Usher F-106 Roll Out
11-17-2005, 12:10 AM
#26
My Feedback: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Grand Prairie,
TX
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Usher F-106 Roll Out
Mike,
Your plane looks great adn the design flies great . I have never understood why I haven't seen many at the shows I've been to. Mr Fong use to display his in a very skillfull manner.
David Hudson
Your plane looks great adn the design flies great . I have never understood why I haven't seen many at the shows I've been to. Mr Fong use to display his in a very skillfull manner.
David Hudson
11-17-2005, 11:13 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cornelius,
OR
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Usher F-106 Roll Out
There is a gage on the side view drawing for spacing the turbine wheel to the inner duck, it in the center about 1/4 down.
Maybe I should high light it.
Darryl
Maybe I should high light it.
Darryl
11-17-2005, 02:59 PM
#28
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton,
NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Usher F-106 Roll Out
David,
While the SIX, IMHO, was one of the most beautiful airplanes ever produced, it has several problems translating it to a model.
It was never used in combat so has no combat history, such as the F-100 or the F-4. Other than a few prototypes and the drones, there's only one color you can paint it-ADC gray, and even the drones had just the wingtips and fin painted. The reason the rudders weren't painted red was that they would have to re-balanced, and since the SIX was at the end of the road, it wasn't worth the expense to paint and re-balance the rudder, hence you're able to tell the last squadron a particular plane was assigned to before it went through the drone conversion process. While it's true that the fins could be very colorful, even that went away when TAC absorbed ADC. You can't jazz it up with bombs, rockets, etc, since all the weapons were carried internally, anyway, REAL fighters don't carry bombs.
I think that Darryl did it right by making his kit a semi-kit to keep the costs down. Wish someone would do the same for the
F8U Crusader.
BRG,
Jon
While the SIX, IMHO, was one of the most beautiful airplanes ever produced, it has several problems translating it to a model.
It was never used in combat so has no combat history, such as the F-100 or the F-4. Other than a few prototypes and the drones, there's only one color you can paint it-ADC gray, and even the drones had just the wingtips and fin painted. The reason the rudders weren't painted red was that they would have to re-balanced, and since the SIX was at the end of the road, it wasn't worth the expense to paint and re-balance the rudder, hence you're able to tell the last squadron a particular plane was assigned to before it went through the drone conversion process. While it's true that the fins could be very colorful, even that went away when TAC absorbed ADC. You can't jazz it up with bombs, rockets, etc, since all the weapons were carried internally, anyway, REAL fighters don't carry bombs.
I think that Darryl did it right by making his kit a semi-kit to keep the costs down. Wish someone would do the same for the
F8U Crusader.
BRG,
Jon
11-17-2005, 08:33 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cornelius,
OR
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Usher F-106 Roll Out
Mike: The CG is critical, 1/4" aft of front landing gear spar. I use piece of wood taped to bottom, from front of belly pan to rear of gear well. I put a saw slot across at the 1/4" mark and balance it gear retracted on angle iron or an architects ruler in the saw slot like a seesaw. Elevons trimmed about 1/8" down at tip.
Darryl
PS send me your e-mail address.
Darryl
PS send me your e-mail address.
11-18-2005, 09:42 AM
#30
My Feedback: (8)
RE: Usher F-106 Roll Out
As mentioned earlier in this post, the engine is too far forward. You want the exhaust nozzle to be no more than 5/8" to 3/4" from the end of the bypass/begining of the pipe opening. You measure from the aft edge of the larger tailcone (where the exhaust come out) not the aft edge of the smaller cone shape of the nozzle. This is the first problem. There may be others, not sure, but that needs to be addressed before going any further.
03-18-2013, 10:17 AM
#31
RE: Usher F-106 Roll Out
OK, been about a decade. Time for the next Usher F-106 post.
The Usher F-106 rises again!
The F-106 is such a neat plane. Look up the word "cool" on wyckopedia and there's a photo of a 106.
I'm attempting to build mine unusually light. This should help given my limited experience with big RC jets.
But building light does offer major advantages to all pilots from beginner to the most experiencedsee next post.
The Usher F-106 rises again!
The F-106 is such a neat plane. Look up the word "cool" on wyckopedia and there's a photo of a 106.
I'm attempting to build mine unusually light. This should help given my limited experience with big RC jets.
But building light does offer major advantages to all pilots from beginner to the most experiencedsee next post.
03-18-2013, 10:30 AM
#33
RE: Usher F-106 Roll Out
Sometimes we forget just how many advantges there are to lighter planes. Important? Only if you think little things like the following matter.
LIGHTER MEANS:
Superior Vertical performance
Higher top end speed
better low speed capabilities
better stall qualities, especially concerning deadly tip stalls
lower, safer landing speeds
better engine out performance which, like the 2 above, can be life or death for your plane
more fuel effeciency and longer flight times
faster climb rate
shorter take off and landing field requirements/better visibilty and control during
LIGHTER MEANS:
Superior Vertical performance
Higher top end speed
better low speed capabilities
better stall qualities, especially concerning deadly tip stalls
lower, safer landing speeds
better engine out performance which, like the 2 above, can be life or death for your plane
more fuel effeciency and longer flight times
faster climb rate
shorter take off and landing field requirements/better visibilty and control during
03-18-2013, 10:59 AM
#34
RE: Usher F-106 Roll Out
Here's the weight comparison to that beautiful CJM Century Jet F-106 you see in the background. My efforts have helped, but I think the Usher F-106 may be inherently light due to its origins in the era of weak, glow-powered ducted fan propulsion systems. Back then I guess jets had to be light or not get off the ground.
Here's the Century and Usher wings, to the same point of completion except the gray primer. The Century Jet F-106 wing weighs 4 pounds, 3 ounces. The Usher is 1/9 scale, not 1/10, so its 12.4% larger linearly, 51 inch span versus 45 3/8.
That gives the Usher a 26% greater wing area, and a 42% greater volume. Theoretically, the Usher should weigh 42 % more if constructed the same way with the same materials. That would be about 6 pounds. However, my understanding is that as a practical matter the increased weight of a scale-up produces an increased weight much less than the volume increase, but much more than the linear increase. So you might expect something like a 24 % weight increase caused by the Usher's 12.4 % increase in span. That would be about 5.2 pounds.
Get This. The Usher wing weighs just under 3 pounds, 3 ounces. More than a pound LESS!
This advantage will be reduced somewhat when the Usher gets primer sprayed on it to be truly comparable. But the difference is breath taking and has profound effects on things like wing loading and (most important) cube wing loading.
Here's the Century and Usher wings, to the same point of completion except the gray primer. The Century Jet F-106 wing weighs 4 pounds, 3 ounces. The Usher is 1/9 scale, not 1/10, so its 12.4% larger linearly, 51 inch span versus 45 3/8.
That gives the Usher a 26% greater wing area, and a 42% greater volume. Theoretically, the Usher should weigh 42 % more if constructed the same way with the same materials. That would be about 6 pounds. However, my understanding is that as a practical matter the increased weight of a scale-up produces an increased weight much less than the volume increase, but much more than the linear increase. So you might expect something like a 24 % weight increase caused by the Usher's 12.4 % increase in span. That would be about 5.2 pounds.
Get This. The Usher wing weighs just under 3 pounds, 3 ounces. More than a pound LESS!
This advantage will be reduced somewhat when the Usher gets primer sprayed on it to be truly comparable. But the difference is breath taking and has profound effects on things like wing loading and (most important) cube wing loading.
03-18-2013, 05:38 PM
#36
My Feedback: (34)
RE: Usher F-106 Roll Out
Just be sure to sand off all the primer you don't need. It won't add that much weight if you only have as little as necessary on there.
The F-106 is an airplane I wish more people modeled. The Usher kit is definitely on my list one of these days.
The F-106 is an airplane I wish more people modeled. The Usher kit is definitely on my list one of these days.
08-01-2014, 02:50 PM
#37
F-106 rc electric
Maidened mine today--and I'm still riding high, 4 hours later. What a plane! What performance!
I finished mine as THE FIRST 106--------CONVAIR'S PROTOTYPE------THE X-PLANE----. So it has Edward's AFB insignia, etc.
Relax scale guys, this is just Fantasy Scale. But there's no fantasy about the way this F-106 flies. I never expected I would have trouble seeing such a large model. This was the scariest thing
about the maiden. When I left it on full throttle for more than, say 4 seconds, I had trouble seeing it----- like those tiny racing planes or something. This happened in vertical as well as horizontal flight.
On the other side of the envelope, the slow speed performance was hard to believe. Stall testing was the best of all. Delta's always do well at this, but this plane takes it to a whole new level. With zero throttle and full up elevator it would only lower its nose slowly, straight ahead and proportionally--nothing abrupt-- and of course no wing dropping. If only all warbirds would have this stall performance there would be a lot more (and a lot older) war birds in the world.
I'll post my lessons learned, necessary mods, CG and settings and build highlights below to help those who build this kit in the future. Oh, what I would have given for some of this information when I built mine!
I finished mine as THE FIRST 106--------CONVAIR'S PROTOTYPE------THE X-PLANE----. So it has Edward's AFB insignia, etc.
Relax scale guys, this is just Fantasy Scale. But there's no fantasy about the way this F-106 flies. I never expected I would have trouble seeing such a large model. This was the scariest thing
On the other side of the envelope, the slow speed performance was hard to believe. Stall testing was the best of all. Delta's always do well at this, but this plane takes it to a whole new level. With zero throttle and full up elevator it would only lower its nose slowly, straight ahead and proportionally--nothing abrupt-- and of course no wing dropping. If only all warbirds would have this stall performance there would be a lot more (and a lot older) war birds in the world.
I'll post my lessons learned, necessary mods, CG and settings and build highlights below to help those who build this kit in the future. Oh, what I would have given for some of this information when I built mine!
Last edited by softshell29; 09-05-2014 at 08:00 PM.
08-01-2014, 03:26 PM
#38
WEIGHT
I achieved my objectives discussed in previous posts above. Appears I have the lightest one ever made--by a lot.
Others reported RTF weights of maybe 25--30 pounds. The manufacturer claimed to have built a stripped down, basic version weighing only 19 pounds DRY, so maybe 21-23 pounds RTF. Mine weighs 12.7 Pounds DRY and 15.72 Pounds with its 3 pounds of batts on board, RTF.
Lighter Flys Better, as demonstrated again today. To get such a dramatic reduction in weight I made maybe 50 -100 changes like lightening holes and lighter hardware. For example, I saved somewhere between 1 and 3 pounds just by using a modern glue to hold the balsa sheeting to the wings, instead of epoxy. Almost nothing is sacred if you're serious about lightening--not even the spars
But the biggest single factor was eliminating the dead weight of the landing gear, gear doors, all plywood and other structure supporting the gear and doors and all wires , servos, air valves and other hardware supporting the gear and doors. To do this for the F-106 and for
other planes I wanted to perform better than normal, I invented and developed over a 2 year period a JATO Launch Dolly . This propels a jet down the runway , faster and faster, until it attains the Speed Of Flight. The JATO Dolly also has big wheels making jets far more practical on the rough, real-world grass runways most modelers have to use. Details below, and on my RCG thread Advanced Dolly Design.
I'm going to build another wing for this , with retracts,(the nose is designed to have them or not), so I can fly without the dolly too. I'm sure it will be easier to operate as a practical matter. But I know it won't have the same vertical, top end, slow speed performance, etc. It can't.
I achieved my objectives discussed in previous posts above. Appears I have the lightest one ever made--by a lot.
Others reported RTF weights of maybe 25--30 pounds. The manufacturer claimed to have built a stripped down, basic version weighing only 19 pounds DRY, so maybe 21-23 pounds RTF. Mine weighs 12.7 Pounds DRY and 15.72 Pounds with its 3 pounds of batts on board, RTF.
Lighter Flys Better, as demonstrated again today. To get such a dramatic reduction in weight I made maybe 50 -100 changes like lightening holes and lighter hardware. For example, I saved somewhere between 1 and 3 pounds just by using a modern glue to hold the balsa sheeting to the wings, instead of epoxy. Almost nothing is sacred if you're serious about lightening--not even the spars
But the biggest single factor was eliminating the dead weight of the landing gear, gear doors, all plywood and other structure supporting the gear and doors and all wires , servos, air valves and other hardware supporting the gear and doors. To do this for the F-106 and for
I'm going to build another wing for this , with retracts,(the nose is designed to have them or not), so I can fly without the dolly too. I'm sure it will be easier to operate as a practical matter. But I know it won't have the same vertical, top end, slow speed performance, etc. It can't.
Last edited by softshell29; 08-02-2014 at 01:31 PM.
08-01-2014, 04:11 PM
#39
POWER
My maiden was delayed from last season partly because I had to remove the Schuebeler HST 94 . It generated only 8 Pounds 11 Ounces of thrust. Not enough. To be fair to Schuebeler( they make great products), this was on only 11S as part of my Lightening Program, and the poor performance was with a relatively new light weight HST 94 version with a lighter motor. I replaced it with a Tamjets Dynamax conversion plus an Air Sally intake ring and got almost exactly 11 pounds on 11S. I knew this would work for such a light model, but it too is at least 1 pound less thrust than I get from my other Tamjets Dynamax.
I think a second reason for the thrust problem is my use of open ducting. This is favored in Germany and supposed to increase static thrust in return for slightly less speed. My tests show it actually reduces static thrust too. For example, my Ziroli size Panther with the same Tamjets Dynamax, but closed (full) ducting, delivers substantially more thrust.
All my thrust tests use real world "fish scale pus roller cart on the ground" apparatus instead of the more sophisticated stuff manufacturers use. My thrust was even worse before I modified the ship to increase intake area in 2 big ways.
My maiden was delayed from last season partly because I had to remove the Schuebeler HST 94 . It generated only 8 Pounds 11 Ounces of thrust. Not enough. To be fair to Schuebeler( they make great products), this was on only 11S as part of my Lightening Program, and the poor performance was with a relatively new light weight HST 94 version with a lighter motor. I replaced it with a Tamjets Dynamax conversion plus an Air Sally intake ring and got almost exactly 11 pounds on 11S. I knew this would work for such a light model, but it too is at least 1 pound less thrust than I get from my other Tamjets Dynamax.
I think a second reason for the thrust problem is my use of open ducting. This is favored in Germany and supposed to increase static thrust in return for slightly less speed. My tests show it actually reduces static thrust too. For example, my Ziroli size Panther with the same Tamjets Dynamax, but closed (full) ducting, delivers substantially more thrust.
All my thrust tests use real world "fish scale pus roller cart on the ground" apparatus instead of the more sophisticated stuff manufacturers use. My thrust was even worse before I modified the ship to increase intake area in 2 big ways.
Last edited by softshell29; 08-01-2014 at 05:54 PM.
08-01-2014, 04:32 PM
#40
F-106 rc electric
INTAKE MODS
I noticed in thrust tests that I got much more with the canopy removed--greater intake area. So I cut away a significant portion of both beautiful intakes and painted them flat black to disguise the alteration. Looking at photos of full scale I was surprised to see some of them with apparently the same scoops. Surprising since turbines need less intake area.
In addition to this, I added Blow-In- Doors on the top of the fuse to allow progressively more air in during peak demand periods like take off. These were actually used on full scale jets other than the 106 from around this era (see video). They are painted gloss black so no one even notices them unless I point them out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DHZ8HrVqrWE
I noticed in thrust tests that I got much more with the canopy removed--greater intake area. So I cut away a significant portion of both beautiful intakes and painted them flat black to disguise the alteration. Looking at photos of full scale I was surprised to see some of them with apparently the same scoops. Surprising since turbines need less intake area.
In addition to this, I added Blow-In- Doors on the top of the fuse to allow progressively more air in during peak demand periods like take off. These were actually used on full scale jets other than the 106 from around this era (see video). They are painted gloss black so no one even notices them unless I point them out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DHZ8HrVqrWE
Last edited by softshell29; 09-05-2014 at 07:59 PM.
08-01-2014, 04:48 PM
#41
C.G.
The instructions have more than 1 CG recommendation, due to updates and other problems. The internet posts add even more. What's a modeler to do for such a life or death factor?
I can't tell you how many hours I spent researching and agonizing over what is the correct CG.
But I can tell you the secret of where it actually is. Verified by actual flight tests only hours ago, and just as applicable if you use landing gear, turbine power or other variations.
I put the CG on the very rearmost portion of the front landing gear spar. See it in this picture.
The instructions have more than 1 CG recommendation, due to updates and other problems. The internet posts add even more. What's a modeler to do for such a life or death factor?
I can't tell you how many hours I spent researching and agonizing over what is the correct CG.
But I can tell you the secret of where it actually is. Verified by actual flight tests only hours ago, and just as applicable if you use landing gear, turbine power or other variations.
I put the CG on the very rearmost portion of the front landing gear spar. See it in this picture.
Last edited by softshell29; 08-01-2014 at 05:41 PM.
08-01-2014, 05:26 PM
#42
SURPRISE ELEVON SETTINGS
I had trouble turning in flight, despite my installing aileron differential as Darryl Usher warned I'd need. So I switched to high rates (maybe 20 % higher than recommended) and Problem Solved.
I also used extra high elevator rates until just after takeoff, since Delta's seem to need more elevator and--maybe more still if launched off a dolly.
But the Big Discovery on throws is that Darryl Usher built a much better model than even he knew. The instructions call for the neutral position of both elevons to be Down. What? Who ever heard of this? Eventually he emailed me an explanation. He was disappointed that his wing mold came out warped so Usher F-106s have built in up elevator, which you must counter by having down elevator neutral.
I just couldn't bring myself to do this, knowing how Deltas have a harder time lifting off and the last thing they need is built - in Down elevator. So I rebelled and left mine at zero incidence--not up or down. I actually practiced feeding large amounts of down trim before the maiden so I would be ready for the likely nose up ballooning due to my decision to keep elevons truly neutral.
Good decision. Flew so well and I never touched the elevator trim throughout the maiden. . It was perfect from the start. Usher's wonderful F-106 doesn't have a warped wing after all
I had trouble turning in flight, despite my installing aileron differential as Darryl Usher warned I'd need. So I switched to high rates (maybe 20 % higher than recommended) and Problem Solved.
I also used extra high elevator rates until just after takeoff, since Delta's seem to need more elevator and--maybe more still if launched off a dolly.
But the Big Discovery on throws is that Darryl Usher built a much better model than even he knew. The instructions call for the neutral position of both elevons to be Down. What? Who ever heard of this? Eventually he emailed me an explanation. He was disappointed that his wing mold came out warped so Usher F-106s have built in up elevator, which you must counter by having down elevator neutral.
I just couldn't bring myself to do this, knowing how Deltas have a harder time lifting off and the last thing they need is built - in Down elevator. So I rebelled and left mine at zero incidence--not up or down. I actually practiced feeding large amounts of down trim before the maiden so I would be ready for the likely nose up ballooning due to my decision to keep elevons truly neutral.
Good decision. Flew so well and I never touched the elevator trim throughout the maiden. . It was perfect from the start. Usher's wonderful F-106 doesn't have a warped wing after all
Last edited by softshell29; 08-01-2014 at 05:45 PM.
08-02-2014, 10:27 AM
#45
Hi Mike, Looks wonderful and brings back many memories flying the REAL THING. The average "Ground Pounder" will never feel the After Burner kick in the ass or that vertical climb to 50,000 feet and flying at Mach 2. I have been modeling since the late 1930s and have never took a break, even when overseas in Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Okinawa, Iceland and many US bases. The F-106 still holds the single engine speed record at Mach 2.8. I would Transport my models strapped on Missile rail in F-102s and F-106s. I would really enjoy having a R/C 'Delta Dart" I did build and
fly a Byron F-86 Ducted Fan model. I'll post a few of my models and the REAL THING. Col. Chuck Winter USAF (Ret.)
fly a Byron F-86 Ducted Fan model. I'll post a few of my models and the REAL THING. Col. Chuck Winter USAF (Ret.)
Last edited by CHARLES WINTER; 08-02-2014 at 10:37 AM.
08-02-2014, 10:33 AM
#46
Hi Mike, Looks wonderful and brings back many memories flying the REAL THING. The average "Ground Pounder" will never feel the After Burner kick in the ass or that vertical climb to 50,000 feet and flying at Mach 2. I have been modeling since the late 1930s and have never took a break, even when overseas in Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Okinawa, Iceland and many US bases. The F-106 still holds the single engine speed record at Mach 2.8. I would Transport my models strapped on Missile rails in F-102s and F-106s. I would really enjoy having a R/C 'Delta Dart" I did build and fly a
Byron F-86 Ducted Fan model. I'll post a few of my models and the REAL THING. Col. Chuck Winter USAF (Ret.)
Byron F-86 Ducted Fan model. I'll post a few of my models and the REAL THING. Col. Chuck Winter USAF (Ret.)
08-02-2014, 01:09 PM
#47
COOLING
Great models Col Winter
To cool the batteries, I opened this Ram Air hole near the nose tip and installed this NACA scoop behind. The only cooling air exit holes are the lightening holes around the exhaust tube and the opening I cut at the base of the fin. Both these were mostly for lightening purposes ( I cut away lots of fiberglass and wood throughout), not so much for cooling, since the fan will pull air from the front holes and exhaust it out the thrust tube.
The ESC is cooled by the jet blast since Tamjets intelligently places ESCs in the fairing behind the fan. The motor pics in Post #39 above also show the alternative, commonlly used in open- ducting installs, mounting the ESC directly in front of the fan to be cooled by the air drawn in.
Great models Col Winter
To cool the batteries, I opened this Ram Air hole near the nose tip and installed this NACA scoop behind. The only cooling air exit holes are the lightening holes around the exhaust tube and the opening I cut at the base of the fin. Both these were mostly for lightening purposes ( I cut away lots of fiberglass and wood throughout), not so much for cooling, since the fan will pull air from the front holes and exhaust it out the thrust tube.
The ESC is cooled by the jet blast since Tamjets intelligently places ESCs in the fairing behind the fan. The motor pics in Post #39 above also show the alternative, commonlly used in open- ducting installs, mounting the ESC directly in front of the fan to be cooled by the air drawn in.
08-02-2014, 01:24 PM
#48
ELEVON AND RUDDER CONSTRUCTION
The kit leaves you on your own here, providing no parts or even plans. Scratch building. I think the instructions say to use solid wood. I did for the rudder but cut parts for built up elevons
These pics tell the story.
The torque rod hardware comes with the kit except for the large driver which extends into the elevon. I had that machined.
The kit leaves you on your own here, providing no parts or even plans. Scratch building. I think the instructions say to use solid wood. I did for the rudder but cut parts for built up elevons
These pics tell the story.
The torque rod hardware comes with the kit except for the large driver which extends into the elevon. I had that machined.
08-03-2014, 09:24 AM
#50
My Feedback: (34)
SURPRISE ELEVON SETTINGS
I had trouble turning in flight, despite my installing aileron differential as Darryl Usher warned I'd need. So I switched to high rates (maybe 20 % higher than recommended) and Problem Solved.
I also used extra high elevator rates until just after takeoff, since Delta's seem to need more elevator and--maybe more still if launched off a dolly.
But the Big Discovery on throws is that Darryl Usher built a much better model than even he knew. The instructions call for the neutral position of both elevons to be Down. What? Who ever heard of this? Eventually he emailed me an explanation. He was disappointed that his wing mold came out warped so Usher F-106s have built in up elevator, which you must counter by having down elevator neutral.
I just couldn't bring myself to do this, knowing how Deltas have a harder time lifting off and the last thing they need is built - in Down elevator. So I rebelled and left mine at zero incidence--not up or down. I actually practiced feeding large amounts of down trim before the maiden so I would be ready for the likely nose up ballooning due to my decision to keep elevons truly neutral.
Good decision. Flew so well and I never touched the elevator trim throughout the maiden. . It was perfect from the start. Usher's wonderful F-106 doesn't have a warped wing after all
I had trouble turning in flight, despite my installing aileron differential as Darryl Usher warned I'd need. So I switched to high rates (maybe 20 % higher than recommended) and Problem Solved.
I also used extra high elevator rates until just after takeoff, since Delta's seem to need more elevator and--maybe more still if launched off a dolly.
But the Big Discovery on throws is that Darryl Usher built a much better model than even he knew. The instructions call for the neutral position of both elevons to be Down. What? Who ever heard of this? Eventually he emailed me an explanation. He was disappointed that his wing mold came out warped so Usher F-106s have built in up elevator, which you must counter by having down elevator neutral.
I just couldn't bring myself to do this, knowing how Deltas have a harder time lifting off and the last thing they need is built - in Down elevator. So I rebelled and left mine at zero incidence--not up or down. I actually practiced feeding large amounts of down trim before the maiden so I would be ready for the likely nose up ballooning due to my decision to keep elevons truly neutral.
Good decision. Flew so well and I never touched the elevator trim throughout the maiden. . It was perfect from the start. Usher's wonderful F-106 doesn't have a warped wing after all
I loved my Delta Dart 106, it is the same size as the CJM but It was a nito ducted fan, I put in a heavy AMT 180 at 17 pounds of thrust and my weight was around 21 pounds. She was a hot jet, I really loved the speed, but it was almost like ridding a bull. I will say mine acted funny in the turns also, but as I moved the CG back more and more ever few flights I got a lot better.
I think what really messes with you is the small wings, they can get real small fast, and As mine was heavy I was always scared to slow her down to much, but Delt 106 was a great flyer, heck I got my Turbine wavor with this jet.
I unfortunly lost her, after takeing the heavy AMT out and put in a EDF system that smoked on my on my take off, I would love to do another, but It needs more wing to help with weight, and if yours really has that much more wing, then I may have to put this on my list.
Great job, by the way.
She started off black, then I realized how hard it was to see. LOL
Also If I was to do another, I would not use my P80 I would get one of these super light 21 pound turbines. Im borowing my boy M90 Merlin with 21 pounds of thrust, its almost a whole pound lighter than my P80 wich helps with CG.