МЕ-262 1/4 fokkerc
#1

Thread Starter

Hi guys , I start new project jet model for me in 1/4 scale.
The model is for two jet turbines any of them 100N
I start with the fuselage and this is my progres so far













The model is for two jet turbines any of them 100N
I start with the fuselage and this is my progres so far














The following users liked this post:
yeahbaby (04-16-2021)
#2


Great project, I wish you every luck with it.
I had lunch with Eric Brown a few years ago,, Britain's greatest pilot, he had flown them ALL inc. the 262.
Asking Eric which was the best of WW 2 ? Mosquito, Spitfire, Mustang, Lancaster ?
No, he said, the Me 262. Jet engines, ( albet with short life and difficult handling) swept wings giving v high speed, and superb manouverability, a superb aircraft in many respects.
Look forward to your progress.
I had lunch with Eric Brown a few years ago,, Britain's greatest pilot, he had flown them ALL inc. the 262.
Asking Eric which was the best of WW 2 ? Mosquito, Spitfire, Mustang, Lancaster ?
No, he said, the Me 262. Jet engines, ( albet with short life and difficult handling) swept wings giving v high speed, and superb manouverability, a superb aircraft in many respects.
Look forward to your progress.
#4


Looking good.
Regards,
Regards,
#10


I would consider moving the engine aft into the tailcone
Reasons:
1. Thrust/efficency gain. EDF produce most thrust from ingested air. Straight jets mainly from expelled gasses. The less thrust tubes ect that there is in the way, the more efficiency you will reach (less friction losses). No need to route hot gases through areas where it should be cool.
2. Safety: less structural damage during startup or engine fires as flames directly exit airframe
3. Weight: not cg critical. Moving engines aft as far as feasible decreases weight of thrust tubes carried along
4. Engine exposure: engines sitting low to the ground. High risk of ingestion of FOD. Moving engines aft and adding obstacles adds safety to engine damage, as ingested obstacles will be deflected or loose path along the way.
5. Scale appearance: at 1/4 scale a 100N class turbine sitting in the intake looks weird.....
just my thoughts on the subject. In my avonds f15 i placed the engines right in the nozzles.....if the suckers want to spit fire (no pun intended) feel free
Reasons:
1. Thrust/efficency gain. EDF produce most thrust from ingested air. Straight jets mainly from expelled gasses. The less thrust tubes ect that there is in the way, the more efficiency you will reach (less friction losses). No need to route hot gases through areas where it should be cool.
2. Safety: less structural damage during startup or engine fires as flames directly exit airframe
3. Weight: not cg critical. Moving engines aft as far as feasible decreases weight of thrust tubes carried along
4. Engine exposure: engines sitting low to the ground. High risk of ingestion of FOD. Moving engines aft and adding obstacles adds safety to engine damage, as ingested obstacles will be deflected or loose path along the way.
5. Scale appearance: at 1/4 scale a 100N class turbine sitting in the intake looks weird.....
just my thoughts on the subject. In my avonds f15 i placed the engines right in the nozzles.....if the suckers want to spit fire (no pun intended) feel free

The following users liked this post:
jkeze (04-17-2021)
#12


Fuselage geometry indicates weight can be mounted about 1m in front of cg.....estimating 250g per thrust tube indicates 500g of thrust tube weight total
Basic leverage math:
removing thrust tubes and mounting engines aft will require addition of 125g of lead in the nose. Yes. BUT you can remove 500g of thrust tubes. Overall you will gain 375g weight. Now by smartly rearranging your equipment you can eliminate the lead, fly lighter and have more thrust available......while gaining all the other advantages for free....
Last edited by Miniflyer; 04-16-2021 at 04:27 PM.
#13

Thread Starter

The full scale engine is about 3.8m long (sorry for metric). At 1/4 its just short of 95cm scale engine length. Presuming an average distance to exhaust/intake at around 10cm and an average engine length of about 25cm, will give about 50cm mounting range for cg of engine. Looking at the wing geometry the cg should be about mid-engine.....we are talking leverage of +/-25cm (under 1 foot) for a weight shift of (total for 2 engines) under 2kg (4.5lbs).
Fuselage geometry indicates weight can be mounted about 1m in front of cg.....estimating 250g per thrust tube indicates 500g of thrust tube weight total
Basic leverage math:
removing thrust tubes and mounting engines aft will require addition of 125g of lead in the nose. Yes. BUT you can remove 500g of thrust tubes. Overall you will gain 375g weight. Now by smartly rearranging your equipment you can eliminate the lead, fly lighter and have more thrust available......while gaining all the other advantages for free....
Fuselage geometry indicates weight can be mounted about 1m in front of cg.....estimating 250g per thrust tube indicates 500g of thrust tube weight total
Basic leverage math:
removing thrust tubes and mounting engines aft will require addition of 125g of lead in the nose. Yes. BUT you can remove 500g of thrust tubes. Overall you will gain 375g weight. Now by smartly rearranging your equipment you can eliminate the lead, fly lighter and have more thrust available......while gaining all the other advantages for free....
The CG is also + in my desition.
Thank you very much for your very interesting and constructive posts !
Another one , Any builder who want to move the turbine back is free to make it , in the engine area have much space to move the jet where you want

#17

Thread Starter

I am glad to introduce you the latest model in our garage - the legendary Messerschmitt ME-262 in 1/4 scale! The kit includes laser poplar plywood parts, balsa parts, PETG printed details and a lexan canopy. Of course, you will get a detailed, fine printed parts!
https://www.fokkerc.com/product/mess...6OJie2TWRuqs2o







https://www.fokkerc.com/product/mess...6OJie2TWRuqs2o






