Realistic flying B-17 and B-25?

R

Rneagall

New member
Can anybody point me to a model of a B17 which flies much like the ones offered by vendors? Mainly electric powered. I've tried a few from swap pages, some set up for RF7. Problem is one flies a bit like a glider which I find hard to believe, the other a bit like a brick as I would expect. My objective is to get a feel for how one of these planes from a current vendor would fly, as close as I can get in a simulator.

The B-25 is offered as part of the RF7 package. Should I assume it has been set up realistically?

If neither are set up properly, can someone make adjustments to one of the existing models and post? If there are some which are set up accurately, which are they?

FWIW: I have my eye on a trainer, probably a Flyzone Sensei, first real plane. I've been checking this one out on RF7. I'd also like to get a feel for how the bigger planes may fly.
 
ya that's tough ...for a model to be accurate in RF requires several things have top come together
an
1...excellent understanding of aeronautics
(plane behaves A.... need to change B.... to get desiered result C)
...

2...The person doing the physics edit is skilled enough to and hasa excellent familiarity and working knowledge of how use the editor to full advantage (knowing tricks or ways to fudge parameters to get desired results )
the person doing the edit has actually flown said aircraft in real life and knows certain maneuvers to exact in the real world to glean clues as to what needs to be done to said model to react the same way doing the same thing in the sim
few here can pull it off....good luck


I would imagine stock aircraft are accurate, Great planes is in the buis to sell rc aircraft it would probably hurt sales/reputation if they were not accurte in their own sim
 
I have the TopFlight B-25 with OS55AXs on the wings. I found the RF simulation of that aircraft to be very helpful before flying the actual model. I agree with the above comments... it really take a guy with actual knowledge of the plane and ability to enter the proper parameters in the software to get a good result.

That being said.... a lot of user modifications and choices on the real aircraft can make the simulator less than perfect.
 
12oclockhigh said:
I have the TopFlight B-25 with OS55AXs on the wings. I found the RF simulation of that aircraft to be very helpful before flying the actual model. I agree with the above comments... it really take a guy with actual knowledge of the plane and ability to enter the proper parameters in the software to get a good result.

That being said.... a lot of user modifications and choices on the real aircraft can make the simulator less than perfect.
Click to expand...
Thanks, good to know.
My main interest in RF7 is to learn how to fly these planes before I even think about taking one out to the field. If the simulator models the physics reasonably well and the specific models are set up properly I'd expect the plane to fly close to the real model.

It seems some of the models from the swap pages were set up more for entertainment than learning to fly the real model? I say this after trying out a few B17's which fly very differently. I don't know for sure which is more accurate. I suspect the one which is less agile, less able to glide...

All said, if anybody has a real model and may be interested in adjusting the simulator model to behave close to the real one, it would be appreciated.

Meanwhile I'm focused on the trainer, expect to pick up a real one in the next month or two.:)
 
I'm pretty good at physics but for multi-engined aircraft I'm pretty green. I've never actually flown one. I've been told my Super Sportwin is really accurate but then again I worked pretty closely with the designer and folks who have built and flown them. Multis are odd when using IC in real life as they require all sorts of fun mixes to get them all throttling at the same RPM (low and high throttle settings). Its much easier in electric. Generally to do this you really need a person who has the plane in-hand. Getting all the weights is one of the most critical parts.
 
You say you are focused on the trainer... could I inquire as to how many hours you have flying model planes?

My best guess is that it would take 4 or 5 years to get to the point of flying a multi-engine plane. A four engine B-17 is pretty much the top of the food chain and not for beginners unless you have an oil well in your backyard.

Good luck.
 
12oclockhigh said:
You say you are focused on the trainer... could I inquire as to how many hours you have flying model planes?

My best guess is that it would take 4 or 5 years to get to the point of flying a multi-engine plane. A four engine B-17 is pretty much the top of the food chain and not for beginners unless you have an oil well in your backyard.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
The reason I keep asking this is because I can fly a B-17 without much trouble at all in the simulator, something I don't believe is realistic at all. When I bought RF7 I was given the impression this simulator would accurately simulate how a real RC plane would fly. I find it to be a bit disappointing in this respect. I had hoped to get a feel for how the more advanced planes differ in handling from the trainers. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a model set up much like the real life model should fly much like the real one, minus flaws, imperfect setups, etc. I'd expect to learn as much as I can for any plane on the simulator before trying a real one in the field.

To be fair, RF7 has given me a chance to learn some of the basics before I'd even consider trying out a trainer in the field. Much better than going out there with no idea what to do.

I am heeding the advice I often hear suggesting I really need to start with a trainer. It seems I've reached a point with the trainer running on the simulator where I'm not seeing much improvement. Time to see how it really flies? My goal at this time is to reach for the larger planes later if my interest holds and IF I find I can manage the smaller planes first. See how the real trainer compares to the model. This is probably something I need to experience first hand. Start with the trainer and see where it goes.
 
The simulation is only as good as the effort the person put into it. That kind of effort would come from an owner that has taken specific measurements, weight, and behavior analysis of the real model to the simulation.
Without a specific statement to that effect, it's a fantasy approximation.

As you've found a lot of the stock aircraft are tweaked to be easy flyers, otherwise you would have quite a few users complaining they are too hard to fly.
Some guys have taken the task to help make more realistic variants, unfortunately each major release seems to throw them off enough to no longer be realistic.
 
I was thinking along the same line ..usailly .you have a lot of years and a lot of time and money before you ever get to that leval the time money and experience tobe flying twin and quad engine models like a B-17..

.sure if you have the mean$ and th gonads you could be maidening one in a few months ....but that wont be happen-en will it......for know your initial course of action is the right one to follow ...

get a high wing trainer and fly with a similar aircraft in rf ...there are only 2 aircraft in RF i can or will vouch for accuracy in RF .......and fortunate one of them is probably one of the best high wing trainers that has ever been made both in the RW and in the sim

both have proven track record they still sell the model in nitro and electric and repair parts are easy to come by ...i know i double checked on line an hour ago and that is the Hanger9 Alpha (ARF $139.)

my friend has one and he was blown away how well the flew like his and better yet
"felt" just like his in the sim .. the other is the art Tech Diamond 2500 glider as we got PMs from owners telling us it was spot on (my first and only physics tweak )
http://www.hangar-9.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=HAN2460

SO get a trainer ..fly one in RF join a club and fly the alpha as long as you can ...belive me you are never going to keep flying it as long as you think you are .. sometimes in this hobby its much much ...much shorter than you plan heh hheh he then its time to get some of the birds you want to fly yesterday....maybe
phrank said:
Some guys have taken the task to help make more realistic variants, unfortunately each major release seems to throw them off enough to no longer be realistic.
Click to expand...
and THAT i think is one of its Major flaws and the one thing that has turned me off from making CS in the first place ...put in 100s of hours to have them viable for a year or less just doesnt seam to be worth it .
.Sure i can retweak the CS ....but whats the point if its parent aircraft now flies like crap and no one has done a good physics tweak for it no ones gonna be worrying about the CS anyway
 
Last edited:
Fly it like you stole it.

The long and short of it is how much money do you have on the line. In the sim the answer is zero and you can fly like you stole it.

In real life, you are dealing with 4 cantankerous engines, retractable landing gear, about a dozen servos, weather and about 2 dozen buddies that are telling you to just go for it. You likely have 4 or 5 grand spent to get it to the end of the runway.

The simulator is providing a somewhat perfect vehicle to climb in and fly. Your crew chief and master mechanic have made it so. If you screw up, the crew does not bail out or die. It is the perfect world for you to experience the flight... right is still right, left is still left. The controls don't change. Mess up and you press the Red button and have another brand new aircraft.

Ever hear of those 17 and 18 year old kids stealing an airplane? The actual stick movements are just NOT that difficult... it is all that other stuff. (navigation, radios, insurance, FBOs, procedures, AIM, FAA, crew, maintenance, checkbook) All this collectively is know as; "Pucker Factor". The more you are risking the tighter the sphincter gets.
 
12oclockhigh said:
You say you are focused on the trainer... could I inquire as to how many hours you have flying model planes?

My best guess is that it would take 4 or 5 years to get to the point of flying a multi-engine plane. A four engine B-17 is pretty much the top of the food chain and not for beginners unless you have an oil well in your backyard.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

4 to 5 years? I think that is plain wrong, it all depends on the person. I have been flying since July of last year and I can fly anything anyone throws at me. I generally think the younger a person is the better their reflexes are and the easier they are going to pick something up. And especially if you go all electric. I will never own an internal combustion airplane. Too many issues and fooling with fuel systems and motors for my liking. I like to throw in a battery and go.
 
phrank said:
As you've found a lot of the stock aircraft are tweaked to be easy flyers, otherwise you would have quite a few users complaining they are too hard to fly.
Click to expand...
A plane which has been tweaked to be easy to fly defeats the purpose of the simulator, not what I'm looking for. In that case the simulator becomes a fancy version of MS Flight Simulator.

Maj. Numbskully said:
get a high wing trainer and fly with a similar aircraft in rf ...there are only 2 aircraft in RF i can or will vouch for accuracy in RF .......and fortunate one of them is probably one of the best high wing trainers that has ever been made both in the RW and in the sim

both have proven track record they still sell the model in nitro and electric and repair parts are easy to come by ...i know i double checked on line an hour ago and that is the Hanger9 Alpha (ARF $139.) http://www.hangar-9.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=HAN2460
Click to expand...
I took a look at this plane. It's listed as an intermediate level? Wood? Appears I'd need to buy an engine, servos, receiver, etc to get started.

I've been considering the Flyzone Sensei which is modeled in RF7. http://www.motionrc.com/flyzone-sensei-sport-trainer-1475mm-58-wingspan-rxr/#description In the simulator it seems to be a bit tougher than others, a bit more tolerant of a hard landing. Reasonably nimble.


12oclockhigh said:
In real life, you are dealing with 4 cantankerous engines, retractable landing gear, about a dozen servos, weather and about 2 dozen buddies that are telling you to just go for it. You likely have 4 or 5 grand spent to get it to the end of the runway.
Click to expand...
What scale are we talking about here? Ones I've looked at are in the $350 - $450 range, foam.

12oclockhigh said:
The simulator is providing a somewhat perfect vehicle to climb in and fly.
Click to expand...
Exactly.. This is what I have been trying to get out of the simulator, a chance to learn a bit of how to fly these planes without risk of a short flight then a long repair cycle. May take a long time to learn that way.

I don't see a problem with having my sights on a goal down the road. I have no intention of starting with something this large, delicate. It seems my next step should be to buy a trainer, see how a real one flies. Maybe then I'd have a better understanding of what people are telling me?
 
OK you disagree-not a problem, you have not done it, I have. There is a big difference between flying electric and IC powered aircraft. I am talking $2-5K plus aircraft. As you get more money tied up into a project that took you six months to assemble, test and wait for perfect day, you will start to understand. I agree with you, the motor skills are all there with a young man, the reasoning and knowledge come a bit slower. When I stated flying RC I was told that I am too old to learn how. I sure proved that wrong, and even the guy who said it admits he was wrong. If your daddy has a lot of money, you move a lot faster. I can fly anything out there... planes, helis, multi-rotors, but I practice each day on the sim.

As to IC engines, they are perhaps the most wonderful part of this hobby. There is nothing better than the roar of a 2-stroke, or the relative quiet power of a 4-stroke. The 3/5/7/9 cylinder engines are music to my ears. They beat a sound box all to heck.

Still we can both enjoy the hobby at what ever level is right for you.

Zelatio said:
4 to 5 years? I think that is plain wrong, it all depends on the person. I have been flying since July of last year and I can fly anything anyone throws at me. I generally think the younger a person is the better their reflexes are and the easier they are going to pick something up. And especially if you go all electric. I will never own an internal combustion airplane. Too many issues and fooling with fuel systems and motors for my liking. I like to throw in a battery and go.
Click to expand...
 
Rneagall said:
All said, if anybody has a real model and may be interested in adjusting the simulator model to behave close to the real one, it would be appreciated.

Meanwhile I'm focused on the trainer, expect to pick up a real one in the next month or two.:)
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, when 12oclockhigh said "less than perfect" he did not mean that the aircraft have realistic failures or realistic imperfections.

He meant that a lot of the swap page AV's are just cr-ap-o-la, as they are made by people who have no idea as to what they are doing nor do they own the modeled planes.
 
Regarding Swap Page Files:

Usually the guys doing EAs are fairly competent content creators. Many of these models are a collaboration of several guys. If you see those kind of notes, you are going to get a pretty good model. Several of the aircraft actually have build threads here on the forum. The results of those efforts are usually pretty nice. As with anything in life... there can be very good and horrible. This is one reason that I have not posted anything... Most of the EA creators do not have access to the model they are creating, so they give it a simple physics model. When someone cooperates that has the model, a better effort is achieved. Even the models created by Knife Edge can vary. Each modeler has his own strengths and weaknesses.

The guys creating AV files can be posting just horrible stuff (400% blowup versions blare STAYAWAY) or can be rather useful and quite nice. You really get what you pay for here. This is not taking a swipe at any of the guys, it is just my personal observation.

The guys creating and posting CS (Color Schemes) can be real jokers... (we had a guy making teal color schemes of every plane) or they can be excellently done well researched paint schemes from real aircraft. At least you can see what you are getting before you download the CS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top