Flite-Metal

505 has served us well. Now has come the time she will share her soul for the better good of MAC's 6's.

................................

Flite-Metal

Rather than fight through time consuming reverse engineering this 33 year old "Flight Of The Intruder" movie 6 to duplicate the windshield and side cutouts we decided to use the original windshield to create an overlay template for routing. This will assure clear panels fit each individual cutout without time consuming adjustment by either MAC or its customers.

Flite-Metal

Sam said the Epilog laser is working great. Below is the pilot side of the cockpit tub wall. Sam needs to turn off his Iphone's autofocus...:^)

Flite-Metal

Windshield canopy mask was removed from the movie A6 fuselage. Next, the large main canopy sections.

Flite-Metal

The most challenging portion of this entire project...

A cap template is created to cover the entire canopy/windshield portion of the fuse to enable routing the glass openings.

Ron S

My Feedback: (2)

I don't remember if you have canopies or not, but if you don't, make sure you take a splash of the canopy area, so you can make a plug for the canopies... Certainly before you trim out the canopy frame, which it appears you're working in that direction...

Flite-Metal

Hi Ron,
There is a canopy "cap" being created as I write this. The cap is oversize (larger and three times thicker) than the actual windshield and overhead canopy frames by atleast an inch all around the perimeter of the canopy section of the fuselage. This permits accurate centerline alignment/centering of canopy frame cutouts. We were originally going to let customers cut their frames but thought it best to enhance our value by reducing the task to Hysoling the clear sections in place... ;^)

We already have all seven clear canopy molds and two (2) sets of clear. One set is the original "Flight Of The Intruder" #505 clear canopy sections. They are being used to assure alignment.and fitting of an accurate canopy and windshield frame.

Flite-Metal

Will share mains pics tomorrow...;^)

Below is the dial-in allowance for movement in or out to accommodate proper door clearance. I reduced main tire diameter by 1/2 inch to reduce the consequence of offset angle. Mains sit 90 degrees to the ground. Scale tire diameter @ 1:5.5 is somewhere betweeen 4 1/2" and 5". Smooth aluminum center wheels look like they will accomodate our brake decision with no issue. All this is of course a first blush guess.


We have graduated from designing to fit and fitting within what for all purposes is the same as 3D chess or checkers. Layers: landing gear rails...EDF rails...inlet and exhaust. Layers are offset laterally as well as vertically.

We are getting there...............somewhere ;^)

Flite-Metal

Thanks to Dan (Gravity Tester) directing me onto Ziroli having the 4.5" tires listed on their tire page. I called immediately and asked Warren if she had them... a minute later she said she had them! ! ! ! I asked her to set four aside and I'd pay for them online. Quoting Dan: ""Cool Hand" Grafton can't be caught out in public without shoes!". I had spent all day yesterday chasing them down without sucess...Nick Jr. had them all along! Thanks again Dan!!!

Flite-Metal

Looking for opinions from both EDF and Turbine pilots.

My A6 has two 110mm JetFan with FSA exceeding 105% per. According to multiple evaluations each fan is pushing 19.5# static @ 87% FSA exhaust on 12S in my config. As ineffecient as recip ducted fans were back-in-the-day the typical power to weight ratio is 1.623# of model per pound of static thrust, which unloads X% in air. My 6's target weight is 41#~44#.

Based on weight of my flying drumstick what turbine would be recommended for prototypical flight... Remember this is an attack/aka bomber typically flown low and much slower than fighters. Typical mission was as the ultimate Wild Weasel/ECM platform.Thanks in advance...

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

might be a good place for a pair of the lightweight 120s, like the xicoy.

peter w h

The "41# - 44#" seems to always magically increase, 120 or even the new Kingtech 130G4 which is lighter than the 120 for some added grunt to help carry it on up through the verticals and better on grass.
You can always throttle back.

Flite-Metal

Readers have probably not read this nor other online threads from the beginning to know my A6 weighs 1/4 that of the original movie model powered by a pair of ByroJet 91 recip without intake ducting.

The ByroJets generated what was "claimed to be" around 10# each. This is the same config Byron used in their F-15. Each JetFan 110Pro generates a "consistent" 19.5# static thrust with a 105% FSA intake and 86%~87% exhaust outlet. My 41#~44# AUW estimate is on the high side...not low.

Based on the above...my inquiry is directed to current owners/pilots of a turbine powered Grumman F9F Cougar/Panther of comparable weight @ 85"~100" w/s.

Flite-Metal

My 6 now has shoes...

Hydro Junkie

Just curious on this one. You specified the Cougar and Panther, no problem there. I was a bit puzzled over asking for both, mainly from an aerodynamic standpoint. The Panther is a straight wing conventional plane with hard mounted wingtip tanks in most versions while the Cougar had 35 degree swept back wings and no tip tanks. The differences in the design made the Cougar 100 mph faster so, with the aerodynamics making that much difference in the full sized planes, does it matter that, in the end, there could be up to a 25% difference in performance figures when comparing similar sized models of the two aircraft? As I said, just curious on this one since the Intruder's wing is swept somewhere in between where the Panther and Cougar were.
Okay, I have to add a correction here as well. I found after my post that the Cougar's J42-P-8A had 1500 pounds more thrust than the Panther's J42-P-8 so that was also a large contributing factor to the 100 mph speed advantage, something I should have considered before making my post

Flite-Metal

Because there is no comparable data source my inquiry is based on the mean of the two wing platforms. The fuselage drag would/should be identical. Here again...this exercise is to gather information from pilots/owners of JetFan 110Pros (Either Single or Twin) or comparable sized jets with turbines of "X" thrust. My question is simple not complex due to the lack of comparable size jets, aside from the F9F Cougar / Panther. The comparative points are X size turbine to JetFan 110Pro.

Ron S

My Feedback: (2)

>>> Mibo Jets had the same scale A-6 flying, years ago... What turbines did they use? Also, another reasonable datapoint is the Prowler that is prowling out there (Der Jets?) - but I'm not sure of its scale, and whether it's a twin or single turbine.

If you think your model will be quite a bit lighter, you can go from there... Maybe you can get away with a pair of 100 size turbines. Sounds like you're gearing your model for a mild flying style, or atleast initially - which I think is reasonable, until it's proven.

I'm assuming you're talking about a twin (turbine), because I know there might be difficulties with tailpipe design if you go the single route. Both will have their own unique complications.

Talking about static thrust is nice, (with ducted fan units - EDF or ICDF), but once the model is moving, that DF thrust number typically starts to decay. Once your model is moving in the air, your thrust starts going down, and your drag starts going up (until they are in balance - then you should be in level constant speed flight). There isn't really much thrust decay with turbines, with our typical flying speeds. I'll admit I have no experience with the Jetfan fan setups you speak of, and perhaps they are pitched differently to reduce this. Maybe the internet have Jetfan thrust versus velocity curves out there...

I don't fly Cougars or Panthers, but that's my input.

Ron S

My Feedback: (2)

These comments below, from a 2012 Model Airplane News article about the MiBo A-6 Intruder model... Courtesy of the internet...

The formers are made with nomex/carbon to reduce weight. The landing gear is made from Aluminum/Titanium again to reduce weight. The plane is just under 1/5-scale and weighs 55lbs. dry. It uses a B300F turbine with the power dialed back. It is a single engine with a bifurcated pipe made of stainless steel and titanium. The model has functional slats and flaps, as well as pylons with ordinance. Probably the toughest part of Mike’s project was the landing gear and the main doors which are so large....

Hydro Junkie

Seeing where you are heading with your request makes sense, considering the intermediate sweep on the Intruder. Thanks for the quick reply as it helped me understand the "why", something many never go in to

Flite-Metal

Ron,

The point of origin of Mibo's is the same as mine.."The Flight Of The Intruder" film. It is said Mibo's was by way of Mike Selby who supposedly purchased molds and fixtures from Jetmart in Ga. a week before I was going to. To my knowledge Mibo has only pulled one fuselage as is shown on their website.

Just guessing...;^) the flight images on Mibo's website were of Mike's A6. Back before our redesign and creation of multi-part molds I made an inquiry with Mibo who replied they were not going to produce the A6 because of its expense. The landing gear alone was quoted as $7k~$8k. Obviously any attempt to bifurcate could be disastrous. The A6 in europe has its single turbine exiting centerline of fuselage. There are multiple F9's out there. Oli's 1/3rd F9-8 is 112" w/s.

Based solely on performance claims...a pair of 100 turbines will be on par.

Back to the dungeon...

JSF-TC

My Feedback: (2)

Ed,

For comparison, my first 1/7 scale scratch built Buccaneer (equivalent full-scale airplane and performance to the A-6) came in around 55lb dry/ 65lb wet. 108" length/ 75" wingspan. The second one was about 8lb lighter.

They were both powered by twin 100 motors.

From the 3 flights on these initial models (both unfortunately short lived, model #3 is nearing completion) I would suggest that it was very comfortably powered by the twin 100's. A pair of modern 90's would be great also.


I have seen one of these ex-Flight of the Intruder A-6 fuselages (not yours) and it is huge - it dwarf's my Buccaneer.

This may sound harsh - but I think you are seriously deluding yourself with a 45lb ready to fly weight estimate for the A-6. You need to set an expectation of at least 60lb ready to fly, if not higher. You would need extremely advanced composite techniques as Ron posted to seriously reduce the weight, and even then 45lb would be an aggressive target.

You stated With your target weight of 45lb, that would imply the move model weighed 180lb. I know you've stated the movie model weight previously, but 180lb doesn't sound right. 80lb is more believable (for both the movie and your initial models).


Paul

Flite-Metal

Somehow my inquiry is being driven way off track...

My A6 fuselage weighs 1/4~1/5 (depending on which section is weighed) of the empty (16#) movie model "fuselage"...We have begun utilizing Airex in the layup. The original "flying" recip ducted fan powered movie model weighed 35#~45# sans landing gear.

The "empty" movie model weighed:
2 Wings @ 10#, Fuse & Stabs @ 19#, Vert. Fin & Rudder @ 2#: 31# Empty (Nothing) & Dry. By comparison Airex/glass infused rear half of our fuselage weighs 22.4 ounces compared to Vic's layup @ 36.6 ounces. This layup includes the vertical fin and rudder. Original movie 6's had built-up and attached balsa and ply vertical fin and rudder...not molded in fuselage.
.

nick0231

My Feedback: (4)

I finally got around to weighing my fuse that has carbon reinforcement and decent internal structure , just under16.5#.
i plan on mine being 65-70 dry but really scale so will go with minimum 2 120N turbines
If you stay with semi scale and light, 2 100N turbine probably work well

Nick

Flite-Metal

What is your wingspan?

nick0231

My Feedback: (4)

Same size as yours 1/5.5, the F-104 its next to is 131" long