The OZX Grumman Goose HD Redux Now Released!

[warchild]

Based on the checklists, which state to set climb/cruise power based on MP and RPM, I always figured it was a constant speed system.

Nope.. it'svariable pitch, bolted directly to the shaft. So you have variable pitch and speed. What i try to do at this time is simply use tyhe parts of the constant speed settings that i need and set the rest to zero.. It can get weird though..

[wilycoyote4]

These screenys don't do justice but I like the detail such as weathered paint on leading edges of the wings. Colorful hi-viz paints are ideal for this bird. :ernae: Many thanks.

Take your time on that FDE upgrade.

[JayKae]

Just letting you know guys, the patch will include:

- Sound fix
- The Flight model for the 450hp version, somewhere it took a wrong turn, so Pam corrected it
- Corrected hatch bump map
- Something else hopefully which I cannot disclose yet

[AussieMan]

Nice to see you Batman .

Cheers
Pat

[dougal]

Can someone please do a 'beatenup & dirty' paint? Maybe an old cargo bus?

Please

[jankees]

- Something else hopefully which I cannot disclose yet

paintkit, maybe?

[Brett_Henderson]

Just letting you know guys, the patch will include:

- Sound fix
- The Flight model for the 450hp version, somewhere it took a wrong turn, so Pam corrected it
- Corrected hatch bump map
- Something else hopefully which I cannot disclose yet

Useable weight stations, and loadable min/max weights ?

[Brett_Henderson]

Nope.. it'svariable pitch, bolted directly to the shaft. So you have variable pitch and speed. What i try to do at this time is simply use tyhe parts of the constant speed settings that i need and set the rest to zero.. It can get weird though..

Hmmm.. aside from some early, two-blade props.. the Goose was equiped with constant-speed props. There might have been rare exceptions.. but all 3-bladed versions were definately constant-speed props.

[Brett_Henderson]

For the sake of clarity.. there are basically three types of propeller:

1) Fixed-pitch
2) Controllable-pitch
3) Contstant-speed

Controllable-pitch, and Constant-speed, are BOTH "variable" pitch propellers. The difference being that a constant-speed prop adjusts the pitch on its own, in order to maintain the pilot-selected RPM (constant-speed).

The controllable-pitch propleller is quite rare .. almost unseen today, aside from specific applications like some racing airplanes.

Any of these three prop-types can be bolted directly to the shaft, or have geared reduction.

[piperarcherpilot]

Hi Pam,

First of all, I'm just trying to be helpful, but I think what Brett is saying is true. I just spoke to one of my flight instructors of long ago, and he has a friend in Canada who used to fly a Goose. From his email " nope they're constant speed systems on the Goose. The Pratt 985s are touchy little buggers and mountain flying as well as water ops would be a pain in the *** if it was just a controllable pitch prop with no governer. I dont want to even think about that! Sorry I dont know any airplanes up here that use that system."

Second, Jay, great news! I wish I had a bigger screen to see this detail without zooming in so much. Its hard to do a productive flight when you spend 90% of the time looking at the textures in awe.

[warchild]

@piperarcherpilot.
If you hadnt mentioned that governor i may have argued with ya ::lol:;.. I studied diagrams of it while working on the flight model, but became confused as it's still listed as a direct drive system. That classification is what told me it's a variable instead of constant speed. That would also explain engine rpm being stuck at 2700 rpm constantly..

[warchild]

For the sake of clarity.. there are basically three types of propeller:

1) Fixed-pitch
2) Controllable-pitch
3) Contstant-speed

Controllable-pitch, and Constant-speed, are BOTH "variable" pitch propellers. The difference being that a constant-speed prop adjusts the pitch on its own, in order to maintain the pilot-selected RPM (constant-speed).

The controllable-pitch propleller is quite rare .. almost unseen today, aside from specific applications like some racing airplanes.

Any of these three prop-types can be bolted directly to the shaft, or have geared reduction.

Brett
thanks for the clarification. It's obvious i've been working under an incorrect assumption. i'm still confused as to why, if the props are constant speed and therefore auto adjusting, theres a set of prop pitch levers on the overhead.. perhaps a throwback to when the plane used variable (controllable) pitch??

[warchild]

Useable weight stations, and loadable min/max weights ?

The stations will remain the same. They are in accordance with the original blueprints. If i can get an accurate report on the weights, i'll change them, but i just came from one site displaying a G-21G with radial engines, and stating it used a pt-6A turboprop engine.. So far, every site i've examined has given me different weight values, even airliners.net.
Sadly, i dont have the money needed to purchase the manual set which would give us the definitive numbers so i'll do my best with what i can find.
So far, the most accurate site ( they got the engine nomenclature right ) is http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/goose.htm and i'll adjust for those weights..

[piperarcherpilot]

@piperarcherpilot.
If you hadnt mentioned that governor i may have argued with ya ::lol:;.. I studied diagrams of it while working on the flight model, but became confused as it's still listed as a direct drive system. That classification is what told me it's a variable instead of constant speed. That would also explain engine rpm being stuck at 2700 rpm constantly..

No problem Pam! I've had my fair share of brain farts. And, yes, that would explain the 2700 issue if thats what its coded to try to govern at.

theres a set of prop pitch levers on the overhead.. perhaps a throwback to when the plane used variable (controllable) pitch??

Well, I think you're still thinking of the manual controllable pitch system. The overhead prop levers control prop RPM. The very basics of the constant speed system is that there's an engine driven propeller, usually direct drive from the crankshaft. In a twin engine plane, there are counterweights that try to force the prop blades to feather position. This way if an engine fails, the prop automatically feathers and reduces drag. Through a system of springs and centripetal weights, the the governor uses engine boosted oil pressure to oppose this action. When the pilot selects high RPM (low blade pitch), the blades go to the maximum RPM setting, in this case 2300 RPM, and as the airplane accelerates to cruise speed if nothing is done with the prop levers, the governor will automatically increase the pitch of the blades to maintain 2300 RPM. Basically, all the prop levers do is allow the pilot to select desired RPM and the blades will automatically adjust their pitch to keep the prop and engine at the selected RPM (within the governing range, usually somewhere around 1200-2700 rpm in a small twin). Normally, you use high pitch for takeoff to get the most power out of the props at slow speeds. After takeoff, you'll reduce RPM (biggest reason is noise) to a few hundred less, and then at cruise you normally make a power reduction (manifold pressure) and then bring the props back even further. In the goose, it probably goes something like (just guessing)-

T/O: Full power (max MP), 2300 RPM
Climb: 85% power, 2100 RPM
Cruise: 75%-55% power, 1800 - 1900 RPM

Of course in higher performance engines like these 450 hp radials, you have to be careful not to over-torque the engines by being at a low RPM and high power setting. There are Goose specific engine performance tables on this though and without a manual we dont know what they are specifically. No big deal though.

[piperarcherpilot]

Watch in this video how he ensures the levers are all the way against the ceiling (high RPM) for takeoff (1:29), and after takeoff pulls the power back a little to climb power setting (2:21) and then moves the props back a little (setting climb RPM, slightly lower) and you can hear the engine RPM reduction (2:24).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8EpAE6W3wk

Always increase Props then Power for power application, and reduce Power then Props for power reduction to avoid damaging the engine.

[tpet]

cool example of how to use all the tricks to taxi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBiSKx5nywM

[warchild]

Just letting you know guys, the patch will include:

- Sound fix
- The Flight model for the 450hp version, somewhere it took a wrong turn, so Pam corrected it
- Corrected hatch bump map
- Something else hopefully which I cannot disclose yet

Still correcting it ( the flight model ). I've still got unanswered questions about the gauges that i want to know, and so will have to dive into their programming so that i can make the FM even more accurate than it is. I've met a couple gentlemen in here that have offered some very good knowledge to me. Both are CFI's and at least one is an ATP, and since i refuse to use microsoft pretend calculations for my models, the practical data these two gentlemen have given me is priceless in my eyes.
Stay tuned.. The goose as is is a great plane. i'm gonna make it greater. And NO, i am NOT changing station assignments ..

Pam

[warchild]

cool example of how to use all the tricks to taxi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBiSKx5nywM

TPet:
That ROX!!!. thank you.. i would have never thought of raising a flot to act as a rudder. Now the question is, can we do this in fsx ( or can we find a way?) ??

[Wingmate]

I don't know about the way they did it but you can operate the floats individually it works (somewhat) for me.

[warchild]

I don't know about the way they did it but you can operate the floats individually it works (somewhat) for me.

they do operate individually but the animations and visual model have almost nothing to do with the flight model which defines the contact points. the contact points, including the floats, are fixed to an immutable location instead of a part of the model and therein lies the beast.. I dont know if an include file could be programmed to change the floats contact point positions at will or not. it's outside the scope of my understanding ( so far )..

[Wingmate]

ok I noticed that it turned a bit more with only one float down but that could just be my joystick is out of calibration again.

[tpet]

No prob, just found it and thought it was cool. Thank you, for the time and effort put into all your projects.

[P-12C]

Although I'm proud of the Goose we shipped, I'm honored you felt inspired enough to enhance it with your work. Congrats on what you have accomplished.

The aircraft we used for source is owned by a gentleman that also owns a turbine Goose, and is an expert in all things Geese. We were connected to him by our good friends at Kenmore air. The blue and yellow default paint Goose is his livery. (Actually our main contact at Kenmore was conceived in that actual Goose when his father owned it. True story.) We modeled the retractable floats because that is how his aircraft is configured, that goes for the cockpit configuration, 3-bladed props, etc.

The owner provided us with a copy of his owners operation manual and answered our questions about it's systems. The retractible floats added 1000 pounds to the allowable gross weight which may account for some of the variability you have seen from Goose to Goose.

As mentioned by others, the props are constant speed. I wouldn't be surprised if on an original first generation Goose they had something else, but not anymore. We didn't do much research on the originals.

As for Aileron effectiveness, our aircraft test lead at the time put several hours on the aircraft flying a test regime including stability and oscillation tests. I think the default flight model roll rate was pretty close, but I doubt it was perfect.

One posters comments about joysticks affecting flight models is spot on. We (MS) have to design for the lowest common denominator, which means cheap joysticks. With joysticks you can yank and bank way faster than you can in a real aircraft (most aircraft) and very small joystick movements result in large inputs. It causes havoc for us everytime (or did anyway). This is also a problem when it comes to brakes. Unless you have a higher-end rig with analog brakes, using a joystick or a keyboard you get digital brakes which ramp up in brake pressure very quickly. As a result nose overs in taildraggers are exhaggerated. That said you have to be very careful applying brakes in a real Goose.

Lastly, of the aircraft I have had the good fortune to fly for real, the Goose is my second favorite to the P-51. I wish I could afford to buy one...

[warchild]

@Paul.
Thank you.. If the goose hadnt been one of the better aircraft in the fsx package, it's my opinion that it probably wouldnt have gotten chosen as a plane to ramp up by OzX. In truth, i didnt touch the aileron or elevator force's. I did however add in a whole lotta stuff that MS left out ( main wing, MAC, etc ) and therein lies the changes in flight characteristics. The work you guys did was awesome. no doubt there, but i also believe you were working inside of microsofts cacoon and not really able to take the plane as far as you would have liked. Just my personal opinion there.
Over the last year, it's been my sole intention to drive flight models out of the "game" mentality and into real world simulation. The goose is part of that. I also personally believe that with the goose, we have gotten so close to that that it's spawned this whole group of people who want to se it be real. Otherwise, it would just be ignored like so many other planes are. All of this nit picking that you see, is really a complement, not only to OzX myself and the JFTC team, but to microsoft as well. It means, we all did great, but it can be made better, and the folks that are posting in this thread right now; pilots, Flight instructors, you name it; are all just trying to help me make this the very best flying aircraft available to anyone anywhere. And such a deal on the price ..
I admit, i'm proud, i have an ego, but i try to leave it at the door. We all have the same goal here ( i think ) and it's simply on my shoulders to take what the others offer and apply it as best i can with what i have to work with. In the end, we should have a pretty good plane. What most people forget however, is that planes are not designed by pilots. They're designed by groups of people in closed rooms with slide rules, pencils and a drafting table. I'm really in no different position than they are. like them, i can only take pilot reports and make modifications based on those reports, but in the end. i think we'll have done ok..

OH, btw. I've got a P-51 coming up in the near future.. PM me if you'd like to be in on it ..

[Henry]

One posters comments about joysticks affecting flight models is spot on. We (MS) have to design for the lowest common denominator,

Thanks i appreciate yall thinking of me
It is tough modeling for everyone
there are experts out here who can tell what they are talking about
some people like I have no clue
and we just want to have fun
I do like the new version and to be honest
have not had a problem with the FD's.
sometimes new aircraft with as real as it gets
Fd's i cannot fly so i do not
there is a need for both
H