Page Aviation Gee Bee profile

2420 Views 23 Replies 10 Participants Last post by 446, Sep 4, 2004

A Page

Discussion Starter · Mar 3, 2004

I dug my old profile Gee Bee out of the attic and weighed it. It comes in at 2 lbs 15 oz. without any radio gear installed. The wing area is 724sq." The ailerons are a little small as you can see in the photo but a few hours in the CAD program can fix that.
Think anyone would would buy them if I rereleased the kit?

Adrian

See less See more

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

Ulf

· #2 · Mar 3, 2004

Hi Adrian, good to see you on this site.
I think it would be just a matter of promoting it. Some of us have been big fans of the Morris Gee Bee. Yours looks very short coupled. How does it 3D ? are you thinking in kit form or just plans ?
BTW, I had one of your New Bee's and loved it. It would hover too :wink: Not sure why I sold it, but the owner is still flying it.

A Page

Discussion Starter · #3 · Mar 3, 2004

I would be offering a full laser cut kit. (If there is any interest) The plane will do lots of funky manouvers but I last flew it years ago before anyone was hovering planes so I don't know. It tumbles and spins well. Wingtip spins are neat. Of course if you like knife edge this is the plane to have. I would say it would hover at least as well as a Newbee. Actually it is not too far off the planform of the Newbee. I knew the extremely sort coupling would be no problem on the Newbee because of this profile Gee Bee.

BTW, I had a prototype of this plane built about a week before I ever saw the Morris Gee Bee kit advertized. It was not copied from it nor it from mine. They must have been thought up at the same time. Great minds think alike I guess. Now the Great Planes one is another story....:roll:

The kit is not drawn in CAD so it would be an opportunity for the end user (you guys) to have input into the design process as I am drawing it. For example: Would it be better to hide the servos under a hatch or surface mount them? Do you guys use small servos on the ailerons or? What kind of engines are popular for this type of plane? I'm thinking the landing gear should be comming out of the wing instead of being bolted to the fuse. What do you guys think?

See less See more

Quicker

· #4 · Mar 3, 2004

I'm thinking the landing gear should be comming out of the wing instead of being bolted to the fuse.

I like fuse mounted landing gear, even if the real plane had them in the wing. When I harrier in hard and bend the gear I can just grab them and bend them back to shape without fear of ripping the wing off.

Just my $0.02

Good looking plane.

TailTwister

· #5 · Mar 3, 2004

I'm not a fan of thr R-2. There are just too many of them in profile now. Now a Z model, I might like.

I also would say put the gear on the fuselage, wings need to be as light as possible. Reinforcement for gear costs weight, and weight away from center causes more trouble than the "cool factor" is worth. IMHO.

I like exposed servos whenever possible. It's easier to look at linkages, and change ratios, when necessary. It's also easier to see if something is coming lose. For most little profiles, I like miini servos (HS-225MG if I can swing it), and a micro (HS-81) for throttle.

Whatever you do, make sure a 14 inch prop will fit, please.

A Gee Bee Z profile 4 to 4.5 pounds, 725ish squares in the (very thick) wing, and laser cut? Yep, I might be interested in that...

BRUTUS

· #6 · Mar 3, 2004

I'd like a "Z" model as well. This one does look extremely short coupled.
Close to 4 lbs, for a strong .46-.53; standard accessable servos, and a hatch for the rx and battery.

I have my third Great Planes Gee Bee profile I was going to cover in those colors anyway.

I love that plane; I would like to know why it gets such bad press? If your convincing enough; I would blow out the two kits I have on the shelf and buy one of yours.

I've been admiring your kits for a while now...I love Gee Bee's.

A Page

Discussion Starter · #7 · Mar 4, 2004

A Z is a good idea. It's the wing that takes all the design time. The profile fuse can be most any shape without much effort. If I go ahead on this it would be pretty easy to offer both the Z and the R2.
I thought it might be lighter to mount the gear to the wings. I would have to have wheel pants on mine. Would people use them or would it be better to offer them as an option?
Seems pretty easy to me to keep them under 4 pounds. I have a TT .46 not doing anything. Would that be the type of thing you guys would use?
By bad press do you mean the Gee Bees or the GP profile one?

Adrian

A Page

Discussion Starter · #8 · Mar 4, 2004

I just occured to me that some of you may not know that I kind of specialize in Gee Bees. My web site is at http://www.adrianpage.com if you want to have a look.

Adrian

BRUTUS

· #9 · Mar 4, 2004

I meant the profile; Great Planes specifically.

I know the "Z" killed Lowell Bales; and a few people died in sportsters, from pilot error.

I admire the Gee Bee's almost as much as yourself; Adrian.

A Page

Discussion Starter · #10 · Mar 4, 2004

I think they were designed in a hurry , thrown in boxes and shoved out the door to fill a perceived market. When the sales slowed down they dumped it and looked for the next good idea someone else had. If I (or anyone else) do a Z profile and it becomes popular, I'm willing to bet GP will "invent" it shortly after.:roll:

Adrian

sloanfs

· #11 · Mar 4, 2004

I dont Know about the full scales but I have a Page 1/5 scale R2 and it fly's great. Funny how a plane that fat and short can be so clean and stable. I've since stolen the saito 100 for a 3-d plane but I'm not getting rid of the R2, Its soooo cool looking.
One thing Adrian, If you rekit the profile I would suggest HUUUGE ailerons and maybe even larger elevators and rudder.
If you could make it light enough, I agree with you, the wheel pants would look cool too. I flew my R2 without the spats at first to protect them and it takes away from the look.

TailTwister

· #12 · Mar 4, 2004

If you are going to redraw the plane, look at the wing thickness too. It seems almost like there isn't a point where they get too thick.

I mean it could be like 2.5 inches thick, and probably be just fine. Some of the older fun fly planes had thinner airfoils. What has this one got?

The elevators on this one aren't too bad, but the ailerons and rudder need a touch up, I agree.

Poor Adrian. He had an idea for getting a product back in circulation pretty quick, and we are suggesting almost a whole new plane be designed.

I like the idea for both (R-2 and Z) fuselages. I guess it wouldn't be hard to just build this plane with a square nose on it. What else would have to be different?

sloanfs

· #13 · Mar 4, 2004

Heres a pic of mine

See less See more

Ulf

· #14 · Mar 4, 2004

another thing Adrian : since you are asking the Pro Bro's here, have in mind that we will always focus and respond with a 3D capable profile in mind. Are you planning to kit a 3D profile monster or just a profile Gee Bee ? And yeah, wheel pants would look great.
BTW, your TT 46 pro will work great for a profile application. A lot of us use this one and have had great success with that motor.

A Page

Discussion Starter · #15 · Mar 4, 2004

The wing is 2 5/8" thick. I don't really know the difference between a 3d capable profile and a regular(?)profile. What is the best 3d profile on the market right now. I'll have a look at what makes it unique and see if it can be translated into a Gee Bee. I would guess that the profile of the fuse has very little effect on the aerodynamics.

Adrian

BRUTUS

· #16 · Mar 4, 2004

I think the key factors for a good 3-D plane are going to be the tail moment, and a large elevator and rudder. The pic above shows a very short tail moment.

Did the "Z" have a smaller dia. fuse?

The GP profile is almost too short coupled to hover well, but it can be done. I havn't tried moving the CG back, but it might help. It's too fun and predictable the way it is. I've mastered inverted landings with it; and no I do not have gear mounted on top of the fuse. The first one was an accident, but I didn't even break the prop...... and I like grass stain on the top of my vert.

I practice hovering with my OMP 540 EDGE PROFILE; it's much easier. I've heard the Burrito is another good plane, and I intend to try one of those very soon. Brother Swany produces that kit.

That's a sweet GB sloanfs!!!

Wheel pants would be cool!

A Page

Discussion Starter · #17 · Mar 4, 2004

I think I have some good ideas on what to do now. Thanks for the input. I'll draw a few lines and ask some more questions as I go along. I think some of the ultimate hovering ability can be traded for the freaky appearance and bizarre tumbles the short coupling allows. Maybe ending up half way between a 3d and an ordinary profile.

My favorite move with this plane was a lomchevak at the top of a long vertical then it would drop straight down the line it came up....every time. That and the reversable wing tip spins.

Do you guys figure out the aileron width as a percentage of the wing cord or?

Adrian

rcairnut

· #18 · Mar 9, 2004

A Page said:
What is the best 3d profile on the market right now.
Adrian

Adrian can you say Really BIG can of worms! :?
I think ($0.02) that a FFTaco, Burrito and OMP Edge should have all the correct movments that would yield a great flyer.

BRUTUS

· #19 · Mar 20, 2004

I think ($0.02) that a FFTaco, Burrito and OMP Edge should have all the correct movments that would yield a great flyer.

I'd have to agree with rcairnut, and I think most of the brothers would too.

novabill

· #20 · Mar 30, 2004

Adrian,

I have been to your site and love your models. I was planning on building your G-2 until I was bit by the profile bug. I would deffinately order a profile version and think wheel pants would be a must. Exposed servos would be great.

William 540

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.