RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko !  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Seaplanes >> RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko !
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 6/29/2004 3:21:53 PM   
marwen1



Posts: 772
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: WINNIPEGMB, CANADA
Status: offline 		Hey Villy:

Which of the two is larger?
the F-102 or the F -106

(in reply to Villy)
       Post #: 51

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 6/29/2004 5:14:14 PM   
Villy


 

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/11/2004
From: Beaumont, AB, CANADA
Status: offline 		Seems like a toss up.....

I wonder how well those mighty mouse missiles on the -102 worked,..... I would suspect that you would want to get right up the bad guy's tail pipe!!


F-102 (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f102.htm)

SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 38 ft. 1 in.
Length: 68 ft. 4 in. (including boom)
Height: 21 ft. 2 in.
Weight: 31,559 lbs. max.
Armament: 24 unguided 2.75 inch rockets and six guided missiles
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J57 of 16,000 lbs. thrust with afterburner
Cost: $1,184,000
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 810 mph.
Cruising speed: 600 mph.
Range: 1,000 miles
Service Ceiling: 55,000 ft.

F-106 (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30.htm)

SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 38 ft. 4 in.
Length: 70 ft. 9 in.
Height: 20 ft. 4 in.
Armament: One AIR-2A Genie air-to-air nuclear missile and four AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missiles.
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J75-P-17 of 24,500 lbs. thrust with afterburner
Crew: One
Cost: $3,305,435
Serial Number: 58-787
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 1,525 mph
Cruising speed: 650 mph.
Range: 1,500 miles
Service Ceiling: 53,000 ft.

(in reply to marwen1)
       Post #: 52

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 6/29/2004 8:08:52 PM   
Villy


 

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/11/2004
From: Beaumont, AB, CANADA
Status: offline 		And for comparison the late CF-105 (http://www.vectorsite.net/avarrow.html)

AVRO CANADA CF-105 ARROW MARK 2 (ESTIMATES):
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 15.24 meters 50 feet
wing area 113.80 sq_meters 1,225 sq_feet
length 25.3 meters 83 feet
height 6.25 meters 20 feet 6 inches

empty weight 22,250 kilograms 49,000 pounds
max loaded weight 31,100 kilograms 68,600 pounds

maximum speed 3,200 KPH 2,000 MPH / 1,740 KT
service ceiling 18,300 meters 60,000 feet
operational radius 480 kilometers 775 MI / 675 NMI (note radius not range)
_____________________ _________________ _______________________
and the Iroquois engine (of which there were 2)

dry thrust of 82.4 kN (8,400 kgp / 18,500 lbf) and an afterburning thrust of 115.8 kN (11,800 kgp / 26,000 lbf). (this number would seem to be based upon numbers from the early tests - expectations were that the production versions would hit at least 30,000 wet).

The Arrows were only ever flown with the J75 engine (same as the F-106). I do remember reading somewhere that the J75 was too long for the CF-105, so they left the
afterburned section off. This could be fairy tail, considering that the arrow did manage M1.5 during tests - would two J75s dry push a 55,000 lb aircraft to M1.5 ??

In any case, the J75 was also heavier than the Iroquois which made significant use of titanium....
So Iroquois engines would have provide 52K to 60K lbs of thrust to an aircraft with a maximum loaded weight of 69000lbs. I would expect that it should have been able to do the Concorde thing - reheat to get past the sonic barrier, and back to dry for "super cruise"..

Oh well......

Villy

(in reply to Villy)
       Post #: 53

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/3/2004 7:11:54 PM   
rcairplanenut



Posts: 331
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Aurora, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Update

Covering is done,

Working on float testing

SGG

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize

(in reply to Strykaas)
       Post #: 54

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/4/2004 12:31:02 AM   
Villy


 

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/11/2004
From: Beaumont, AB, CANADA
Status: offline 		Very nice buttttttt

Your water is so clean I can't tell where the water line IS!!!!!!

Villy

(in reply to rcairplanenut)
       Post #: 55

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/4/2004 8:31:31 PM   
rcairplanenut



Posts: 331
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Aurora, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Some water line pictures

SG

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize

(in reply to Strykaas)
       Post #: 56

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/5/2004 12:57:46 AM   
Villy


 

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/11/2004
From: Beaumont, AB, CANADA
Status: offline 		The cleat on the bow is a nice touch..

what does one have to do to raise the sails ??

Villy

(Very Nice!!) (the pool etc too!)

(in reply to rcairplanenut)
       Post #: 57

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/6/2004 10:29:24 PM   
rcairplanenut



Posts: 331
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Aurora, CO, USA
Status: offline 		2 days progress

Engine run, amphibious launch, water taxi, high speed take off run, ground (water) effect flight.
Had to deal with a couple bumps along the way but every thing else turned out good.
The plane gets on step very easily, I installed 2 small balsa wedges to keep the tips from going under, the lack of tip floats on this plane is not and issue.

To get into the water easy, place the plane on the grassy shore, and taxi in, wading into a swamp is not a good thing.

I have only done short hops into the air so far with it, trying to find a better pond.

SGG

PS Any one else building Arrows right now?

(in reply to Villy)
       Post #: 58

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/7/2004 12:53:30 AM   
Ross Kean



Posts: 686
Joined: 6/4/2002
From: Fredericton, NB, CANADA
Status: offline 		I plan to build the arrow as well but will probably end out as a winter project. Plans were ordered about three weeks ago but haven't arrived yet.


In relation to an earlier post on the Avro Arrow... There is a serious error on the website in the conversion of 480 km to miles. They multiplied by 1.6 instead of dividing by 1.6!!! I have no idea which number is correct but probably miles since Canada was not metric at that time.

Ross

quote:

ORIGINAL: Villy

And for comparison the late CF-105 (http://www.vectorsite.net/avarrow.html)

AVRO CANADA CF-105 ARROW MARK 2 (ESTIMATES):
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 15.24 meters 50 feet
wing area 113.80 sq_meters 1,225 sq_feet
length 25.3 meters 83 feet
height 6.25 meters 20 feet 6 inches

empty weight 22,250 kilograms 49,000 pounds
max loaded weight 31,100 kilograms 68,600 pounds

maximum speed 3,200 KPH 2,000 MPH / 1,740 KT
service ceiling 18,300 meters 60,000 feet
operational radius 480 kilometers 775 MI / 675 NMI (note radius not range)

(in reply to Villy)
       Post #: 59

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/7/2004 3:42:50 PM   
Villy


 

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/11/2004
From: Beaumont, AB, CANADA
Status: offline 		Ross

I found another site that quoted a range of 800 some odd miles. I would guess that the operational radius of 480 MILES is probably correct. Now whether that's Statute or Nautical is another issue!!

Also remember, that was with Internal Fuel only.

Villy

(in reply to Ross Kean)
       Post #: 60

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/10/2004 3:07:04 AM   
rcairplanenut



Posts: 331
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Aurora, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Maiden flight 2day,

Went well, 1/4” up trim required for full power level flight. When power is reduced on the arrow the nose pitches up. It is easy to take off and land. I captured some pictures of the video of the flight.
I would recommend this plane to anyone thinking about getting into seaplanes. It took 2 to 3 weeks of work to build and its easy to fly. Laddie has a winner with this plane.

SGG

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


< Message edited by rcairplanenut -- 8/18/2004 6:54:28 PM >

(in reply to MinnFlyer)
       Post #: 61

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/11/2004 9:06:19 PM   
RCinsane


 

Posts: 4
Joined: 7/11/2004
From: Joliet, IL, USA
Status: offline 		I love how that Arrow looks. I just went back and looked at all your pics and they are great. I have a Northstar and your right about the weight in the nose. I'm making upgrades right now due to a crash yesturday,lost my prop just after takeoff . Are the plans you get from RCM full size? or did you blow them up larger? Are you intrested in selling that beauty? I don't need a motor or radio just the plane. Also, have you tried just taking off in the wet grass in the morning or after a rain? I like to fly mine in the winter off the snow. Keep up the great pics.

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize

(in reply to rcairplanenut)
       Post #: 62

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/11/2004 11:44:34 PM   
rcairplanenut



Posts: 331
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Aurora, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Hi there,

I sent the nose gear though the bottom of my North Star several times as well. Planes like the Arrow I usually hold on to for years. I built the plane off of the plans that RCM gave me. The only outside mod I did was changing the nose around, different access hatch to the radio gear, curved wing tips and a curved “shark” fin on top of the engine pod. These changes gave the plane a lot more of a refined look then the RCM prototype. They are also easy changes to make. Hopefully people like you seeing these small changes will win over some of the devout North Star fans that “originally” didn’t like the looks of the Arrow.

I would say that the assembly time of the Arrow is one half that of the North Star. I was able to construct and fly mine while the July issue of RCM was still on the shelves at stores. I would highly recommend building this plane.

For the equipment lay out the throttle servo is in the back of the engine pod, the rudder and elevon servos are in the 3rd bay back from the nose block, the RX is in the 2nd and the battery is in the 1st bay. With the fuel tank empty the plane balances on the rear CG with no lead, I personally wanted it to balance on the forward CG mark and it only took 3oz of lead shot to achieve that.

The Arrow fly’s similar to the North Star, with the same pitch trim considerations. I launch the Arrow into the water from a grassy shore I also bring the plane back on to the grass when it comes back. This is a lot easier then wading into a swamp filled with alligators. I also have a retrieval pole with a noose that snares the cleat on the nose; standard with all the seaplanes I build. I also have a RC boat with bubble rap taped to the nose to get the plane back if its in the middle of the pond. The Arrow I built doesn’t even have the hard points for landing gear, I wanted to have a pure Sea Plane with this bird.

If you can build a North Star you can easily build an Arrow.

SGG

PS I wonder if Laddie M or RCM have seen this thread???

(in reply to RCinsane)
       Post #: 63

RE: Northstar follow up : ARROW by Laddie Mikulasko ! - 7/12/2004 12:18:45 AM   
RCinsane


 

Posts: 4
Joined: 7/11/2004
From: Joliet, IL, USA
Status: offline 		I was once one of those people that did'nt like the look of the arrow, but the changes you made to make the nose longer, higher and wider along with the shark like fin really makes a difference. Not to mention the great color scheme. I have noticed that