mikes68charger

My Feedback: (34)

Ok guys, I dont know what to do.

I have a Byron F16 that I converted to turbine, I used too heavy a carbonfiber mat to strenthing the fuze and made it a little heavy. I fiberglassed the wings and stabs.

Ok, so I have flown this thing with a very heavy AMT 180 turbine at around 22.75 pounds dry. and it takes off ok, and flys ok but lands like crap even with flaps.

I removed the AMT and put in a P80 Jet cat more power 21 pounds of thrust vs 18 and made the jet lighter, to 21 pounds, landings were better but still most coused me gref.

This is the wing information.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 5"]Span: 34 in. Area: 412 sq. in. Style: . Pieces: LE: W. TE: F. Manuf: Byron [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 5"]RC: 19.5 in. TC: 5.5 in. Taper: 14.25 in. RT: 1.1875 in. TT: 0.5625 in.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I was going to turn this F16 into a F16Xl for more wing area, I got the designs for the new wings off a magazen from Ivan from 20 years ago, but no one will cut the wing cors as it take 3 cores for each wing.

So I thought about just increassing the span 4inches per side and maybe decressing the taper a little at the tips to pick up some sqin to light the wing loading, but I dont really know how much to shoot for, I dont want the wing to look like crap, just a little bigger than stock.

but the question is how much bigger would it need to be to make a diffrance?

I do have 4 other jets so its not lack of exsperace, but I just cant get this F16 to land with out damage.

What would you guys do, I hate to give up on such a great jet.

Thanks

Mike

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

You could try increasing the wing span and tip chord and reducing the leading edge sweep. The problem is that you are stuck with the wing saddle and horizontal area of the empennage. But if you want to give it a try with some surgery required, flyingfoam .com can cut the wing for you. Dan.

sensei

So you are talking about a current wing loading of around 117 ozs. and a cubed loading of around 69, wow that is high, my hat is off to you on your piloting skills during landing.

Bob

mikes68charger

My Feedback: (34)

I wasnt sure if the 412 sqin was per wing or total.

mikes68charger

My Feedback: (34)

I wasnt sure if the 412 sqin was per wing or total.

ahicks

My Feedback: (2)

Hi Mike,

Thinking out loud about your 412 sq. in. per wing vs. total question? If your wing halves were arranged one right side up, the other upside down, to form a rectangle of sorts, that might let you ball park your total wing area pretty easily?

Been a long time since I've seen one of these, but that 34" wing span spec. sounds like a pretty small plane. I remember them as being much bigger. Could be I'm just not around many jets to have good perspective too. -Al

mikes68charger

My Feedback: (34)

The total wing span is 47in wide. 74in long

sensei

Are you saying that your total wing area is 2 x 412 for a total of 824 sq in of wing area and around a 56 oz. wing loading with a cubed loading of around 25? Are you adding the area of fuselage between the wings as well? If not then you need too as part of your calculation of total wing area.

Bob

BMatthews

On regular models the wing area is given by the total span times the average wing chord. And as mentioned it includes the part through the fuselage.

But on jets like the F16, F18 and F15 the side strakes and center body form such a large area that some allowance has to be included which makes the wing area calculation more difficult.

One thing for sure is that it makes the effective supporting area larger than it appears. And making new wings with minimally larger outer panels that still look like the originals is likely not going to do a whole lot. At most you'd likely be adding no more than 10% to the effective wing area. And that means a reduction in wing loading of only around 10% and an equivalent reduction in the landing speed.

If you're keen on making up new outer panels I'd suggest including mixing to allow the ailerons to deploy with the flaps as well as including leading edge slats to greatly increase the amount of wing camber. I think this would be your ace in the hole instead of some minimal amount of wing area gain. But it'll add to the total weight all over again. So it's hard to say if the gains would counter the losses.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I would mock up a much larger wing from lumber, set it under the fuselage, then look at it from all angles to decide how well I liked it.
Isn't it better to have a model that lands nice....than one than looks absolutely scale....?
Save the original wing for when those "Scale Only For Me" types come over to drink all your beer.

moparbob498

Lmao.....now that was a good one.

Lnewqban

Could you explain how the plane "lands like crap even with flaps"?

Is the CG located as aft as possible?

I concur with BMatthews' post above.

allanflowers

How about a thicker section? It would require some cleverness at the saddle area but combined with a little extra area?

BMatthews

Uh, guys, necropost resurrection....

allanflowers

Uh, BM, funny how an old post can come back to life, if there happens to be interest in it......

mikes68charger

My Feedback: (34)

LOl, I started t his post, I can say wing loading dose make a huge difference in the fun of the model.

I got rid of this F16 and got a 1/7 F16, defiantly bigger, and more wing area, its a blast to fly but still some more work on landing, My boy got the 1/6 F16 (BVM) and I fly his also, its like a trainer jet, very easy to land, the bigger wing area, with only a few more pounds in total area make a big difference, but then you have go add more power to have the same flying exasperance.

So at the end of the day, light is key unless you got a nice concrete type runway.