Fairchild PT-19
- Thread starter technoid
- Start date
I would love to do the PT-19 physics for you, be sure to let me know the coordinates for the main and tail rotor locations and I will get started on it right away (what do you mean you have changed your mind)
technoid
Well-known member
HA.. On second thoughtI would love to do the PT-19 physics for you, be sure to let me know the coordinates for the main and tail rotor locations and I will get started on it right away (what do you mean you have changed your mind)
technoid
Well-known member
Okay I did a few things to the PT-19 and (please) I need some "critical" opinions of the flat segments on the sides. The real PT-19 does have flat areas on the side of the fuselage going back from the end of the cowl, which happens right at the end of the front windscreen. So I did a test making the fuselage segments flat by making each segment a different smoothing group. And like I said (and uploaded a picture) it looked pretty good in the 3D editor, but when I imported it into RealFlight I didn't like it, the segments looked too flat and a bit unnatural looking (to me). BUT later I realized I had the gloss set pretty high to look like a balsa plane with monokote. So I went back and turned down the gloss a fair amount and the flat areas on the side of the fuselage look better without all the shine on them they had at first. SO Please Take A Hard Look at these two pictures and let me know what you think of the flat areas on the side of the fuselage. ANY and ALL comments are welcome. The question is, should I keep them or go back to the way I had it in all the other pictures I've posted. I don't care if you like the way it is "now" or hate it I just want to know so I can get a feel for what people think of the change. You can PM me if you'd like to keep your thoughts private.
I also added two more panel lines. One a little in back of the luggage compartment door like the real plane has and one more line at a slight angle just in front of the end of the fuselage like the real plane has.
If I keep the flat fuselage segments I need to relocate two rivets to align them better. And I'm also thinking about moving the fire extinguisher door forward and have it butted up to the cowl segment like the real plane.
So please everyone give me your thoughts so I can finalize the plane and work on the physics.
I also added two more panel lines. One a little in back of the luggage compartment door like the real plane has and one more line at a slight angle just in front of the end of the fuselage like the real plane has.
If I keep the flat fuselage segments I need to relocate two rivets to align them better. And I'm also thinking about moving the fire extinguisher door forward and have it butted up to the cowl segment like the real plane.
So please everyone give me your thoughts so I can finalize the plane and work on the physics.
Last edited:
uncle twist
Well-known member
LOL Good one ASJI would love to do the PT-19 physics for you, be sure to let me know the coordinates for the main and tail rotor locations and I will get started on it right away (what do you mean you have changed your mind)
uncle twist
Well-known member
Looks good, keep it.
technoid
Well-known member
Okay guys, thanks for your thoughts. I'll keep them. After I turned down the gloss, I liked them. But I wanted to let you guys make the final decision to keep them or not. And I'll release the plane with everything in the picture, panel lines, normal map, and all. I do have a couple of small tweaks to do to the color scheme for some final alignment but they're just moving a few things to align them better.
technoid
Well-known member
I went back this morning and did all the tweaks I wanted to do to the color scheme. But of course while I did that I thought of one more thing I wanted to add, so as I finished I added one more thing to do. Hopefully that will be it and I can move on to the physics. This plane is turning out much better than I thought it would. Especially since I almost lost it when my hard drive failed. But right now it's time to make the wife something to eat and go grocery shopping.
technoid
Well-known member
Oddly enough I decided to make an EP version of the PT-19. Somewhere along the way I decided I like the EP sound profile I use. Anyway if you have RF 7.5 installed will you see if it has a 5,000 mha LiPoly battery listed for me? No C rating for it just a plain LiPoly 5,000 mha battery.
technoid
Well-known member
Thanks, it's there. That's just what I needed.
technoid
Well-known member
I started adjusting the weights and working on the flight physics this morning. I also changed the motor and battery. This plane doesn't need the powerful motor that was in the reference physics I used to import it with (My PX-40). Changing the motor and battery solved most of the weight issues for this plane but I still need to adjust a few of the other weights too. But it's already flying very nice, not the walloping I complained about with the PT-19 I tested earlier. I know back in the 1940s it needed to handle like that, but this is 2024 and it's an RC plane, so it should be fun to fly. I am keeping the physics pretty mild since it's a trainer plane, but it's still a fun plane to fly. So I guess I'd say it "looks" very scale except for the dihedral.
technoid
Well-known member
I started working on the flight physics again and did a bit more adjusting to the part weights. But the more I messed with it the worse it got so I ended up deleting the changes and will start over tomorrow. It always seems when I get to the final part of the physics it wants to mess up the more I work on it. So I guess I'll work on it again tomorrow. Ugh!
technoid
Well-known member
I worked on the flight physics again this morning making the changes a little slower, and I have something that seems to fly okay. Like I said I'm making it fly a little bit more docile because it's a trainer but it's still plenty aerobatic. I'm getting ready to go back and look at the on-board cameras next. I'm a little concerned about releasing a beta because of people posting EAs they didn't create. But I might release one after I finish the on-board cameras and test it a little more.
technoid
Well-known member
OKAY. I've seen it said both ways. So which seat is the Pilot/Instructor seat and which is the Student seat. Right now I have the Pilot view in the front and the Student view in the rear. Or should I just call them front seat and rear seat.
Maybe Instructor and Student instead of Pilot and Student. Or just Front Seat and Rear Seat. The rear seat isn't a good view, you just see the rollover pylon and the back of the front seat pilot. Going by the view in the rear seat I'd expect the front seat to be the student.
Info from same webpage
1. The qualified pilot (the instructor) takes the rear cockpit, the student takes the front. If you sit in front, you are a student. What self-respecting pilot would want to sit up front?
2. Now as far as wartime use of the airplane is concerned, the instructor sat in the front and the student in the back.
It was also said if there's just one pilot he has to sit in the front because the startup switches are there and the CG being thrown off if he was in the back seat.
Maybe Instructor and Student instead of Pilot and Student. Or just Front Seat and Rear Seat. The rear seat isn't a good view, you just see the rollover pylon and the back of the front seat pilot. Going by the view in the rear seat I'd expect the front seat to be the student.
Info from same webpage
1. The qualified pilot (the instructor) takes the rear cockpit, the student takes the front. If you sit in front, you are a student. What self-respecting pilot would want to sit up front?
2. Now as far as wartime use of the airplane is concerned, the instructor sat in the front and the student in the back.
It was also said if there's just one pilot he has to sit in the front because the startup switches are there and the CG being thrown off if he was in the back seat.
Last edited: