Usher F-106 Roll Out
08-04-2014, 04:37 PM
#52
MARTY: Thanks, Time for you to implement your plan to resume production of this fine plane. With what my flight test results document, you should find it quite marketable.
MIKE68: Sorry you lost that beautiful ship. You're right, weight is the enemy of model longevity. The other benefits of building light are listed in post # 33 above. They are major. But no one needs to make an Usher F-106 as light as I did to get great results. I wanted to set the record and push the envelope to see just how far you could go with something like this. A more conventional build like my F-106 #2 with retracts can still be exceptionally light, since the fuse is made of wonderfully light fiberglass--instead of the cheaper way--since back in this kit's day the glow powered ducted fans were so weak.
.
You mentioned wing area. Good, that demonstrates how light mine is and yours can be. I calculated 1,199 Square Inches. Thats using the simple triangle method which includes the fuse cross-section. I think its valid to include the wing part of the fuse since the fuse bottom is scale flat and thus its a lifting body . NASA later made entire planes with nothing but this--no separate wings. One could increase the wing area by counting tshe rest of the lifting body fuse, but I only used the conservative wing part.
I'll run the numbers to see just how light this really is.
MIKE68: Sorry you lost that beautiful ship. You're right, weight is the enemy of model longevity. The other benefits of building light are listed in post # 33 above. They are major. But no one needs to make an Usher F-106 as light as I did to get great results. I wanted to set the record and push the envelope to see just how far you could go with something like this. A more conventional build like my F-106 #2 with retracts can still be exceptionally light, since the fuse is made of wonderfully light fiberglass--instead of the cheaper way--since back in this kit's day the glow powered ducted fans were so weak.
.
You mentioned wing area. Good, that demonstrates how light mine is and yours can be. I calculated 1,199 Square Inches. Thats using the simple triangle method which includes the fuse cross-section. I think its valid to include the wing part of the fuse since the fuse bottom is scale flat and thus its a lifting body . NASA later made entire planes with nothing but this--no separate wings. One could increase the wing area by counting tshe rest of the lifting body fuse, but I only used the conservative wing part.
I'll run the numbers to see just how light this really is.
08-04-2014, 05:05 PM
#53
WING LOADING
My XF-106 wing loading is 30.27 ounces per SQ FT. More important, its Cube Wing Loading is only 10.49. As you know Cube Loading is much more informative than simple wing loading since it takes account of things like scale factor, reynolds number effect etc. This enables you to compare one plane to others of different sizes.
How good is a Cube Loading of 10.49? The Cube Loading chart says warbirds and advanced sport planes will have Cube Wing Loadings far in excess of this. In fact, it says park flyers should have a Cube Loading between 7 and 9.99.
So this bird has a wing loading just half a point above park flyer.
My XF-106 wing loading is 30.27 ounces per SQ FT. More important, its Cube Wing Loading is only 10.49. As you know Cube Loading is much more informative than simple wing loading since it takes account of things like scale factor, reynolds number effect etc. This enables you to compare one plane to others of different sizes.
How good is a Cube Loading of 10.49? The Cube Loading chart says warbirds and advanced sport planes will have Cube Wing Loadings far in excess of this. In fact, it says park flyers should have a Cube Loading between 7 and 9.99.
So this bird has a wing loading just half a point above park flyer.
08-17-2017, 03:43 PM
#62
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Olean , NY
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-11-2020, 03:31 PM
#64
XF-106 Update
Last year I upgraded to 12 s Power from 11s, and added retracts---instead of the previous JATO Dolly to get the ship airborne. This increased the "wet" AUW --- including all batteries--- from 15.72 pounds to 17.6 pounds.
The Dolly enabled superior performance, was a technical success....but a practical failure. Way too hard to transport and operate the giant jet- propelled gyro- stabilized launching system. Retracts are so much easier and more practical.
Even with this additional weight its still the lightest Usher F-106 ever. This video shows how its light enough to get off a draggy grass field in only half the runway.....and to do this Dead Stick Pass .
I screwed up the landing coming down in The Rough---the part of our runway which must always be avoided. But watch how the large tire, trailing link gear handles the punishment. No damage at all.
.
The Dolly enabled superior performance, was a technical success....but a practical failure. Way too hard to transport and operate the giant jet- propelled gyro- stabilized launching system. Retracts are so much easier and more practical.
Even with this additional weight its still the lightest Usher F-106 ever. This video shows how its light enough to get off a draggy grass field in only half the runway.....and to do this Dead Stick Pass .
I screwed up the landing coming down in The Rough---the part of our runway which must always be avoided. But watch how the large tire, trailing link gear handles the punishment. No damage at all.
.
Last edited by softshell29; 10-11-2020 at 03:38 PM.
