Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

FB 1/7th F15 scale build

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

FB 1/7th F15 scale build

Old 02-01-2016, 02:50 PM
  #301  
gunradd
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,426
Received 50 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Well got my new pilots from warbirdpilots.com and they look great but are to big. They are the correct scale and cockpit is not scale. So mods are will begin soon on shrinking the pilots.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG0980.jpg
Views:	1087
Size:	1.03 MB
ID:	2144759  
Old 02-01-2016, 05:07 PM
  #302  
skunkwurk
My Feedback: (18)
 
skunkwurk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 646
Received 49 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by P51Joe
A great builder friend of mine took the front tank and took 5" out of the middle and then put a divider from front to back and made two tanks out of one. Each engine will have two tanks to run off of. The front holds about 45 oz each and will drain first and then to the main tanks (saddle tanks). This will keep the fuel that is left close to the CG on the landing. I will have about 1.25 gal for each engine that will give me a good 6 mins. of flight with plenty of go around fuel for a landing.
Thanks, Joe.

I've been wondering what to do, I'm leaning on the side of going with three tanks and 2 UATs. Plumbing both UATs to the one center tank. Is there a reason not to do this? It seems it would be the best option as either motor would be able to use that center tank as a supply. I was thinking of adding two high-flow clunks to the main tank.

Also, in the case of a flame out, I would not have 1/2 my fuel supply stranded.

LMK.

sc
Old 02-02-2016, 05:12 AM
  #303  
gunradd
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,426
Received 50 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by skunkwurk
Thanks, Joe.

I've been wondering what to do, I'm leaning on the side of going with three tanks and 2 UATs. Plumbing both UATs to the one center tank. Is there a reason not to do this? It seems it would be the best option as either motor would be able to use that center tank as a supply. I was thinking of adding two high-flow clunks to the main tank.

Also, in the case of a flame out, I would not have 1/2 my fuel supply stranded.

LMK.

sc
Hello SC
I would not do it this way with a twin. It defeats the whole purpose in having a twin for redundancy. You need to separate independent fuel systems IMO.

Also the center forward tank is way to big stock and shifts the CG so far forward. Joe plumbed his so he burns off the forward tank first so his CG will not change much the remainder of the flight since the saddles are close to the CG. DO NOT use that forward tank. I cut mine in half and its working great this way. My other friend with one Mike is using a jettech fuel cell in the front.

For a twin on this plane I would use 2 smaller tanks in the front or do as joe did and have the tank cut in half reduced and then slit whats left for separate sides. Also no need for high flow unless you are going single. Only reason I did high flow is because I will be dropping a K300 in when its ready also was having high PW issues that have since been resolved.
Old 02-02-2016, 06:11 AM
  #304  
Flyin-in-Bama
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Gunradd,

Inlets turned out nice. did you make them movable? or fixed in that position?


Doug
Old 02-02-2016, 06:34 AM
  #305  
gunradd
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,426
Received 50 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Flyin-in-Bama
Gunradd,

Inlets turned out nice. did you make them movable? or fixed in that position?


Doug
Hello Doug Thanks.
They move. I have them mixed to the gear switch for now. They are full down with gear down and full up with gear up. I also have a mix so I can move them manually also with a switch. It really adds to the look of an F15.
Old 02-02-2016, 06:49 AM
  #306  
ww2birds
My Feedback: (14)
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,368
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gunradd
Well got my new pilots from warbirdpilots.com and they look great but are to big. They are the correct scale and cockpit is not scale. So mods are will begin soon on shrinking the pilots.
I got my pilots from Tailored Pilots in the UK. I also had to make mods to the cockpits, partly by removing the top of the seat surface and sitting the pilots rear-ends right on the cockpit floor. I also had to mod the pilots .. I removed the legs, stuffed the flight suit legs with cotton batting, and trimmed the bottom of the torso a bit .. they were sitting too high even with the seat top removed. I think they look reasonable now looking from outside. Looking inside, they are still sitting too far forward so the hands are not where they really should be on the throttle quadrants. I let that go for now...

Of course with the pilots it really looks quite a bit cooler :-)

Dave
Old 02-02-2016, 07:06 AM
  #307  
gunradd
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,426
Received 50 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Dave my poor guy is in pieces lol. Servo installed to make the head move. Still need to figure out how I'm going to make arms move if I even go that far.


Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG0996.jpg
Views:	833
Size:	886.4 KB
ID:	2144845   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG0995.jpg
Views:	829
Size:	751.5 KB
ID:	2144846  
Old 02-02-2016, 09:43 AM
  #308  
ww2birds
My Feedback: (14)
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,368
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Cool! That will be fun to see working. This is a pretty good pic to get the pilot head in the right position:

517 × 331 - thinkstockphotos.com
Old 02-03-2016, 02:01 AM
  #309  
extra 300
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: BeirutBeirut, LEBANON
Posts: 1,304
Received 9 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

Gunradd,

Try this link to acheive an animated pilot. you won't be disappointed.
http://www.churchillcreations.co.uk/animatronics.html

Regards,
Old 02-03-2016, 08:22 AM
  #310  
Flyin-in-Bama
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Great thanks, they look real good.



Doug
Old 02-03-2016, 01:22 PM
  #311  
skunkwurk
My Feedback: (18)
 
skunkwurk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 646
Received 49 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gunradd
Hello SC
I would not do it this way with a twin. It defeats the whole purpose in having a twin for redundancy. You need to separate independent fuel systems IMO.

Also the center forward tank is way to big stock and shifts the CG so far forward. Joe plumbed his so he burns off the forward tank first so his CG will not change much the remainder of the flight since the saddles are close to the CG. DO NOT use that forward tank. I cut mine in half and its working great this way. My other friend with one Mike is using a jettech fuel cell in the front.

For a twin on this plane I would use 2 smaller tanks in the front or do as joe did and have the tank cut in half reduced and then slit whats left for separate sides. Also no need for high flow unless you are going single. Only reason I did high flow is because I will be dropping a K300 in when its ready also was having high PW issues that have since been resolved.
Hi Gunradd,

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate the help. The three tanks (1x4.6 & 2x2.7 liters) equal to about 246 oz of total capacity, I'm basing this off of their online manual. I'll measure the capacity once I have the tanks in hand. Each of the 180s burn ~20oz p/minute at full throttle, at 246 oz of total capacity that's about a 6 minute burn time. I don't plan on flying at full throttle the entire flight but I would like a 6-10minute flight plus spare fuel capacity. There doesn't seem to be a hugh margin, wouldn't reducing the fuel capacity work against me a little bit? What do you guys use as a rule of thumb on twins? I will be performing ground testing to help narrow this down, but any input is appreciated.

I'll look into splitting the center tank, I don't disagree with your logic regarding the two separate fuel systems.

Also, since we're on setup commentary. I see what you did with the air valves on the mains, which I'm considering as an option. I've also seen plenty of comments regarding hydraulic as well, but I'm wondering why no one is suggesting going electric. I've seen guys like Fenderbean build a nice install on a 1/7 Scale F15 using D&L's system, I like it. It's clean and looks reliable.

Is it cost, reliability or something else which is influencing folks not to suggest this, do you have an opinion by chance?

thanks in advance.

sc

Last edited by skunkwurk; 02-03-2016 at 01:28 PM.
Old 02-03-2016, 03:05 PM
  #312  
gunradd
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,426
Received 50 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Short video of what I have done so far on the pilots. Used a 19 dollar robot controller and old servos I had laying around.
https://youtu.be/iQp50CvS1kE


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iQp50CvS1kE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Last edited by gunradd; 02-04-2016 at 04:20 AM.
Old 02-03-2016, 06:05 PM
  #313  
jsnipes
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 955
Received 18 Likes on 18 Posts
Default

Nice job, Gun!

Originally Posted by gunradd
Short video of what I have done so far on the pilots. Used a 19 dollar robot controller and old servos I had laying around.
https://youtu.be/iQp50CvS1kE
Old 02-04-2016, 04:30 AM
  #314  
gunradd
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,426
Received 50 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by skunkwurk
Hi Gunradd,

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate the help. The three tanks (1x4.6 & 2x2.7 liters) equal to about 246 oz of total capacity, I'm basing this off of their online manual. I'll measure the capacity once I have the tanks in hand. Each of the 180s burn ~20oz p/minute at full throttle, at 246 oz of total capacity that's about a 6 minute burn time. I don't plan on flying at full throttle the entire flight but I would like a 6-10minute flight plus spare fuel capacity. There doesn't seem to be a hugh margin, wouldn't reducing the fuel capacity work against me a little bit? What do you guys use as a rule of thumb on twins? I will be performing ground testing to help narrow this down, but any input is appreciated.

I'll look into splitting the center tank, I don't disagree with your logic regarding the two separate fuel systems.

Also, since we're on setup commentary. I see what you did with the air valves on the mains, which I'm considering as an option. I've also seen plenty of comments regarding hydraulic as well, but I'm wondering why no one is suggesting going electric. I've seen guys like Fenderbean build a nice install on a 1/7 Scale F15 using D&L's system, I like it. It's clean and looks reliable.

Is it cost, reliability or something else which is influencing folks not to suggest this, do you have an opinion by chance?

thanks in advance.

sc
For the gear I didn't go electric for the cost also this gear needs to rotate unless you remove all the scale parts from the gear and for me that's not an option.

On the fuel...
I think 2 180s is to much engine with to high of fuel burn. Have you thought about trying to sell them for smaller engines like twin 120s or the new 160s would be the ideal engine. The reason why is because you will need allot more fuel for twin 180s and that's allot more weight in front of the CG. When I was doing my CG with all 3 tanks I filled them up to see how much it changed and its drastic. Aircraft is super nose heavy with that front tank fuel. I would say full its at least 7 lbs all in front of the CG.

I flew mine full of fuel this way and it did rotate and fly but it flies much better now with the front tank smaller. So I dont want to say what you have wont work because it will work but I highly recommend getting smaller engines that burn less fuel and reducing the front tank.

Also I dont think their online manual is correct. I think they used smaller tanks on the build in the manual. The center tank in the kit is HUGE!
Old 02-04-2016, 06:07 AM
  #315  
skunkwurk
My Feedback: (18)
 
skunkwurk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 646
Received 49 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gunradd
For the gear I didn't go electric for the cost also this gear needs to rotate unless you remove all the scale parts from the gear and for me that's not an option.

On the fuel...
I think 2 180s is to much engine with to high of fuel burn. Have you thought about trying to sell them for smaller engines like twin 120s or the new 160s would be the ideal engine. The reason why is because you will need allot more fuel for twin 180s and that's allot more weight in front of the CG. When I was doing my CG with all 3 tanks I filled them up to see how much it changed and its drastic. Aircraft is super nose heavy with that front tank fuel. I would say full its at least 7 lbs all in front of the CG.

I flew mine full of fuel this way and it did rotate and fly but it flies much better now with the front tank smaller. So I don't want to say what you have wont work because it will work but I highly recommend getting smaller engines that burn less fuel and reducing the front tank.

Also I dont think their online manual is correct. I think they used smaller tanks on the build in the manual. The center tank in the kit is HUGE!

Gun,

The pilot animatronics and inlets look awesome, nice job man.

On the electric conversion it looks like they replace the air cylinders with a worm gear type of motor, I don't think you would lose the rotating function, I could be wrong though, I'll have to look at that in more detail. I'm still undecided and considering all options on the gear.

Regarding the fuel tanks and turbine. I'd like to say I simply went with more power and threw logic out of the window but I actually spent a lot of time trying to think it through and decide on something which made the most logical sense for me. Again, I could be wrong and have made horrible assumptions, I try and be a pragmatic as possible but when dealing with assumptions, it's difficult. Once I receive the model and components I'll be able to better test things and eliminate some of the assumptions and get to a final/final working design.

I'm certainly open to comments and ideas from you and the community, I'm the first to admit I get this stuff wrong all the time and have to rethink things as I go.

That said, let me share some of the points I tried to use as a basis for my decision, I'm putting this out there, and I'm soliciting for ideas and suggestions.

I won't cover the logic between single or twin turbines, that could be a whole other thread... I'll just cover why 180s in my twin setup.

1 - I noticed that the position of a single vs a twin is different. The single mounting position appears to be closer, but still slightly aft, to the CG of the model. The twin mounting position appears to be more aft than the single, perhaps 3-6 inches. Again, my assumption here is "looks further aft", I can't measure this until I have the model. This could potentially have a CG effect and in turn make the model less nose heavy in a twin design.
2 - Twins require two pipes vs one. What is the weight penalty between two pipes vs one bifurcated pipe is probably marginal, maybe the weight of two bells vs one, who knows. Again, I'm using probably, I'll have to weigh things to be sure. If there is a weight difference, it will be in the aft section of the plane, which may affect CG on a sliding scale.
3 - The conscious choice turbine manufacturers have made on recent turbines to standardize on a particular can design for multiple output turbines has to be considered. For example, if you take Jetcat's 90, 140 and 180 models, they are all based on a very similar can design. For sure the combustion chambers may be different, as I'm sure a number of internal components are, but the weight, size and shape difference is marginal. The differences internally ultimately effect the output and thus the burn rate of these turbines, but I could do that too. I could cap the high end RPM range by 10 or 20 or 30K and reduce the output to a range which works for my setup, and thus the burn rate too.
What are the effects of doing this on the turbine long term, or running it at mid-range to mid-high vs at high range, I don't know. I need to test this to know for sure. What I do know is that I would rather own a 180 vs a 90 if there is going to be size and weight parity between the two models. Especially if I am going to invest in two turbines of the same size, future proofing your investment and applicability makes sense to be considered.

I don't think companies like Jetcat did this by accident, I think they know this and I think they believe the consumer will lean on the side of power and spend more of their $ on the high end turbine, plus you could debate that it's less complex or expensive to have 3 motors based on the same can design. That is debatable as I've seen concepts get really complicated for vendors when they try and standardize things. But that is a topic for an other thread too, and my personal option...
4 - Market value, I did not want to buy two turbines of the same size unless I had the potential to reuse them or sell them at some point in time, this is obviously taking into consideration the biggest assumption of them all, one that everything goes well and I still have two working turbines a year from now. I certainly hope I do, but I wanted to buy two turbines which I knew there are several Jet models on the market as possible hosts for me to reuse and switch them around if needed. It sounds more fun that way. To add to that, if there are numerous models on the market in the 180 category, there should be more potential buyers as well for a second hand turbine if I decide to sell one one day.
5 - Final point, if in a year from now the model has been flying great and I'm really comfortable with it and I foolishly decide to take all the RPM caps off, I'd love to see how it flies at full power. ggggrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Anyway, I hope this isn't too long of a response, I felt the topic is deserving of some supporting details and I hope it may help some other fellas out there which may be wondering what to do as well. Again, I'm putting this out there and I'm open to opinions and advice.

Thank you again.

sc

Last edited by skunkwurk; 02-04-2016 at 06:11 AM.
Old 02-04-2016, 07:05 AM
  #316  
gunradd
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,426
Received 50 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by extra 300
Gunradd,

Try this link to acheive an animated pilot. you won't be disappointed.
http://www.churchillcreations.co.uk/animatronics.html

Regards,
I checked them out first thanks for the link but they are all 1/6 scale and this aircraft is 1/7th scale. So I had to get 1/7 scale pilots to make it look right and they where even to big since FB made the cockpit smaller then scale.
Old 02-04-2016, 11:15 AM
  #317  
ww2birds
My Feedback: (14)
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,368
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Interesting discussion regarding the electric gear. Having fiddled with the F-15E gear a lot, I am certain you could use the electric conversion without worrying about the rotation mechanics .. they are separate .. the actuation from the cylinder is in a straight line. There would of course be some consideration on the maximum diameter and length of the drive motor in the space where the cylinder originally was.

It is encouraging that Kris has had success with his new two-valve air setup.

My own experience with electric gear has been mixed. With some of the smaller units there is a fine line between amping out when the gear retracts vs amping out due to air flow issues ... requiring a close eye on airspeed when retracting or extending gear. Perhaps on some of the larger units this is less of a problem.

If you do a simple "flat plate" calculation on the force of 100 mph air on the F-15E's tires, I get numbers in the 4-6 pound range .. so I am thinking it might be interesting to make measurements of the actual gear with a force gauge and see how much pressure the actuators can make out at the end of the leg where the wheel is.

At any rate, data is data and Kris' gear working is really good news!

Dave
Old 02-04-2016, 12:49 PM
  #318  
gunradd
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,426
Received 50 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Not only is it working but working well. On one of my dirty passes I got into the throttle and didn't pick the gear up as fast as I normally would and thought to myself no way the mains could have worked. After the turn flying down wind to my surprise all 3 legs where up. So clearly all the problems getting it up are volume issues. Give it more volume and it will work fine.

On the last few flights I had last weekend I didn't even worry about the gear anymore and did nothing special in flight just took off balls to the wall and hit the switch. Worked fine.
Old 02-14-2016, 01:04 PM
  #319  
gunradd
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,426
Received 50 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Found another poorly made part. The wheel bearings are junk and need to be replaced.
On my 16th flight the right main came apart just before rotation so I had to get off the throttle and let it run off the runway and it ripped both mains and mounts out. Bent the nose strut pin also... So back to repairs. Only have 3 weeks to get her ready for FLjets. Going to be tough.
Not sure where to get replacement bearings from. Ibremoved the other wheel and all the balls just fell out so that one was also about to let loose.



Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG1040.jpg
Views:	1181
Size:	1.45 MB
ID:	2147244   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG1044.jpg
Views:	1215
Size:	2.25 MB
ID:	2147245   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAG1052.jpg
Views:	1192
Size:	2.08 MB
ID:	2147246  
Old 02-14-2016, 01:17 PM
  #320  
bri6672
My Feedback: (6)
 
bri6672's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

That's sucks man! I hate teething. Try McMaster Carr, they have lots of bearings, maybe even Boca out there by you...
Old 02-14-2016, 02:14 PM
  #321  
ww2birds
My Feedback: (14)
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,368
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Uggg, that's awful. Are the bearings just pressed into the wheels? Let us know what you find out about replacements.

I hope you are able to work your magic on the repairs so we can see it fly at FL Jets!

Dave
Old 02-14-2016, 02:24 PM
  #322  
hoser
 
hoser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Miami Springs, FL
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Gun, it happened to me go to http://www.fasteddybearings.com got me a dozen.
Old 02-14-2016, 04:48 PM
  #323  
Bob_B
My Feedback: (11)
 
Bob_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bluegrass State of Mind
Posts: 4,691
Received 81 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

Boca bearings in florida
Old 02-15-2016, 02:44 AM
  #324  
Countryboy
My Feedback: (25)
 
Countryboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lawrenceburg, KY
Posts: 2,657
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Gun,
The same thing happened to Lewis Patton's FB F15. Since time is of the essence for you, you might want to give him a ring to see what his fix was.
Look forward to seeing you at Ky Jets in July.

Ronnie
Old 02-15-2016, 03:10 AM
  #325  
extra 300
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: BeirutBeirut, LEBANON
Posts: 1,304
Received 9 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

can we have the exact part number to achieve prevention maintenance and get rid of the old bearings in advance?

Thanks

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.