F-8E crusader.
12-26-2016, 09:06 AM
#28
Amazing model Oli!
But to be clear anyone will buy it , can NOT compete in the FAI World F4C Championship.
For the simple reason this person is NOT the original designer builder of the model .
The FAI F4C World Championship is for scrach builders .
Arfs or mass production kits have no chance.
And hopefully F4C will stay this way for long time so true talent will win and not the one who spends more money.
But to be clear anyone will buy it , can NOT compete in the FAI World F4C Championship.
For the simple reason this person is NOT the original designer builder of the model .
The FAI F4C World Championship is for scrach builders .
Arfs or mass production kits have no chance.
And hopefully F4C will stay this way for long time so true talent will win and not the one who spends more money.
12-26-2016, 10:06 PM
#31
Thread Starter
Amazing model Oli!
But to be clear anyone will buy it , can NOT compete in the FAI World F4C Championship.
For the simple reason this person is NOT the original designer builder of the model .
The FAI F4C World Championship is for scrach builders .
Arfs or mass production kits have no chance.
And hopefully F4C will stay this way for long time so true talent will win and not the one who spends more money.
But to be clear anyone will buy it , can NOT compete in the FAI World F4C Championship.
For the simple reason this person is NOT the original designer builder of the model .
The FAI F4C World Championship is for scrach builders .
Arfs or mass production kits have no chance.
And hopefully F4C will stay this way for long time so true talent will win and not the one who spends more money.
So, JWM below 15 kg...
12-30-2016, 10:50 AM
#35
Thread Starter
Thank you all for the kind words.
The team and I really appreciate the fact that people like our work!
We have finished laying down all the rivets. We have a mix of Philips head fasteners, blended flush rivets, non blended flush rivets and reinforced head rivets.
We've got now about 30,000 of them!
We also added all the panels and fairing lips. THey are made of aluminum foils and plates of different thickness.
Here are a few detail pictures.
Happy New Year!
The team and I really appreciate the fact that people like our work!
We have finished laying down all the rivets. We have a mix of Philips head fasteners, blended flush rivets, non blended flush rivets and reinforced head rivets.
We've got now about 30,000 of them!
We also added all the panels and fairing lips. THey are made of aluminum foils and plates of different thickness.
Here are a few detail pictures.
Happy New Year!
12-31-2016, 07:23 AM
#38
Thread Starter
The stabilizers move differentially for roll control.
The outer flaps move differentially as well to act as ailerons.
01-01-2017, 08:32 AM
#43
Thread Starter
Yes, fuselage AOA for tail clearance and also increased drag.
This means a higher N1 on approach, thus shorter spool up time to full thrust in case of G/A !
This means a higher N1 on approach, thus shorter spool up time to full thrust in case of G/A !
01-01-2017, 10:46 AM
#44
Looks absolutely superb, Oli but I can't help thinking a screw jack, similar to those used on electric retracts etc., for the wing incidence actuation would be a better solution than twin servos. Just a thought !
David"
David"
01-02-2017, 06:53 AM
#46
My Feedback: (2)
Below are some recent email comments from a friend who used to fly R/C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Burt,
I think you flew the F-8. The guys always appreciate comments from pilots who flew the full scale.
Sid
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I did fly it. In my opinion, the “Hotel” version I flew in the Dallas reserves was the best. It had the uprated J-57 and was not hobbled by the double leading edge drops and BLC of the “J” model. The “J” model was Vought’s last effort to slow the F-8 approach speed for shipboard ops but the extra weight hampered performance. Tibit— when in Viet Nam we were told if hit over the North and on fire if you could still control the plane don’t necessarily punch out. The engine was 22ft behind the cockpit and if it did explode you had a chance of surviving the explosion then eject. Plus, the fuel tanks were well behind the cockpit although I’ve forgotten how far. However, carrier landings in the F-8 could occasionally provide more excitement than you bargained for. But I never knew anybody who flew it that didn’t like the F-8 and I think it had the best Mig kill rate per engagement of all Navy aircraft.
Happy New Year,
Burt
----------------------------------------
Burt,
Can I quote you with your comments below.
Sid
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sid,
You bet. Use it. Just remembered seeing an F-8 model of this size at an F-8 reunion in Dallas years ago. Don’t remember if it had an engine yet or not but it was absolutely beautiful. It replicated the real F-8 wing which was rather unique and I don’t recall ever hearing of the wing not working as advertised in real life.
The F8-U3 prototype lost out to the F-4 although performance wise it ate the F-4 alive but the Navy went for two engines and two crew and now we’re back to one engine and one pilot. Go figure.
Burt Carlson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Burt,
I think you flew the F-8. The guys always appreciate comments from pilots who flew the full scale.
Sid
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I did fly it. In my opinion, the “Hotel” version I flew in the Dallas reserves was the best. It had the uprated J-57 and was not hobbled by the double leading edge drops and BLC of the “J” model. The “J” model was Vought’s last effort to slow the F-8 approach speed for shipboard ops but the extra weight hampered performance. Tibit— when in Viet Nam we were told if hit over the North and on fire if you could still control the plane don’t necessarily punch out. The engine was 22ft behind the cockpit and if it did explode you had a chance of surviving the explosion then eject. Plus, the fuel tanks were well behind the cockpit although I’ve forgotten how far. However, carrier landings in the F-8 could occasionally provide more excitement than you bargained for. But I never knew anybody who flew it that didn’t like the F-8 and I think it had the best Mig kill rate per engagement of all Navy aircraft.
Happy New Year,
Burt
----------------------------------------
Burt,
Can I quote you with your comments below.
Sid
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sid,
You bet. Use it. Just remembered seeing an F-8 model of this size at an F-8 reunion in Dallas years ago. Don’t remember if it had an engine yet or not but it was absolutely beautiful. It replicated the real F-8 wing which was rather unique and I don’t recall ever hearing of the wing not working as advertised in real life.
The F8-U3 prototype lost out to the F-4 although performance wise it ate the F-4 alive but the Navy went for two engines and two crew and now we’re back to one engine and one pilot. Go figure.
Burt Carlson
Last edited by sidgates; 01-02-2017 at 06:56 AM.
01-02-2017, 10:12 PM
#47
My Feedback: (2)
Burt,
Guys are making guesses about the variable wing incidence. Why and what did it accomplish? You probably have some good input.
Sid
-------------------------------------------------------
Sid,
The basic idea of the variable incidence two position wing was to keep the fuselage somewhat level for better forward visibility and use shorter landing gear. The wing was then raised 7 degrees to create the necessary high angles of attack instead of high fuselage angles for takeoff/landing. To further create high lift at slower speeds the wing was cambered with leading edge droops dropping 25 degrees and inboard flaps dropping 30 degrees. The ailerons also dropped to operate as flaperons. This all happened with one movement of a lever in the cockpit. There were no in-between positions. The wing was either up or down. You slowed to 170 knots to raise the wing. The wing also incorporated ‘cruise droops’ for speeds below 350 knots. I forget how far they came down—maybe 10 degrees? Cruise droops were controlled with a two position throttle grip.
I might also add the F-8 had some real attention getting attributes under high speed, high “G” turning maneuvers if you pushed it too far. It would depart and literally tumble or possibly spin. I did it only once as a nugget and it is a ride you will never forget. You’re wondering if this is it. When you’re out of control let go and check airspeed. If you’re above 170 knots you cannot be in a spin and the aircraft will recover at approx 110 degrees nose down. If you are less than 10,000’ AGL and still out of control eject.
Spin recovery was not taught because recovery was not likely. What you learned under high “G” turning maneuvers was when the nose started to wonder in a buffet situation it’s time to ease off because you are about to go for a ride you will not like.
I flew both the F-4 and F-8 and in my opinion the F-8 was more of a pilot’s airplane.
Burt
Guys are making guesses about the variable wing incidence. Why and what did it accomplish? You probably have some good input.
Sid
-------------------------------------------------------
Sid,
The basic idea of the variable incidence two position wing was to keep the fuselage somewhat level for better forward visibility and use shorter landing gear. The wing was then raised 7 degrees to create the necessary high angles of attack instead of high fuselage angles for takeoff/landing. To further create high lift at slower speeds the wing was cambered with leading edge droops dropping 25 degrees and inboard flaps dropping 30 degrees. The ailerons also dropped to operate as flaperons. This all happened with one movement of a lever in the cockpit. There were no in-between positions. The wing was either up or down. You slowed to 170 knots to raise the wing. The wing also incorporated ‘cruise droops’ for speeds below 350 knots. I forget how far they came down—maybe 10 degrees? Cruise droops were controlled with a two position throttle grip.
I might also add the F-8 had some real attention getting attributes under high speed, high “G” turning maneuvers if you pushed it too far. It would depart and literally tumble or possibly spin. I did it only once as a nugget and it is a ride you will never forget. You’re wondering if this is it. When you’re out of control let go and check airspeed. If you’re above 170 knots you cannot be in a spin and the aircraft will recover at approx 110 degrees nose down. If you are less than 10,000’ AGL and still out of control eject.
Spin recovery was not taught because recovery was not likely. What you learned under high “G” turning maneuvers was when the nose started to wonder in a buffet situation it’s time to ease off because you are about to go for a ride you will not like.
I flew both the F-4 and F-8 and in my opinion the F-8 was more of a pilot’s airplane.
Burt
01-03-2017, 04:40 AM
#49
Sid,
You bet. Use it. Just remembered seeing an F-8 model of this size at an F-8 reunion in Dallas years ago. Don’t remember if it had an engine yet or not but it was absolutely beautiful. It replicated the real F-8 wing which was rather unique and I don’t recall ever hearing of the wing not working as advertised in real life.
Last edited by FalconWings; 01-03-2017 at 04:42 AM.
