Any Old-Timer Free-Flight Models in the Swaps?

A buddy of mine who participated in FF competition in the 50's asked if there were any old-timer FF models created for RealFlight. Does anyone recall if there are? If someone tells me they're there, I'll go find them, but there seems no way to scroll through a graphic thumbnail of the models looking for a desired type.


.vintage-civy-boy-61-floater-airfoil_1_4a356532a8fd41fce54996a933f8cd2b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks.

What's involved in creating a model? I'm a retired engineer, electrical, with 2D and 3D CAD experience on AutoCAD and Solidworks. Are there sufficient YouTube tutorials to get me started? Or is it a black art only for the fanatical few?
 
I know this isn't what you're talking about, but here is the most Old-timer free flight model that's here:

and here is an appropriate color scheme for it:
 
Thanks for the recommendations, but my buddy and I are texting back and forth. I'm getting the whole picture now.

He wants F1G FF class, rubber-powered, 80 grams max, 200 sq. in. lifting surfaces typical, converted over to RC. Yeah. Right.
 
Thanks for the recommendations, but my buddy and I are texting back and forth. I'm getting the whole picture now.

He wants F1G FF class, rubber-powered, 80 grams max, 200 sq. in. lifting surfaces typical, converted over to RC. Yeah. Right.
the least he could do is be a little more specific! 😂😂
 
I found this, which is also not what he's looking for, but at least it's allegedly rubber powered:



in order to use that one, you'll need to get this first:
 
Even if I did a F1G sim model, a physical model would be needed to validate it.

Oh well, RC stuff is so dirt cheap now compared to the old days of AM PPM, with several hundred dollar Futaba and JR radios at the hobby store in a glass showcase.

Now there are "postage stamp" receivers, tiny LiPo batteries, and pico linear actuator servos, all for a very reasonable price. My dream radio, the TX16S was only $269 last year.

What's not to love about RC aircraft in 2022 except FAA regs, Remote ID modules, model registration, and pilot testing?
 
OK, thanks everyone.

Now I have to hit Google and YouTube to do my homework reviewing skills prerequisites for basic RealFlight model creation. Hopefully Knife Edge has published a lengthy master cookbook of model creation for RealFlight some time during the last 30 years...but I doubt it. :)
 
here's the best I've found:

and if you use the open source, free to use, very capable, Blender 3D software, this may come in handy:
 
here's a summary of the process as I remember it, having created a very silly but very fun-to-fly airplane:
I definitely don't get all of the credit for my zplane. @asj5547 and @rcdoski contributed very much to its awesomeness!

  1. model the aircraft in the 3D software of your choice. There are certain guidelines to follow during this step to ensure that your parts are recognized by RealFlight and that they articulate in the correct way. also, this step involves the confusing and time-consuming process of UV unwrapping, which enables color schemes to be correctly applied.
  2. export that model as an FBX file.
  3. import the FBX file into RealFlight.
  4. adjust physics and other properties within RealFlight to make the aircraft fly and operate as desired.
  5. save it, and if you wish, export it as a RFX file that you can share on this forum in the Swap Pages section.
 
Last edited:
The "eye-candy" of the graphical model presented in the RealFlight simulation output I'm not concerned about. Yes, it's very complicated using 3ds Max, setting up the texturing, naming the model components to what RealFlight expects, but what I want to understand is how the physics model relates (or doesn't relate) to the 3D eye-candy model. I'll read up on this, so don't think you need to respond in this thread, but the way it's looking to me at the moment is the pretty graphical model has several virtual "puppet strings" attached to the moving control surfaces, then an existing physics model that matches the basic plane configuration (fixed wing, power plant in front, tail feathers on a long arm at the rear) is mangled, hammered, and manhandled until the model creator thinks it behaves in RF as in the real world.

What I need to find out is if things like thrust line or thrust angle of the powerplant affect the physics, or if prop wash over control surfaces affect it. In other words, how does the physical 3D description of the aircraft tie in to or influence the physics model. Included with that would be how does wingtip washout affect the physics, if at all. Is this why I see few flying wings for RF? I need to spend a few hours reading and let it come together in my head.
 
Well in answer to your physics question, there are a lot of parameters that can be adjusted on ANY plane in RF, and by that, I mean just about parameter you can think of, I`ve played around with a lot of them ,wingtip washout included, and any adjustment I made in the editor DID make a difference when flying the plane in the sim. If you haven`t looked in the editor yet, I highly recommend that you do, then you`ll see everything that can be adjusted and how to adjust them. In regards to the flying wings, Well, lets face it, there aren`t many in the real world, but there are at least four in RF here are two of the latest>>>>https://forums.realflight.com/index.php?resources/northrop-xb-35-flying-wing_ea.28845/ and this one here>>>>>https://forums.realflight.com/index.php?resources/northrop-yb-49-flying-wing_ea.28844/
 
My last post may have been misunderstood. I didn't mean to imply that some existing physics parameters might not affect the dynamic flight performance in the simulator. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding there. Also sorry if my colorful language gets misinterpreted as negativity, such as "mangled, hammered, and manhandled". I just need to shut-up until I read how the graphics model ties to the physics profile and runs in the sim.
 
Best thing to do is to create a copy of a simpler plane that interests you, and then start playing with the Aircraft Editor. I have found a number of "sorta close" planes, and then gone into the Editor to change everything to match the measurements I have taken off of a real model in my workshop. You'll see that you are creating/modifying a wireframe representation of the physics model that occupies the same space as the graphic model. There isn't anything forcing one part to be tied to another (physics to graphics). It can be wildly different - additional wings, be a canard when the graphic isn't, and so on. You won't see any of the changes in the end, but it will fly completely according to what you did with the physics model. So close, my end result usually has the same quirks as my real model...and I can emulate what I need to change on the real to eliminate the quirks. It does get odd in extreme cases - like putting the gear way up by the graphical prop. You can't see it in the final result, but it sure behaves like it is there. For most of mine, getting the physics parameters the same, and perhaps duplicating the color scheme, is good enough, and I don't worry about the overall graphical shape if the base was "sorta" like the subject.
 
> "You'll see that you are creating/modifying a wireframe representation of the physics model that occupies the same space as the graphic model. There isn't anything forcing one part to be tied to another (physics to graphics). It can be wildly different - additional wings, be a canard when the graphic isn't, and so on."

That was the missing piece I needed, a wire frame that the physics engine uses along with the physics parameters. Thanks. OK, it makes sense now.

I've yet to read: https://forums.realflight.com/index...for-true-to-life-performace-a-tutorial.17498/
but will get to it tonight.
 
That thread that you`re about to read tonight has a ton of info in it, it`s old, BUT, pretty much, everything still applies, it`s just that the format of the editor in that thread (it`s the older version) is a little different than todays editor, but everything can still be done, in todays editor the format/layout of it is different.
 
That thread that you`re about to read tonight has a ton of info in it, it`s old, BUT, pretty much, everything still applies, it`s just that the format of the editor in that thread (it`s the older version) is a little different than todays editor, but everything can still be done, in todays editor the format/layout of it is different.

That's fine. I don't need details or a how-to at this stage, just a top-most level, basic understanding of what the various components are, their function, and what's in an EA sim model that lets RealFlight do a reasonable flight simulation based on aircraft geometry, power plant, and control surfaces. The rest is details, learning curve, and experience.
 
Back
Top