Mini Gee Bee
07-09-2003, 12:35 AM
#7
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: farmingdale,
NY
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-29-2004, 02:06 PM
#8
Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Diego,
CA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mini Gee Bee
Thats realy just an IFO with a Gee Bee paint job.
Do yourself a favor and wait for the one 3dfoamy.com is developing! They anounced it last week and are testflying right now. It looks like a Gee Bee! Night and Day more than the one hobby-lobby is pushing. When it's available for download or in kit form im grabing the kit for sure!
Do yourself a favor and wait for the one 3dfoamy.com is developing! They anounced it last week and are testflying right now. It looks like a Gee Bee! Night and Day more than the one hobby-lobby is pushing. When it's available for download or in kit form im grabing the kit for sure!
08-29-2004, 04:45 PM
#9
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: farmingdale,
NY
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mini Gee Bee
SoMoney,
Sorry Its not an IFO with a geebee paint job!
It has totally different dims. then a IFO and an IFO very flew this good!
It is a very complete kit!
Mike
Sorry Its not an IFO with a geebee paint job!
It has totally different dims. then a IFO and an IFO very flew this good!
It is a very complete kit!
Mike
09-25-2004, 11:12 AM
#10
Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Diego,
CA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mini Gee Bee
True enough the dimensions and weight ARE different.
I was being a bit general in my terms. My personal deffinition of an IFO type craft is ANY 3D craft employing the "U" shaped fuse.
We'll Let the readers decide...
___[link=http://www.hobby-lobby.com/minigeebee.htm]Mini GeeBee[/link]______[link=http://www.hobby-lobby.com/ifo.htm]Indoor Flying Object[/link]__[link=http://3dfoamy.com]Gee Bee R-3D[/link]___
I was being a bit general in my terms. My personal deffinition of an IFO type craft is ANY 3D craft employing the "U" shaped fuse.
We'll Let the readers decide...
___[link=http://www.hobby-lobby.com/minigeebee.htm]Mini GeeBee[/link]______[link=http://www.hobby-lobby.com/ifo.htm]Indoor Flying Object[/link]__[link=http://3dfoamy.com]Gee Bee R-3D[/link]___
10-13-2004, 07:44 PM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: victoria, TX
Posts: 5,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mini Gee Bee
Nope, completely different.
heres "some" of the differences between the mini GB and IFO.
#1 mini GB is made form depron, IFO is made from covered caron fiber rods
#2 mini GB has a rudder, IFO doesnt.
#3 mini GB is a profile style plane, IFO is wing with a vertical stab added.
#4 mini GB and IFO weight/size is completely different.
#5 different power systems.
#6 GB is 3d capable, IFO isnt.
Need I go on?
The 2 are FAR from being "the same but with a different paint job".
The one from 3d foamy looks nice and all but is it a comparable size to the mini GB, I dont think so therefore you cant compare the two. The one from 3dfoamy looks to be at least two or three times the size of the mini.
Its all just personall opinion though, the mini GB may not look as good as the one from 3dfoamy but I doubt you could shrink the one from 3dfoamy down to a 14" wingspan and still have it fly so they are really not comparable.
heres "some" of the differences between the mini GB and IFO.
#1 mini GB is made form depron, IFO is made from covered caron fiber rods
#2 mini GB has a rudder, IFO doesnt.
#3 mini GB is a profile style plane, IFO is wing with a vertical stab added.
#4 mini GB and IFO weight/size is completely different.
#5 different power systems.
#6 GB is 3d capable, IFO isnt.
Need I go on?
The 2 are FAR from being "the same but with a different paint job".
The one from 3d foamy looks nice and all but is it a comparable size to the mini GB, I dont think so therefore you cant compare the two. The one from 3dfoamy looks to be at least two or three times the size of the mini.
Its all just personall opinion though, the mini GB may not look as good as the one from 3dfoamy but I doubt you could shrink the one from 3dfoamy down to a 14" wingspan and still have it fly so they are really not comparable.
10-14-2004, 11:32 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mini Gee Bee
1. What they are made out of doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the flying characteristics.
2. A trivial difference, easily taken care of with a piece of foam and a servo.
3. The profile style fuse doesn't change the wing loading, power loadings, etc. just kinfe edge capability, a small piece of foam added again.
4. The wing loadings, power loadings are similar in each airplane (when set up to fly really well), not enough difference to count
5. The power systems have no effect on the aerodynamics of the airplane.
6 My IFO is 3D capable except in kinfe edge, just a bit of foam takes care of that.
OK I have stretched some of the above a bit. But in general the GeeBee is just a small variation of the IFO design. It used foam filling in the "bow" but I did that to my IFO last year as an experiment to stop the IFO high speed tuck (due to flexibility of airframe and pushrods).
The difference in the sizes of the airplanes in this regime of flight doesn't change the flying characteristics that much. What does matter is wing loading and power loading.
From an aerodynamic standpoint they are essentially the same thing except for the knife edge capability.
Different would be if one had a tail or a canard.
2. A trivial difference, easily taken care of with a piece of foam and a servo.
3. The profile style fuse doesn't change the wing loading, power loadings, etc. just kinfe edge capability, a small piece of foam added again.
4. The wing loadings, power loadings are similar in each airplane (when set up to fly really well), not enough difference to count
5. The power systems have no effect on the aerodynamics of the airplane.
6 My IFO is 3D capable except in kinfe edge, just a bit of foam takes care of that.
OK I have stretched some of the above a bit. But in general the GeeBee is just a small variation of the IFO design. It used foam filling in the "bow" but I did that to my IFO last year as an experiment to stop the IFO high speed tuck (due to flexibility of airframe and pushrods).
The difference in the sizes of the airplanes in this regime of flight doesn't change the flying characteristics that much. What does matter is wing loading and power loading.
From an aerodynamic standpoint they are essentially the same thing except for the knife edge capability.
Different would be if one had a tail or a canard.
10-15-2004, 07:43 PM
#15
Senior Member
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: victoria, TX
Posts: 5,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mini Gee Bee
From the way it sounds he has or had an IFO.
Ben,
I see what your saying, I suppose if you look at it liek that they are quite simular, but stock they are quite different.
THe GB has a profile body, thats quite different id think
Ben,
I see what your saying, I suppose if you look at it liek that they are quite simular, but stock they are quite different.
Different would be if one had a tail or a canard.
10-15-2004, 10:40 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mini Gee Bee
Yes, I have an IFO that is about 3 years old. I am pretty impressed with the design. My first flight was in a small gym and I had no idea what to expect other than a floating gentle glide. My previous airplane (which I still have) was the Steubenfleuge (or however it is spelled). Was I ever surprised. I proved the ruggedness of the design really quickly.
I have worn out 2 motors and its had several repairs. The main bows though have never broken. Recently I did a major rebuild of the equipment and somewhere along the way put in elevator pushrods that were too flexible. I put a Speed 300 geared motor on the IFO and reveled in the new found power. However if I wasn't careful it would tuck under and whack. I replaced the covering with Depron inlaid and replaced the original vertical (now broken) with a partial CF and foam vertical. Well it still tucked under. Then one day it finally occurred to me to push down on the elevons and see what happened. Duh!! The pushrods flexed!! Stiffer pushrods fixed everything but since the foam is there I left it.
With the Mini GeeBee as guidance I am going to add the fuselage and a rudder (the new vertical is a more conventional looking shape) and have some more fun.
Yes, I agree they are different in detail but it is the same basic concept just taken a little farther. Keep in mind I guess that I am making the judgement based on a scale from the micro indoor models to the 30 pound 30% monster aerobatic machines. Within that span the two are quite similar.
If I limit my judging limits to airplanes weighing between 6 and 12 ounces, and non conventional planforms, etc., then I would say they are different - I am not unreasonable after all!!
Actually you could duplicate the mini GeeBee without the carbon fiber quite nicely. Just Depron foam with the same planform. My personal preference would be to have a little more span for looks. I have been flying a flat piece of Depron about 12 inch chord and 20 inch span with some radio equipment attached and nothing else on the wing. I put some straping tape to keep the wing from warping from the extreme speeds I was expecting
I put a couple of full chord racy verticals and have been flying it with a GWS-A type of motor. It flew nicely - even on a day when the wind was in the 15mph range and some other guys weren't flying.
I have just converted it (today actually) to the small AXI motor and am looking forward to trying it again. Just replace the two verticals with a fuselage and clip the span and you have a mini GeeBee.
I have worn out 2 motors and its had several repairs. The main bows though have never broken. Recently I did a major rebuild of the equipment and somewhere along the way put in elevator pushrods that were too flexible. I put a Speed 300 geared motor on the IFO and reveled in the new found power. However if I wasn't careful it would tuck under and whack. I replaced the covering with Depron inlaid and replaced the original vertical (now broken) with a partial CF and foam vertical. Well it still tucked under. Then one day it finally occurred to me to push down on the elevons and see what happened. Duh!! The pushrods flexed!! Stiffer pushrods fixed everything but since the foam is there I left it.
With the Mini GeeBee as guidance I am going to add the fuselage and a rudder (the new vertical is a more conventional looking shape) and have some more fun.
Yes, I agree they are different in detail but it is the same basic concept just taken a little farther. Keep in mind I guess that I am making the judgement based on a scale from the micro indoor models to the 30 pound 30% monster aerobatic machines. Within that span the two are quite similar.
If I limit my judging limits to airplanes weighing between 6 and 12 ounces, and non conventional planforms, etc., then I would say they are different - I am not unreasonable after all!!
Actually you could duplicate the mini GeeBee without the carbon fiber quite nicely. Just Depron foam with the same planform. My personal preference would be to have a little more span for looks. I have been flying a flat piece of Depron about 12 inch chord and 20 inch span with some radio equipment attached and nothing else on the wing. I put some straping tape to keep the wing from warping from the extreme speeds I was expecting
I put a couple of full chord racy verticals and have been flying it with a GWS-A type of motor. It flew nicely - even on a day when the wind was in the 15mph range and some other guys weren't flying. I have just converted it (today actually) to the small AXI motor and am looking forward to trying it again. Just replace the two verticals with a fuselage and clip the span and you have a mini GeeBee.
10-16-2004, 01:39 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mini Gee Bee
Actually if you have one of the little GeeBees take a little depron and tape and change it to the IFO planform. It would be interesting. I look at these from an aero engineers standpoint, not how each one looks or flies as a final product. In this case, going from the GeeBee to the IFO, you get higher aerodynamic roll damping, small increase in moment of inertia but more roll control authority. The net response is basically the same and just dependent on control deflection.
Aside from the fuselage sideforce effects (which is just a small bit of foam), and which I aggreed is not the same, the airplane will fly the same in pitch and roll.
The planform differences are shown below. Again the biggest factor effecting the flight of these flat-paneled slab-sided semi-flying wing-delta machines is the power loading and wing loading which is not planform dependent. If both have the same power loading there is little difference.
The little low aspect ratio flying wing that I show above flies just the same as my IFO if both are powered adequately and the wing loading is kept the same.
Aside from the fuselage sideforce effects (which is just a small bit of foam), and which I aggreed is not the same, the airplane will fly the same in pitch and roll.
The planform differences are shown below. Again the biggest factor effecting the flight of these flat-paneled slab-sided semi-flying wing-delta machines is the power loading and wing loading which is not planform dependent. If both have the same power loading there is little difference.
The little low aspect ratio flying wing that I show above flies just the same as my IFO if both are powered adequately and the wing loading is kept the same.
