Junkboy's Citabria, Decathlon, Explorer ,and Pro Hanger

[Junkboy999]

Springy Gear..

Kool I'd really like to see that. I still only have 3.5 and not looking to get G4 untill I finish some of the remodeling jobs I have lined up for the summer. I'd love to take a G4 Version of that model to the two local hobby store and see if thay will install it

Does the animation just bend the gear ?? I guess that is the only thing it can do sence there are no points set.


Yes the Ctabria is the first Model I started. I would stop when I got stuck or stumped and start on somthing new just to keep it from getting old. The Panda was released first because I got stumped on the Tail springs Moveable pots

 

[pilot07]

Updating Avionincs

 

[Law]

The Citabria is a particular favorite of mine, I happen to have three models of it - the largest being the Midwest kit. The model that you've created is awesome as far as the modeling is concerned. My congratulations on an awesome modeling job. (although as always, my pet peeve is that modelers go out of thier way to add detail and then forget that they're creating an R/C model with control horns and clevises - but, that's beside the point here)

I have to tell you though that it doesn't fly like any Citabria I own or have ever flown. I hate to have to disagree with everyone who's rated your model junkboy999. But, the physics are all wrong. I don't know if it's just RealFlight or the model itself. It's a great flying model, don't get me wrong, it just deosn't fly like a Citabria. Just as an example, the Citabria, the real plane itself as well as the models of the real plane are known for their ability to knife-edge. This model is either too heavy or underpowered to do a proper knife-edge. They're also known for their ability to crap and slip, again this model does a terrible job with those manuevers.

If you could tell me what model ARF or kit you used for your model I might be able to help a little ... I'm not a modeler so from a modeling standpoint there's not much advice I can give. Your model just seems to fly "heavy" and sloppy, nothing like any Citabria I've experienced. The throws seem to be excessive ... even without high rates.

I haven't rated your model on the swap pages. ... but, if I were to rate it I couldn't give it much more then a 4 or 5. Of course, if I were going strictly by appearence it would get a 10 - just like everyone else who has rated it.

 

[pilot07]

I put a 60 size engine in the model, and it flys nearly identical to the citabria a old friend of mine gave me.( I also added a few more degrees of rudder control)

 

[pplace]

The Citabria is a particular favorite of mine, I happen to have three models of it - the largest being the Midwest kit. The model that you've greated is awesome as far as the modeling is concerned. My congratulations on an awesome modeling job. (although as always, my pet peeve is that modelers go out of thier way to add detail and then forget that they're creating an R/C model with control horns and clevises - but, that's beside the point here)

I have to tell you though that it doesn't fly like any Citabria I own or have ever flown. I hate to have to disagree with everyone who's rated your model junkboy999. But, the physics are all wrong. I don't know if it's just RealFlight or the model itself. It's a great flying model, don't get me wrong, it just deosn't fly like a Citabria. Just as an example, the Citabria, the real plane itself as well as the models of the real plane are known for their ability to knife-edge. This model is either too heavy or underpowered to do a proper knife-edge. They're also known for their ability to crap and slip, again this model does a terrible job with those manuevers.

If you could tell me what model ARF or kit you used for your model I might be able to help a little ... I'm not a modeler so from a modeling standpoint there's not much advice I can give. Your model just seems to fly "heavy" and sloppy, nothing like any Citabria I've experienced. The throws seem to be excessive ... even without high rates.

I haven't rated your model on the swap pages. ... but, if I were to rate it I couldn't give it much more then a 4 or 5. Of course, if I were going strictly by appearence it would get a 10 - just like everyone else who has rated it.

That's always the hardest situation to deal with when creating a model. If the modelers doesn't have the exact model (RL) that he is creating it is nearly impossible for him to create an accurate physics model. You mentioned: "I don't know if it's just RealFlight or the model itself. It's a great flying model, don't get me wrong, it just doesn't fly like a Citabria" I think a big misconception many people have is that the visual appearing model affects the flight physics. He could have the same physics set up on a B-17.

The flight physics (wire frame) are set up object by object, piece by piece, weight by weight....etc. in the G3.5 - G4 editor. Again unless the modeler has all the exact RL weights, airfoils, throws, wash-outs, flight characteristics...it's nearly impossible to set one up 100% right out of the gate.

This is why I don't worry TOO much about the physics.....as we all know the 3D visual model CAN NOT be changed, the CS and the Physics CAN be changed however. I feel it is more important to get the requested 3D visual model out.....so others that possibly have the RL model can help tweak and adjust they flight physics more accurately.

It's a good point you bring up....but it's unrealistic for all the modelers to know how every model should fly exactly.

 

[flip3d]

pplace has hit the nail on the head. Even if you had all the weights, dimensions, airfoil x-sections,etc. of each component would the physics model fly "just like" the real model? I very much doubt it.

At best a close approximation will have to do. I suspect that KE has a far wider set of flight physics parameters to work from (and incorporate into their software) than we as end users have. Depending on the baseline (default) settings applied and the range of adjustment provided determines how far your edits can go. All in all I must say their (KE's) editing parameters as provided are very adequate. Understanding the application of said parameters is where I come up short.

By the way. Thanks for an excellent model Terry. I imported the Citabria into G4 and edited it as a gasser (large scale). Love it.

 

[phrank]

Great job on the model Terry, you've outdone yourself!

About the aircraft flight model:
Unless specifically stated by the author, no one should expect a model to fly exactly like their own real-life aircraft.
Obvious reasons were already stated, the author may not own your specific model, or there are too many real-life combinations to make everyone happy.
Wingspan, weight, electric or glow, Midwest or Parkzone, take your pick.

That's where Aircraft Variants fill-in those holes.
If anyone is unhappy or feel that the FREE model is not to their liking, please edit the model to fly exactly like yours and then share that with the rest of us.

Surely that's not much to ask in return for a FREE model.
Doug's Physics Tutorial should help in creating the proper feel to your variant.

Good Luck,
Frank...

 

[Junkboy999]

About the physics

Hey Law thanks for the comments, all ways nice to hear from RC flyer that fly's my favorite Aircraft. This was the first 3D model I made and it still a learning process. I really glad that people liked it, but I would of made it even if no one wanted it. I did let a few people test it before releasing it on the swaps and each one thought it should fly differently then the rest or want it set up to the way they fly.

My first RC beside the trainer I modified to a tail dragger was a 66'in WS Bud Noesn Citabria, A true flat bottom wing model. I flew it with a .36 super tiger. Silly me did not place and dihedral in the wings. Tricky to fly and a dog for power. Later I got another Citabria and then a Super Decathlon the, black hores one, and I flew the hell out of them while I was in England in the military. Because of Military commitments and location I took a break for 15 years and now just getting back in to the hobby. I'm flying a Global 51-62 ARF Super Decathlon. I have two other, No clue who made them. One is that Red kit you see around, the one with the stubby nose cowling. The other is bigger then a ¼ scale fiber glass Kit with foam sheeted wings, I'm looking for information on it if you know about this one. See link
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7.../mpage_1/key_Fiberglass/anchor/tm.htm#7213870

I wanted to model this off of the 1964, 7ECA Champion Citabria. This was a 4 cylinder Aircraft. All thought the Citabria ( Airbatic spelled backward ) these Aircraft are limited to loops, Rolls , stall spins, hammer head slips and the wingover. The wing over is the closest thing to a knife edge it could fly. The wing over is where you tilt the wings up 90 deg like your going to roll it and then rock it back to level. I really want to make a something more like a the older Citabrias and less like the Super Decathlon that every one is familiar with , simply because I'm planing to make a S Decathlon later. This is why it is a little under powered. I fly mine with the .40 installed and not the .46 released in the EA. Real flight is neat because any one can take the flight physic and make it fly any way they like. People can even copy a CAP 380 physic and apply to the citabria.

As for as servos and control horns, I wanted to place them in to make it more like a model. I even started a thread asking what people would prefer to see in the interior, the seats or a servo tray. I believe people wanted to see a Hillary Clifton Bobble head doll, the taco bell Chihuahua, a crash test dummy and even the grim reaper. I think it was my wording of the question that lead to the answers, I have been asked to make the Sig Kadet and Rascal really nice tail draggers, and I'll try to place then on the model. This all depends on the poly count of the model and my knowledge of movable pots ,again I'm still learning


I think another modeler out there said ( Loosely Quoted ) " Real flight does not place control horns and push rods on there model so why should he " People pay $$$ for these models and Mine is free..


If you are willing. I'd like to pass the next one your way to see how it flys before releasing it. The more help I can get the better for every one it will be. I found some one there that flys one with the floats on it and he has offered to help with my adventure project with floats. All thought he said his model does better flips with the floats because of the extra weight and the real float plane is not rated for acrobatics.



About Ratting. Plz feel free to rate the model how you see fit, all I ask is rate it on the 3D model, the color scheme, and the physics, and leave a comment. I seen people rate models made for G.3.5 and giving it a 6 just because it was not made for G4.

 

[Junkboy999]

Kind works

Thanks Guys for the kind words.


It's the kind words from the users and the respect of the other modelers that is the driving force that motivates me to keep making more

 

[flip3d]

Citabria flight characteristics:

It is interesting to note that my personal Citabria edit for G4 corresponds somewhat with the description of the 7ECA Champion Citabria that you mention. Could it be that the basic configuration of the aircraft dictates that it has difficulty doing a full-on knife edge? Negative G maneouvers are NOT crisp like positive G? Rolls are anything but axial. Hmmmm..... guess that's why it's called a simulation.

You may edit in some numbers to alter flight characteristics but as long as the wireframe and the included airfoil cross sections used follow the graphic this largely dictates the capabilities of a given model. The guys at KE will read this and give a collective "Duh!".

 

[Law]

Thanks for the explanations about physics pplace and junkboy. I spent some time with your Citabria over the weekend and with little more then a prop change and some negative (left) right thrust it now flies much more realistic - at least to me.

I'll admit I was a bit surprised to see an 11x9 prop on an OS 46, I don't know anyone who runs that prop/engine combination - but what do I know. After changing it to an 11x6 (one of the props recommended for that engine) the plane flew much more like I remember - and I had no problem pulling a knife edge. Then once I over rode the poor physics in RealFlight by adding in some left engine thrust the plane would pull to the left with full throttle, as it should. Still not "right" but much better.

So, based on your explanations and pplaces explanations - and a little tweaking on my part - I'll raise your rating to an 8. I don't give 10's. 10's are perfection and no one can achieve perfection when creating an R/C model, even in a computer environment. Or, at least that's my opinion.

My heartfelt thanks for creating a great model.

 

[Junkboy999]

Physic and next model

Hey Flip 3d

Sorry would of answered sooner, but Mom and Dad are down for Mothers day and my birthday.

I Think Real flight probably uses the $$$ software for the Models but uses the same physic style setup for the flight physics. I'm just basing this on looking at all the Real flight Wire frames I have and there is nothing there that you cant do your self.. To tell you the truth I seen a few modeler out there that take the time to add stuff like struts and other drag components to there model and to set it up in the physics. I don't have all the real flight add-ons but I have not found a model that has a rudder or elevator part that extends past the leading edge and forward of the pivot point. This is how the Citabria should be set up. I did find that one of the "None Paid" modeler took the time to make a small extra part to the rudder and the elevator and make a part of the wire frame move with a movable pot. This detail to will never been seen by any one but he took the time to do it and if all goes right it should of effect the flight physic. I going to try that on the Super Decathlon and forgo the rudder peddle and yoke movement . Too many movable pots tend to effect the Frame rate.( so I been told )

I think what make Real flight Model fly really well and close, if not the same as the real models is there ability to get a hold of the real RC them self. I think that that would be a Perk of the Business.

The physic in G4. Yep.. Your right. The High wing with a flat bottom and dihedral was all set up to the 3D model and all three of those traits tend to make the plane perform more stable and that not what is needed for aerobatics.


Law

Yep I mess up on the right torque. I turned it off when starting the physics and did not put it back in. The prop was set up just for the looks for scale the pitch to get the speed. Because you cant burn out your engine I was not worried about the match. If we wanted to go that route we would all have to wait 2 week for the model to get fixed before we hit the Red button. I'm not the best to set up the physic but I feel I will get better as time goes by. In real life I'm that old fart at the flying field, slowly flying the model really high and just doing loops and rolls and touch and goes in the way of all the people screaming by at top speed.

I was not going to do the S Decathlon next but I can save the float plane for later and work of the SD next. If your willing to do the yanking and banking test. In the long run I wanted to have 5 truly different models released even though they will be based off of the same air frame and the 3D model. One to suite all the different flying styles.

 

[Junkboy999]

Adventure on Floats

Adventure on Floats


Well I dusted off the 3DS file of the Classic Citabria and started to modify it for the Bellanca Adventure float plane. I have the floats looking well and the retract installed. I need to install STOL wing tips and added the extra Horizontal stabilizers. I'm going to release it out for G3.5 first and then have some one convert it to G4. Is there any thing I should do to help the conversion like naming and combining of parts or separating the stuff like the struts off the floats?

 

[Wolf Phantom II]

Adventure on Floats


Well I dusted off the 3DS file of the Classic Citabria and started to modify it for the Bellanca Adventure float plane. I have the floats looking well and the retract installed. I need to install STOL wing tips and added the extra Horizontal stabilizers. I going to release it out for G3.5 first and then have some one convert it to G4. Is there any thing I should do to help the conversion like naming and combining of parts or separating the stuff like the struts off the floats?

There is no special naming needed, as long as it's a component you can make it float. No, not a rootbeer float lol.

 

[Junkboy999]

still in work

Ok

Doug and Herc40 been playing with the physics for a while. But I was informed that the floats where to short and at a bad angle.

So I found some more information about floats for the Adventure and got to work. I'll have to shot it back to for some more setup

 

[Eric Ostrom]

"I know that Citabria is Airbatic spelled backward but the first Citabria where limited to loops rolls and stalls. Inverted flight was not recommended, due to the flat bottom and high lift airfoil."

Inverted flight is not "recommended" because the aircraft lacks inverted fuel and oil systems.... The decathalon(7kcab) and Super decathalon(8kcab) have inverted systems and the same airfoil as the Citabrias and can achieve Inverted flight and - G manuevers with no problem.

 

[Junkboy999]

Yep Eric

Hi Eric


Your probably the only other person on this forum that know there was a Decathlon and not just a Super Decathlon hehehehe ..


Stick around and I have all the version out for Real Flight one day even the Citabria Aerobatic Pro and may be just may be and Airbatic Pro Bipe. Just for kicks.


I got a summer project that will take a bit of my time ( Pilot ¼ Bellanca Decathlon, A rare find ) All so need to get my shop back in order for more wood working projects this summer.

 

[Toes]

Decathlon Junkies

Glad to see there are other people who like Decathlon's and Citabria's. The first one I built (46) size. I tried to get an instructor to test fly it for me, but he was afraid to. Said they were to unstable, esp on the ground.

I can't wait till you get them complete of Real Flight G4.5

Ken Antos

 

[Norton]

Decathlon, unstable?

I've had two and there very stable, One 60' wingspan that is gone now because of a guy turning his radio on while I was flying. The second was a 120" which also fly's great! The best thing about a Decathlon is they are very aerobatic but land very well at low speeds.

I also had both way over powered to the point of adding weight to the tail with no negative effects at all. Also about a week ago I bought a Fuji Imvac BT-43EI-2 43cc Gas Engine for it (Thank god I made the wing a bit longer), a bit of over kill but I have some friends that want there sail planes towed. We shall see, a lot of money for a engine in this economy but I will use it in other planes! ( Hint, Bonus check)

The 120" I even put led running lights on, great plane.

If you want to see what ended up with my 60" go to ( Show off your real models tread and look for ( Ouch). It had a O.S. 60 with a tuned pipe on it that I took off the Dago Red.


P.S. Terry, that looks great!


Cheers.

 

[Norton]

By the way,

Any of you large scale flyers heard anything bad about the Fuji Imvac BT-43EI-2 43cc Gas Engine? If so please let me know.

Thanks.

P.S. I know this is a KE forum and is off subject but it about real birds.
I'll delete if need be.