day too.

That is pretty interesting that the rate switch is backwards. I hadn't noticed that.

I was somewhat surprised with the variant I put together using the OS52 four stroke, that it was still as peppy as it was. I had expected more of a drop off.

Anyway, I very much enjoy the plane, and it can be flown in a more scale manner. It does slow down pretty well, and I can tool around at 20 mph.

jeffpn
02-28-2012, 12:51 PM
Doug's dual rate switch is not backwards. Everyone else's is!!

smcnally
02-28-2012, 01:18 PM
If this is your first covering job, I would highly recommend looking into a product called Balsarite (http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXB356&P=7). It prepares the wood prior to applying the film covering and greatly increases the bond of the film's adhesive. Plus it is a waterproofing (fuel proofing if flying with glow power) agent that increases the model strength without adding a whole lot of weight.

Thanks for the advice, Doug, I'll definitely grab some of that.

dhk79
02-28-2012, 01:23 PM
Doug's dual rate switch is not backwards. Everyone else's is!!Thanks Jeff :D

Until I start getting paid to follow someone else's conventions, I'll happily follow my own. If you don't like it feel free to change it, but I set the switch that way by design and not in error.

smcnally
03-13-2012, 09:50 AM
LOL! I made a CS for this and someone rated it a 5. Really? How does a CS that isn't truly horrible get a 5? It doesn't bother me, because I really just made it for myself, but I found that funny and thought it fit our discussion here about how the rating system here is somewhat useless.

jeffpn
03-13-2012, 09:58 AM
Somewhat useless? :rolleyes:

smcnally
03-13-2012, 09:59 AM
Somewhat useless? :rolleyes:

I guess that came out wrong. It's not useless, but there are people that just throw ratings out at things without actually commenting about why they gave it that rating. ratings without comments are useless, IMO.

flexible
03-13-2012, 10:08 AM
You were being to kind. Useless/ worthless/having no value/horrible/stinks/ taking up much need band with,hehe!

jeffpn
03-13-2012, 10:13 AM
Yup. I'm with flex. It's way beyond "somewhat useless." I lean more toward (and past) "totally worthless.". Pay it no mind. You'll be fine.

flexible
03-13-2012, 11:10 AM
I was having trouble expressing my true feelings.

opjose
03-13-2012, 12:34 PM
LOL! I made a CS for this and someone rated it a 5. Really? How does a CS that isn't truly horrible get a 5? It doesn't bother me, because I really just made it for myself, but I found that funny and thought it fit our discussion here about how the rating system here is somewhat useless.


It's just an "average" or normal CS, which is what a 5 is for.

To get a 9-10 you should have provided a high amount of CS details, such as screws, panel lines, etc.

Inclusive of that an appropriate bump map with underlying plane structures, and a specular map with the proper highlights is needed.

---

Some users do not give a thought to throwing out high marks, that are not indicative of the ACTUAL work done. These nitwits turns the ratings into a popularity contest.

Others get offended when their efforts are given a non-emotional rating based upon more scientific rating scales.

I'd suggest looking at some of the master crafted CS schemes and pick them apart. Try to emulate them to create your own masterpiece.

If your scheme WAS "truely horrible" I'd for one have been quick to give it a lower number and leave a comment.... Of course some of the more immature members don't like that.

Madratter
03-13-2012, 12:52 PM
It's just an "average" or normal CS, which is what a 5 is for.

To get a 9-10 you should have provided a high amount of CS details, such as screws, panel lines, etc.

Inclusive of that an appropriate bump map with underlying plane structures, and a specular map with the proper highlights is needed.


The above demonstrates part of what makes these ratings so worthless. There is no standard in terms of what a 5 means. To Opjose it means average. To many people a 7 or 7.5 would mean average based on what you get for grades in school. Unless there is a well agreed upon standard (and there isn't) then the numbers aren't comparable to each other.

That doesn't even get into issues like the person being knowledgeable enough to vote accurately to the standard.

Even if you replaced the rating system with something totally objective, there would still be problems. For example, say you replaced the current rating system with one that listed what percentage of time people spent flying a plane. So presumably good planes would get flown a lot. But how do you compare the numbers of a glider to a 3d plane to a foamy, etc.?

If you look at download numbers, that will give a clue to what some really good planes are, but of course, that is weighted in favor of the planes that have been up a long time.

I think at the end of the day, the rating system is next to useless, other than as a way of leaving comments to the developer. And most people don't seem to leave comments.

opjose
03-13-2012, 01:52 PM
The above demonstrates part of what makes these ratings so worthless. There is no standard in terms of what a 5 means. To Opjose it means average. To many people a 7 or 7.5 would mean average based on what you get for grades in school.

Eh, NO. There is a standard.

The "5" is average was something put forward by Knife Edge themselves.

You missed the memo.

;)

---

I'd suggest that the download numbers are worthless.

All too often something is downloaded because it seems superficially good, but once you load it in the sim, you may find it is not very good at all.

Time flying a plane is not the best example as well. I've downloaded some exceptional models, which I am just not that interested in flying... that doesn't make them any less good as others.

--

A rating system need not be useless... however not publishing guidelines does not help give it value and neither does letting every new poster rate files. Heck I'd like to see people have to wait a good six months before they can rate files just so they get the "lay of the land" first so to speak.

Madratter
03-13-2012, 02:21 PM
Eh, NO. There is a standard.

The "5" is average was something put forward by Knife Edge themselves.

You missed the memo.

;)

---

I'd suggest that the download numbers are worthless.

All too often something is downloaded because it seems superficially good, but once you load it in the sim, you may find it is not very good at all.

Time flying a plane is not the best example as well. I've downloaded some exceptional models, which I am just not that interested in flying... that doesn't make them any less good as others.

--

A rating system need not be useless... however not publishing guidelines does not help give it value and neither does letting every new poster rate files. Heck I'd like to see people have to wait a good six months before they can rate files just so they get the "lay of the land" first so to speak.

While I don't doubt that Knife Edge somewhere said that 5 is supposed to be average, there is nothing I saw (and I just looked) on the swap pages themselves that indicates that. And without such a standard prominently placed, the meaning of the numbers becomes whatever the rater wants them to be. And right now, that means there is no standard in reality, whether knife edge thinks there is or not.

As for time flown, or number of downloads, my point wasn't that those objective criteria were good ones. My point was that even objective criteria such as those have problems.

jeffpn
03-13-2012, 02:28 PM
The only way ratings can work, in my opinion, is if only a small panel of knowledgeable or qualified people rate EVERY file that's posted. People who only rate 10s for everything, and people who feel its mean to rate a file if they feel it's not a 10, are just as much of a problem as those who rate mindlessly. The ratings system can never work. Period.

opjose
03-13-2012, 02:49 PM
While I don't doubt that Knife Edge somewhere said that 5 is supposed to be average, there is nothing I saw (and I just looked) on the swap pages themselves that indicates that.



I do agree that it SHOULD be prominently placed and explained.

Jeff and others have put up some guidelines to the rating system based upon some of the rather extensive criteria used during the contests we've had here.

Madratter
03-13-2012, 03:30 PM
I do agree that it SHOULD be prominently placed and explained.

Jeff and others have put up some guidelines to the rating system based upon some of the rather extensive criteria used during the contests we've had here.

If they are the ones I am thinking of, they are here:

http://knifeedge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25140

Unfortunately, that is pretty much hidden under the G5.x-G4.x designers forum, a place few users probably ever tread.

jeffpn
03-13-2012, 03:56 PM
And lengthy, too!

flexible
03-13-2012, 04:06 PM
You don't need locks, to keep good people out. Do away with score keeping, or pack heat!