new freeware Wedell Type 44

It's really, really well done. At least as solid as some of the simpler payware planes I've bought. Well worth your time to download and check out!

00c9aa9ef3e4318549d214c68e7bc6b40c2e59f3.jpeg


0b2d889c20697e8a1802eaec41d0c4c50c088682.jpeg


66a9c142c45802ff20d99786d22ae6923caadb67.jpeg
 
Jankees, a fantasy US Navy (prewar or three-tone blue) or RAAF WW2 paint scheme would look fantastic on this. Just hinting. :)
 
Agree with all above. This is amazingly good for freeware, clearly a labor of love and better than pro products in many respects. Really an awesome surprise to start my morning today.

August
 
DennyA said:
Jankees, a fantasy US Navy (prewar or three-tone blue) or RAAF WW2 paint scheme would look fantastic on this. Just hinting. :)
Click to expand...
I concur!! But with a "pretty please" :)

Question: is this as difficult to fly as a Gee Bee?

Priller
 
Last edited:
The Wedell-Williams Model 44s, of which four were built, dominated the Bendix races in the early 1930s, winning it in 1932 (Capt. Jasper Haizlip), 1933 (Roscoe Turner), and 1934 (Doug Davis). They also won the Thompson Trophy races in 1933 and 1934, with James Wedell and Roscoe Turner respectively. Initially they were fitted with the same engine as that which powered the Gee Bee R-2, the Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Jr., but later the larger P&W R-1340 Wasp (as installed in the Gee Bee R-1) and P&W R-1690 Hornet engines were also used. According to the developer, the example depicted here is fitted with the R-985. (It's interesting that the R-985 modeled in this freeware model is incorrectly mounted upside down.)

I don't know anything about how the real Model 44s flew (I will have to do some reading). Looking at the design of the airframe, with the location of the engine/landing gear/pilot and center of gravity, as well as the size of the wings, I would believe it would handle rather conventionally, though I don't know if there has ever been a purpose-built racer that was easy to fly. The ailerons and tail surfaces seem quite small.

Like flying the Gee Bees, it would be important to get the power up and tail up off the ground as early as possible on takeoff, to get the tail skid out of the ground, to get more air crossing over the rudder, and to be able to see down the runway. This sim model handles that really well - I get the power up to 30-in MP quickly but smoothly, as I put some forward pressure on the stick until the tail is up (all happening in a matter of two-three seconds). With the wind straight down the runway, there is little rudder input needed. I've been flying off at around 85 knots - it's a real rocket ship/like a slingshot on takeoff. In the air it is quite docile but locks up as you approach 200 knots. It doesn't like going below about 65 knots and has a hard stall at around 50-55 knots. Landings should of course be done with a curved approach. I made my first landing flying quite fast, flying final at 95 knots and a wheel landing touching down at 85 knots (then using brakes, while holding the tail up, until slowed down to 25 knots or so). My second landing I was able to fly final at around 85 knots and did a tail-low, near three-point landing, at around 65 knots. It only side-slips marginally well before running out of rudder, and a low approach is required as it doesn't like to bleed off speed in a descent.



Seen here are a couple of the replicas which once flew, back in the 1990s (since retired to museum display):



14328034493_bdb89ca8f5_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Having spent some time with this plane today, I would say that it is a more docile than the Gee Bee but responds well to the same flying technique.

On closer inspection I have noticed a few more issues with the 3D model, such as the cambered lower wing surfaces, but nothing I can't ignore in such an excellent freeware model.

I found the aileron response to be sluggish, just as John found with the Gee Bees. The difference is that unlike the Gee Bees, this plane isn't encrypted, and can be tweaked. Increasing the aileron effectiveness scalar from 1.35 to 1.8 produced a roll rate of about 70 degrees per second which seems much more realistic to me for a pylon racer from this era.

August
 
K5083 said:
Having spent some time with this plane today, I would say that it is a more docile than the Gee Bee but responds well to the same flying technique.On closer inspection I have noticed a few more issues with the 3D model, such as the cambered lower wing surfaces, but nothing I can't ignore in such an excellent freeware model.I found the aileron response to be sluggish, just as John found with the Gee Bees. The difference is that unlike the Gee Bees, this plane isn't encrypted, and can be tweaked. Increasing the aileron effectiveness scalar from 1.35 to 1.8 produced a roll rate of about 70 degrees per second which seems much more realistic to me for a pylon racer from this era.August
Click to expand...
Would love to alias the Gee Bee sound files into this one.
 
dvj said:
Would love to alias the Gee Bee sound files into this one.
Click to expand...

Yes, the sounds for this plane are aliased to the CAP-10, that's why it sounds weak.

I don't know about aliasing sounds from an encrypted plane like the Gee Bee, but there are plenty of others you can use. Old FSX/P3D sounds will work. I copied the sounds from the Vertigo Stearman for FSX into my Wedell, and it sounds a lot better now.

August
 
K5083 said:
Yes, the sounds for this plane are aliased to the CAP-10, that's why it sounds weak. I don't know about aliasing sounds from an encrypted plane like the Gee Bee, but there are plenty of others you can use. Old FSX/P3D sounds will work. I copied the sounds from the Vertigo Stearman for FSX into my Wedell, and it sounds a lot better now. August
Click to expand...
Thank you. I'll have to look into this. d
 
Someone on the official forum said the sounds weren't aliased properly and thus the WAV files that are supposed to be there for the engine, to supplement the CAP 10 cockpit sounds, aren't playing. It's certainly quiet in the cockpit...

As for the roll response, it feels right to me, because it IS responsive at low speed. Planes of this era had purely manual, unboosted controls, and it was very difficult (especially with relatively small control surfaces like the Type 44) to maneuver at higher speeds.

The Mitsubishi Zero, for instance, loses almost all of its amazing maneuverability at speeds over 185 mph, because the controls are so heavy in addition to the surfaces being less effective at high speeds.

To me the responsiveness here feels more appropriate for planes of the era than the Gee Bees.
 
Yes, the modder has used the control surface elasticity tables in the flight_model.cfg to limit control surface travel at high speeds. You can feel it in flight and also see it in the visual model. Work the controls when stationary on the runway and see how much they deflect, then take off and get up to speed, and you'll see that they move much less.

August
 
Jankees, both of those are awesome! Thanks for doing those -- can't wait to try them!

As I look at it in military garb, I realize the P-26 Peashooter would also be an excellent template for a paint job. (Not necessarily asking, you've already done cool stuff, just tossing it out there since I noticed!) Just a very similar overall design. They're both wearing the same pants. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top