LOL! [8D]


David Hudson

and this

I have a good idea that he can build from scratch, I think the point was the rail looks way to long, the A-7 looks great and I so glad they came out with something different,,,,,,,,,,, now get the F-106 done

I did a small JHI one in this scheme. Tailormade does a very comprehensive decal set for it. Would love to build one bigger!

That looks awesome! Good Job. Being an ex- aircraft weapons system instructor, I love to see the all the ordanance and the newer style, cranked arrow style Sidewinders.
Very nice.

Looks very nice Sean....nice plane indeed!

Reuben

I just noticed that my "STINGER" had an S missing. Must have fell on the way ...heheheh...will fix it

Thanks guys.

BOOO....HISSSS!!! This is the "new" PC let's-not-offend VA-37 Bulls logo...it has no balls...how appropriate though, I must admit.

The original VA-37 had an impressive pair hangin' down there!

No complaint about "ARF maker" FEJ's quality.............simply that it would take no extra time or design skill by FEJto make the A-7D ARF correct in obvious (glaring)scale details.

My JHI A-7D done after one I flew at Myrtle Beach AFB in 1978, did not have the missle rails or wheelhub detailson yet when I took these pictures:

The Bull was taken from the Squadron Signal book as shown here. Seems that the balls fell from favour even on the real plane as well!

The squadron’s initial insignia was approved by CNO on 26 March 1968. The design centered on a bull was selected to symbolize the spirit, pride and mission of the unit. The Bulls current insignia was based on the Schlitz Malt Liquor logo. Over the years, the size of the testicles has been changed several times. After the Tailhook scandal, the testicles were removed completely from the logo for a time. Nickname: Bulls, 1968–present. This from Wikipedia.

So, yes, the nads have come and gone, resized, etc. It is totally fitting that following Tailhook '91 the Bull was castrated, seeing as how the Navy gelded itself for Patsy Schroeder.

All I know is back in the early 80's he was sporting an impressive pair. I'm a Tomcat guy and had to tip my hat at this logo, even if it was on a "flying shoe-box"

Cool to see the old A-7 painted up in VFA-113 colors. All I ever got to see when I was with VFA-113 is the Hornet. There were a couple of the more seasoned pilots that used to talk about the A-7.

VFA-113 powerplants 95-97

Hi All:

they are many good color schemes for A7. We also can do custom paint job for customers if offer color and decals detail to us.

Thanks
James

James, go ahead and post my scheme. It's different enough!
Thanks
Lowell

At Kentucky Jets this year, I had the opportunity to examine the new Fly Eagle Jets A-7 Corsair. This plane was manufactured using their new honeycomb method. After examining the plane, I do have some strong concerns about the model’s structure and the landing gear.

Coincidentally, I recently had another opportunity to examine the FEJ A-7 and I took a few photos. My poor opinion of the plane hasn’t changed, and the following posts provide an explanation as to why.

Regards,

Jim

This is a photo of the left main landing gear. It’s basically a three-strut design with an outboard block/axle for mounting the wheel. During landing, Strut 1 is compressed to absorb the landing loads. Strut 2 is actually in tension preventing the block from rotating CCW (as seen in this view). Strut 3 is largely cosmetic (like the drag link on the nose gear of an F-18) but it will get loaded in compression if struts 1 & 2 move rearwards due to rolling resistance, braking, or other landing loads.

All vertical loads during landing are taken up by Strut 1. You have to look at the load path (as they say, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link). The ground pushes up on the wheel, which transfers the load to the axle/block, which transfers the load to Strut 1. However, Strut 1 is only attached to the block by a ~3mm (.118”) diameter pin (with an E-chip on each side). This will place quite a lot of stress on the pin and on the holes for the pin in the block. Additionally, if one of the E-clips falls off (like that has never happened), the pin can slide out of the block/strut and the landing gear will collapse. It would be far better to use a larger bolt (and lock nut) than this type of pin.

Regards,

Jim

This photo shows the retract mechanism frame bolted to a honeycomb former in the fuselage using ~3mm cap screws retained on the back side of the honeycomb core former by washers/nuts. Here’s the problem…. A honeycomb core is not very strong (it doesn’t have to be strong since it’s only a core; it’s job is to keep the spacing between the two skins just like the foam in foam-core wings). If you put a bolt through it and tighten it down, it will locally collapse the core. The retract frame is positioned on the front side of the former which results in shear loads being transferred to the former. As such, you have to tighten the bolts (or hysol the frame to the former) to prevent the frame from moving). The normal solution for this problem is to change the mount so that the former is not loaded in shear or by installing inserts in the former to better distribute the shear loads. This wasn’t done and thus it would be expected that the former will be damaged and/or the landing gear will come loose.

The photo also shows how top of Strut 1 is slotted onto a rotating axle to retract the gear. A ~3mm bolt is used to attach the strut to the axle. Once again, all vertical landing loads are transmitted through this bolt. Additionally, although Strut 3 allows the gear to be pushed rearwards, the retract unit is locked in the fully down position. Any rearwards movement (over-travel) of the struts will place high stresses on this bolt and the retract mechanism and can result in wear and binding.

The photo also shows the tubes (which receive the rear wing spars) attached to the front side of the former. The tubes are attached to the former with a couple of layers of carbon fiber. Unfortunately once again, the load path is compromised because there is very little contact area between the tube and the former. Typically, the tube would be embedded in the former and there would be a layer of CF on each side of the former to reinforce the joint. FEJ is relying on the small honeycomb doublers installed in the wing root to transfer flight loads to the fuselage skin and then to the former.

Regards,

Jim

When a plane is flying and pulling G’s, the nose and tail are being pushed down by gravity but the center of the plane is being held up by the lift of the wings. As a result, the belly skin in the mid-fuselage area is loaded in compression and can buckle. This is a particular issue for planes with fuselage mounted main landing gear (eg F-15, F-16, F-18, and Gripen) since the belly skin has cutouts for the wheel wells. To ensure that the skin doesn’t buckle, structural longerons are added to support the skin. Indeed, as seen in the first photo, FEJ installed a ~3/4” wide honeycomb strip on the belly centerline between the wheel wells. However, they then cut away most of the strip near the front to install door cylinders and notched the strip at its midpoint (though nothing is attached at this point). This has seriously compromised the structure.

The notch in the belly longeron seems to line up with the middle former seen in the second photo. However, the former doesn’t extend deep enough to reach the longeron. Perhaps the former was reduced sometime during development. Regardless, the notch in the longeron remains though it serves no purpose yet it compromises the strength of structure.

Regards,

Jim

The first photo shows the inner door cylinders could have been installed vertically on a sub-former located forward of the door cutout or installed at an angle on the mid-former (similar to the outboard doors). This photo also shows the poor quality joints between the turbine mounting rails and the three supporting formers. These joints should be reinforced with wood blocks to transfer the load between the rails and the former skins.

The second photo is of the inside skin of the left side of the fuselage around the forward edge of the left main landing gear door. Notice how the coloring of the inner skin is inconsistent and milky white in some areas. You also see inconsistent coloring of the inner skin in the first photo. This indicates a lack of consistency in applying the adhesive holding the inner skin to the core. In some areas, particularly around the gear cutouts which appear to have been saw-cut, you can see that the inner skin may have delaminated from the core.

Regards,

Jim

The first photo shows model’s the fuselage side-mounted missile rail. A former A-7 driver noted earlier on this thread that the rail was no where near in the scale location. He is indeed correct as the next two photos of the full-sized A-7 show the correct position and shape of the rail. While this is an aesthetic item only (at least on the model), during development it would have been easy to mold the rail correctly. Having something so simple yet so wrong does not inspire confidence in FEJ’s ability to deal with a more difficult issue.

There are a variety of other issues that I noted during my examinations of the plane. However to sum it all up, I think that the use of honeycomb core technology is an interesting innovation but it needs to be applied correctly and with appropriate design and quality control. There appears to be significant issues with the model's structure which could lead to catastrophic failure. The landing gear still leaves much to be desired in terms of design, strength and reliability. The paint looked great but overall I have to give it a thumbs down.

Regards,

Jim

Well...from an engineering standpoint, I'd say there seems to be little to none in the current A-7 that Jim examined. Now if it is just a static display then I'd say oh well...but if this is/was supposed to be an example of FEJ's latest improvements...HFSMC.

Jim, great examination. Very thorough, concise, pinpointing of weaknesses, design flaws and general poor quality.

It's no wonder they made you chief technical inspector at the WJM...you really know what you are looking for/at.

Beave

Hi Jim.
Do you have the possibility to look at this plane again?
I would like to know how and what they made the main spar of. I have very strong doubts about that point at the moment.

Rcjet63

Thanks for your words. 

Well something that cannot be denied is that it is quite courageous from FEJ to take this route. This will certainly set a new standards for the future in terms of structural weight .
But first the airworthiness of this design has to be proven.