Xtreme F-16 1/6.75
09-14-2017, 12:13 AM
#203
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys. Regarding the shortfall in the main/centre fuel tank size, although Carlos at CM jets has done a terrific job increasing capacity and makes really excellent tanks, a friend and I decided to utilise more of the space available over the air intake pipe.
We moulded up a fibreglass tank that fits all of the space and doesn't protrude into the engine bay. Volume of the new tank is 1.8 litres, whereas the original centre tank is 0.8 litres. The only issue is that the two lower lobes hang down either side of the inlet pipe, making it difficult to organise clunk pickups. Of several options available to cope with this, I chose to divide the tank into two with a vertical divider and not have any clunk at all. The tanks so formed, are short but high and with the outlets at the lower rear corners, they would only suck air when nearly empty and on a downline. I have the standard saddle tanks feeding the new dual centre tanks, then forward to the Intairco UAT.
The only drawback so far is that filling nearly all the space over the air inlet makes it difficult to feed all the fuel lines and servo leads forward to the nose section. However, some careful enlarging of the existing bulkhead cutouts has made room. Ground testing shows that this setup seems to feed fuel without problem, but the maiden will be the final proof.
The photos show the wooden plug trial fitted into position.
IanD
We moulded up a fibreglass tank that fits all of the space and doesn't protrude into the engine bay. Volume of the new tank is 1.8 litres, whereas the original centre tank is 0.8 litres. The only issue is that the two lower lobes hang down either side of the inlet pipe, making it difficult to organise clunk pickups. Of several options available to cope with this, I chose to divide the tank into two with a vertical divider and not have any clunk at all. The tanks so formed, are short but high and with the outlets at the lower rear corners, they would only suck air when nearly empty and on a downline. I have the standard saddle tanks feeding the new dual centre tanks, then forward to the Intairco UAT.
The only drawback so far is that filling nearly all the space over the air inlet makes it difficult to feed all the fuel lines and servo leads forward to the nose section. However, some careful enlarging of the existing bulkhead cutouts has made room. Ground testing shows that this setup seems to feed fuel without problem, but the maiden will be the final proof.
The photos show the wooden plug trial fitted into position.
IanD
09-14-2017, 02:09 AM
#204
Good job good idea but not a good design. not to throw rocks but by having bottom pick ups and no clunk system, aerobatic maneuvers are out of the question except for loops. little by little the UAT would be filled with air .even if you put a pick up line on each side the air would be the first to exit the tank as it's the path of least resistance also the tank being so far forward could lead to a very nose heavy airplane on take off and with a flame out things could be ugly. other than that something i agree,needs to be done about increasing the fuel capacity just my two cents. i hope it works out as i have one waiting to be built
09-14-2017, 03:33 AM
#205
Good job good idea but not a good design. not to throw rocks but by having bottom pick ups and no clunk system, aerobatic maneuvers are out of the question except for loops. little by little the UAT would be filled with air .even if you put a pick up line on each side the air would be the first to exit the tank as it's the path of least resistance also the tank being so far forward could lead to a very nose heavy airplane on take off and with a flame out things could be ugly. other than that something i agree,needs to be done about increasing the fuel capacity just my two cents. i hope it works out as i have one waiting to be built
10-30-2017, 09:10 AM
#207
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Romania
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello.
Nothing new here?
How is the G2 version versus the older version.
Is it easier, landing gear is better?
Can anyone tell me what weight is the dry G2 version (without fuel)?
I'm waiting for answers.
Thank you,
Dan.
Nothing new here?
How is the G2 version versus the older version.
Is it easier, landing gear is better?
Can anyone tell me what weight is the dry G2 version (without fuel)?
I'm waiting for answers.
Thank you,
Dan.
02-12-2018, 08:01 AM
#210
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Romania
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi.
I have ordered this F16 these days, probably I will get it in May.
A friend in Germany has already received it and says it has a weight of 9.5 Kg with servo and M 100XBL turbine but without batteries.
It seems a very good weight for this size.
I have ordered this F16 these days, probably I will get it in May.
A friend in Germany has already received it and says it has a weight of 9.5 Kg with servo and M 100XBL turbine but without batteries.
It seems a very good weight for this size.
02-12-2018, 01:11 PM
#211
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dieselman 1220,
My 1:6.75 F-16 project is on hold for the moment. I've been having issues with the pneumatic gear, where I was trying to sequence the main gear locks so they didn't stop the gear from retracting when it all fired together, but that became a plumbing & sequencing nightmare. Flying without some sort of main gear lock wasn't an option for me. The mains will fold under any load, if the pressure gets a bit low or is lost altogether.
My next approach was to try to electrify the whole thing, but the nose door rams are too small and the space is too tight to get even a micro servo or actuator in there! I have fitted Firgelli (now Actuonix) L-16R linear actuators to the mains. The 150mm stroke and 150:1 gearing fits with very few mods. I used a Lado RS666 Short version actuator on the nose gear, but it didn't fit so well. I do have it working, but I'm not happy with the result and wouldn't trust it in the air at this stage.
A good, but expensive alternative would be the fit an Electron nose gear. The small one is probab;y the only one that would fit, but it may be a bit light for the job. Nevertheless, I have found that Electron retracts are beautifully made, reliable and very strong.
Pity really, about the gear. Like all of Anton's designs, it's a very well made aircraft and appears to fly really well.
Back to the Meister Zero for now.
My 1:6.75 F-16 project is on hold for the moment. I've been having issues with the pneumatic gear, where I was trying to sequence the main gear locks so they didn't stop the gear from retracting when it all fired together, but that became a plumbing & sequencing nightmare. Flying without some sort of main gear lock wasn't an option for me. The mains will fold under any load, if the pressure gets a bit low or is lost altogether.
My next approach was to try to electrify the whole thing, but the nose door rams are too small and the space is too tight to get even a micro servo or actuator in there! I have fitted Firgelli (now Actuonix) L-16R linear actuators to the mains. The 150mm stroke and 150:1 gearing fits with very few mods. I used a Lado RS666 Short version actuator on the nose gear, but it didn't fit so well. I do have it working, but I'm not happy with the result and wouldn't trust it in the air at this stage.
A good, but expensive alternative would be the fit an Electron nose gear. The small one is probab;y the only one that would fit, but it may be a bit light for the job. Nevertheless, I have found that Electron retracts are beautifully made, reliable and very strong.
Pity really, about the gear. Like all of Anton's designs, it's a very well made aircraft and appears to fly really well.
Back to the Meister Zero for now.
02-12-2018, 01:31 PM
#212
Hi guys. Regarding the shortfall in the main/centre fuel tank size, although Carlos at CM jets has done a terrific job increasing capacity and makes really excellent tanks, a friend and I decided to utilise more of the space available over the air intake pipe.
We moulded up a fibreglass tank that fits all of the space and doesn't protrude into the engine bay. Volume of the new tank is 1.8 litres, whereas the original centre tank is 0.8 litres. The only issue is that the two lower lobes hang down either side of the inlet pipe, making it difficult to organise clunk pickups. Of several options available to cope with this, I chose to divide the tank into two with a vertical divider and not have any clunk at all. The tanks so formed, are short but high and with the outlets at the lower rear corners, they would only suck air when nearly empty and on a downline. I have the standard saddle tanks feeding the new dual centre tanks, then forward to the Intairco UAT.
The only drawback so far is that filling nearly all the space over the air inlet makes it difficult to feed all the fuel lines and servo leads forward to the nose section. However, some careful enlarging of the existing bulkhead cutouts has made room. Ground testing shows that this setup seems to feed fuel without problem, but the maiden will be the final proof.
The photos show the wooden plug trial fitted into position.
IanD
We moulded up a fibreglass tank that fits all of the space and doesn't protrude into the engine bay. Volume of the new tank is 1.8 litres, whereas the original centre tank is 0.8 litres. The only issue is that the two lower lobes hang down either side of the inlet pipe, making it difficult to organise clunk pickups. Of several options available to cope with this, I chose to divide the tank into two with a vertical divider and not have any clunk at all. The tanks so formed, are short but high and with the outlets at the lower rear corners, they would only suck air when nearly empty and on a downline. I have the standard saddle tanks feeding the new dual centre tanks, then forward to the Intairco UAT.
The only drawback so far is that filling nearly all the space over the air inlet makes it difficult to feed all the fuel lines and servo leads forward to the nose section. However, some careful enlarging of the existing bulkhead cutouts has made room. Ground testing shows that this setup seems to feed fuel without problem, but the maiden will be the final proof.
The photos show the wooden plug trial fitted into position.
IanD
02-12-2018, 01:47 PM
#213
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ravill and good thoughts.
Certainly that is a solution, but I considered the shape of the resultant two tanks ( short-front to rear, but deep-top to bottom) and found that the clunks would have a few problems getting to the extremes of each tank.
However, now that I'm fooling around with the landing gear, I will probably do as you suggest and fit the two clunks. It doesn't change te plumbing very much. The main thing is that I've gained and extra liter of fuel! I also fitted a 350ml internal taxi tank, which I've found will just give a start, hatch on and taxi to the takeoff point. As it's the first tank to drain, there's no weight or balance penalty.
I've just got to be careful of the C of G with the extra fuel in the mains.
I've fitted a JM 200 XBL to it, which is a huge over-kill powerwise, but as the engine is slightly smaller and lighter than the popular Kingtech K-140, I've just dialled back the top end RPM slightly as advised by Gaspar to a saner power level.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Certainly that is a solution, but I considered the shape of the resultant two tanks ( short-front to rear, but deep-top to bottom) and found that the clunks would have a few problems getting to the extremes of each tank.
However, now that I'm fooling around with the landing gear, I will probably do as you suggest and fit the two clunks. It doesn't change te plumbing very much. The main thing is that I've gained and extra liter of fuel! I also fitted a 350ml internal taxi tank, which I've found will just give a start, hatch on and taxi to the takeoff point. As it's the first tank to drain, there's no weight or balance penalty.
I've just got to be careful of the C of G with the extra fuel in the mains.
I've fitted a JM 200 XBL to it, which is a huge over-kill powerwise, but as the engine is slightly smaller and lighter than the popular Kingtech K-140, I've just dialled back the top end RPM slightly as advised by Gaspar to a saner power level.
Thanks for the thoughts.
08-03-2018, 11:51 PM
#216
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Romania
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've installed the third tank directly over the intake duct. To do this you will need to make up a platform, I made mine removable.
It's a pity some type of platform isn't included within the kit to mount the supplied tank, after all its meant to be an ARF.
Another tip is to ensure you also strengthen the bulkhead the main wing tubes slide into as a precautionary measure.
And while you are there, install CF tube (Glued in) into the Aluminum wing tubes for extra security.
I've 11 flights on this F16 now and would have to say its the nicest F16 I've flown. (And thats comparing to the others I've flown in many size and manufacturer types)
It's a pity some type of platform isn't included within the kit to mount the supplied tank, after all its meant to be an ARF.
Another tip is to ensure you also strengthen the bulkhead the main wing tubes slide into as a precautionary measure.
And while you are there, install CF tube (Glued in) into the Aluminum wing tubes for extra security.
I've 11 flights on this F16 now and would have to say its the nicest F16 I've flown. (And thats comparing to the others I've flown in many size and manufacturer types)
Can you send me some pictures of how to strengthen the central wall of the wings?
08-23-2018, 07:24 AM
#218
I am working on one {Gen 2} that I picked up from Warbird 1. The landing gear is installed and operational { painted gear and wheels white first}. For those that had problems with the nose gear, make sure the strut scissor links are pointing back {scale} It can easily get turned before the steering servo is set up, causing bad geometry and the gear will not extend and lock properly. All the Gear seem to work fine after some working in. There are small holes on main gear drag links in which you can put pins with flags in to keep gear locked when not under pressure. I plan on putting in a KT-120G2. I have the standard kevlar fuel Tanks set up which I measured the capacity at 105 ozs. I think it will be fine for a 120. I like the size of this plane not too big, not to small.
Scott
Scott
08-23-2018, 08:40 AM
#219
I am working on one {Gen 2} that I picked up from Warbird 1. The landing gear is installed and operational { painted gear and wheels white first}. For those that had problems with the nose gear, make sure the strut scissor links are pointing back {scale} It can easily get turned before the steering servo is set up, causing bad geometry and the gear will not extend and lock properly. All the Gear seem to work fine after some working in. There are small holes on main gear drag links in which you can put pins with flags in to keep gear locked when not under pressure. I plan on putting in a KT-120G2. I have the standard kevlar fuel Tanks set up which I measured the capacity at 105 ozs. I think it will be fine for a 120. I like the size of this plane not too big, not to small.
Scott
Scott
08-23-2018, 12:33 PM
#220
I would say that I am Two thirds done with the project. Gear and brake components mounted and functioning, fuel system except UAT installed, servos mounted, rudder and stabilator linkages done and cockpit is almost done. Need to run wiring, install receiver and such. Probably won't have it done this season as I need to get the engine. I am on a business trip at this time. When I get back I will post some pictures.
Scott
Scott
08-24-2018, 06:03 AM
#224
The wife was hovering above me last night so I could not elaborate much.
I am leaning towards a cheetah 140 I have. The ideal engine seems to be a k120 the cheetah is only a few grams heavier
slightly shorter in length and a 1/4" larger in diameter. I also have a a Rabbit SP I could use.
From my research the people flying them with 100s do not seem to be disappointed with the performance.
My only concern is fuel consumption. Im thinking a cheetah throttled back would maybe be more fuel efficient than a rabbit getting worked a little harder....
I am leaning towards a cheetah 140 I have. The ideal engine seems to be a k120 the cheetah is only a few grams heavier
slightly shorter in length and a 1/4" larger in diameter. I also have a a Rabbit SP I could use.
From my research the people flying them with 100s do not seem to be disappointed with the performance.
My only concern is fuel consumption. Im thinking a cheetah throttled back would maybe be more fuel efficient than a rabbit getting worked a little harder....
Last edited by Dieselman1220; 08-24-2018 at 06:53 AM.
08-24-2018, 06:06 AM
#225
I would say that I am Two thirds done with the project. Gear and brake components mounted and functioning, fuel system except UAT installed, servos mounted, rudder and stabilator linkages done and cockpit is almost done. Need to run wiring, install receiver and such. Probably won't have it done this season as I need to get the engine. I am on a business trip at this time. When I get back I will post some pictures.
Scott
Scott
How did you set up your rudder linkage? The stock internal set up shown in the manual or external?