Author Topic: 1/2A fierce Arrow (Read 49409 times)

frank carlisle · « **Reply #100 on:** February 09, 2007, 06:28:28 PM »

Quote from: Richard Grogan on February 09, 2007, 05:52:43 PM

Sorry the plans didnt come Frank!

I see dust on the Heat!
You weren't beating on the bench out of anger, making that dust fly, were you?

Are you going to do some panel lines on it and maybe some of those cool stencils Robert used on the Tbolt? It'd just take it to another level of "cool"!!

I'm looking forward to the results, irregardless!

I dusted the Heat off and flipped it over to start painting the bottom and I found some cracks and the planking has wiffles in it. SO..........I'm going to cut the bottom off and re-do it.
Here's the problem.....the plans called for 1/8 bottom planks laid on in 3 inch sections crossgrain. Well it turned out badly.
I figure I can be ready to resume the paint job in a couple days.
I'm hi-jacking my own thread here.

Richard Grogan · « **Reply #101 on:** February 09, 2007, 06:39:58 PM »

Dang Frank! That truly sucks, and I hate to see it! What do you think happened? Paint shrinkage? Is it silkspan over wood/ with dope?

frank carlisle · « **Reply #102 on:** February 09, 2007, 07:12:16 PM »

Quote from: Richard Grogan on February 09, 2007, 06:39:58 PM

Dang Frank! That truly sucks, and I hate to see it! What do you think happened? Paint shrinkage? Is it silkspan over wood/ with dope?

I hate to see it too Richard. It's doped silk span over wood. I'm sure it's all those seperate joints. I had thought about running the bottom sheet lengthwise like I always do, but went along with the plans.
Re-doing the bottom of the plane isn't that big a deal. Getting it cut even will be a challenge. I'd thought at first to lay some glass cloth on top of it but that would add weight. Right now it looks like the plane will come in around 67 oz. RTF. I'd like to keep it that way. That's a lot of plane to hold onto.

Richard Grogan · « **Reply #103 on:** February 09, 2007, 07:29:01 PM »

I could see where it could add strength and rigidity for the tail plane twists with the cross grain, but maybe the formers back there will give it enough to let you go with the grain.I wonder if you could use some lite ply back there to stiffen without too much weight gain? I'd definitely be looking at the stab's current twistability...

frank carlisle · « **Reply #104 on:** February 09, 2007, 08:02:48 PM »

It's the last time I'll run the bottom cross grain. As for rigidity I think with the bottom sheet running grain lengthwise tail twist won't be an issue. Of course this is the biggest plane I've ever built and the first twin. Probably if I built two or three more I'd have it nailed. If this one stays in one piece and doesn't have a structural failure I probably won't build another. I think a single engine well built and designed stunter will always be more competitive. But I always did want to build a big twin and when I saw that RSM was offering this one I couldn't resist. Of course if I really like it and it works good I'll do another. It will certainly get peoples attention at the circle.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #105 on:** February 10, 2007, 12:17:53 AM »

Quote from: frank carlisle on February 09, 2007, 06:28:28 PM

I'm hi-jacking my own thread here.

(Ahem) It's MY thread, thank you very much...and you may hijack it all you please, I've nothing to talk about anyway. Still no plans.

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #106 on:** February 10, 2007, 01:10:43 AM »

Quote from: minnesotamodeler on February 10, 2007, 12:17:53 AM

(Ahem) It's MY thread, thank you very much...and you may hijack it all you please, I've nothing to talk about anyway. Still no plans.

--Ray

Quite right..............I'm hi-jacking Ray's thread.

It's funny isn't it Ray? that Eric sent me a set of plans along with all of the parts already cut out in two days. And Carstens is taking weeks to send me just the plans?
What have you been doing lately Ray? I'd tell you I've been working on my LA Heat but you already know that.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #107 on:** February 10, 2007, 08:08:59 AM »

I been finishing a plant stand for wifey. And tinkering with a TeeDee .020 a friend gave me...it was really all gummed up, especially the sprinkler venturi, but it's finally all clean and feels really strong. Haven't run it yet, I'd prefer temps above zero, is that too much to ask?

Oh, and finishing a LilGeo kit order.

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #108 on:** February 10, 2007, 10:39:11 AM »

Quote from: minnesotamodeler on February 10, 2007, 08:08:59 AM

I been finishing a plant stand for wifey. And tinkering with a TeeDee .020 a friend gave me...it was really all gummed up, especially the sprinkler venturi, but it's finally all clean and feels really strong. Haven't run it yet, I'd prefer temps above zero, is that too much to ask?

Oh, and finishing a LilGeo kit order.

--Ray

You might as well post pix of the plant stand Ray...........I'd like to see it. Besides I've been posting everything but the HalfArrow.

No plans today either...............................SIGH.

Kit sles are going well I take it?

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #109 on:** February 10, 2007, 03:18:16 PM »

OK, here ya go:
First pic is a plant stand I made for her a couple of years ago.
Second pic is the current project--you can see I'm constantly redesigning everything I do!
Third pic is another of those "other projects" I was working on concurrently--a redesign of the Minnie Delta--I just can't leave well enough alone!

frank carlisle · « **Reply #110 on:** February 10, 2007, 03:52:14 PM »

Stand # 1 looks good but has a definite home made look to it. Stand #2 is very professional. The choice in material and the paint really give it a quality furniture look. Nice work on both but #2 is definitely the best!!

I like what you're doing with the "Minnie" Ray. I do kinda like the original better though. sorry.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #111 on:** February 10, 2007, 07:08:03 PM »

Yeah, I like the second stand better too. But, already got ideas for the third, better yet...

The Minnie Delta changes are mostly for easier fabrication of the kit parts. This is actually about its fourth manifestation. Here's a couple of earlier ones:

frank carlisle · « **Reply #112 on:** February 10, 2007, 08:20:11 PM »

The "Minnies" look like they are getting stealthier which each incarnation. I do miss that little stubby whatcha macoozie wing thing on the back though. I can see on the new one that it would be easier to cut parts.

If you were to put about 3 or 4 coats of clear on #1 plant stand and rub it out with 00 steel wool it would start looking custom. Maybe some faancy crown molding top and bottom on the next one.

I put off chopping up the Heat all day but I finally did it. Now it looks like I should have cut about 5 or 6 inches more off the front. I guess I'll do that tomorrow. I gotta go up to the LHS tomorrow and get some 'Broid or Sigment to stick the bottom plank back on.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #113 on:** February 11, 2007, 03:49:56 AM »

That is a real shame to have to cut into a new model like that, especially at the near-finished stage. But you want it right. Good for you.

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #114 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:52:42 AM »

Those little cracks did not bode well. And I hated that lumpy look on the bottom. It takes so long to build one of these that I can't justify considering it finished unless I've done the very best I could do.
I really don't have all that much experience building stunt planes. Back in the 80s I built 6 of them. The first three were with the help of Roland and Bob McDonald. And since 2001 I've built 5, this one being the fifth. So that's a total of 11 stunters in a span of nearly thirty years. In many ways I'm just a beginner.
This 1/2A building jag we've been on has been a tremendous help as far as learning tricks in taping and masking colorful models.
The hugest amount of my learning what a stunter should look like and do has come from competing in stunt contests. That's where you get to see the whole spectrum of model planes from the good, the bad and the ugly.
I've never really been all that concerned with beating anybody at flying or building. My focus has been on making pretty airplanes and flying them really well. There is a tremendous amount of satisfaction in taking home the occasional trophy though.

The picture is the 6 planes I built in the 80s.

frank carlisle · « **Reply #115 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:26:48 AM »

and these are pix of the stunters I've built since 2001. Along with the stunters I built 4 .35/.40 size profile models and quite a few 1/2As.

The L Heat isn't in here cuz it ain't finished yet. So that makes 10 stunt planes I've built in 60 years.

Richard Grogan · « **Reply #116 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:54:29 AM »

Purty purty planes Frank..all of em! The more you make, the better they get, dont they?

I'd be embarrassed to show my early ones from the 60s-70s..photos were destroyed in a flood, now just memories anyhow

....All I have left from those days is a retired jr ringmaster and comic wind,and boy are they UGLY!

And look....a younger, wilder, Frank in those pixs too!!

frank carlisle · « **Reply #117 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:33:37 AM »

Yup...the get prettier as you build more and more.

I never did get rid of the stunter pictures....too big a part of a guys life is tied up in them. Too bd you lost your pictures in the flood.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #118 on:** February 11, 2007, 12:13:10 PM »

Yeah, the planes get prettier and the builder gets...well, whatever.

Frank, just an observation, but all those planes in the first pic (oldest) bear a strong resemblance to each other--very high aspect wing and especially stab/elevator. Were they variations on the same design? Or maybe just the style of the day? Good looking planes, anyway. Look a lot better than my plant stands.

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #119 on:** February 11, 2007, 12:42:18 PM »

Quote from: minnesotamodeler on February 11, 2007, 12:13:10 PM

Yeah, the planes get prettier and the builder gets...well, whatever.

Frank, just an observation, but all those planes in the first pic (oldest) bear a strong resemblance to each other--very high aspect wing and especially stab/elevator. Were they variations on the same design? Or maybe just the style of the day? Good looking planes, anyway. Look a lot better than my plant stands.

--Ray

Yes Ray, all the planes were built from the same set of plans. A couple were I beams, a couple were foam wings and a couple were D tube wings. St .46 and Hp .40 were the power plants. The design flew real good.
This time around I started with a Legacy and so far Victory is the third. I made changes along the way on each model. Victory flies pretty darn good. A good thing about building and refining the same plane is that it will be predictable and easy to trim. Of course that's just my opinion.

frank carlisle · « **Reply #120 on:** February 12, 2007, 10:45:36 AM »

WAAAA-HOOOOOOooo.....................I got the plans and magazine today Ray!!

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #121 on:** February 12, 2007, 10:50:45 AM »

So there's hope yet...my mail doesn't come until the evening. Maybe I'll have mine too! Better start a materials list.

--Ray

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #122 on:** February 12, 2007, 11:35:36 AM »

Well re-hijacking the thread back, the 1/2A Fierce Arrow was designed by Gerry Ruschke, who use to run the best Hobby Shop for CL in our area (Chicago) --G&D Hobbies at the Sandwich Airport --rip

I remember seeing Gerry fly the plane at Jim Renkar's "It's Only a Hobby" 1/2 A contest, which is held in September, the weekend after the "Heart of Illinois Stunt Championships" down in Peoria. I think that Bill Smith also flew one in the contest. This was a "true" 1/2A contest (<0.05 ci) until this year where Jim will allow 0.061's but at a negative 10 Point cost. We fly the beginner pattern. Gerry and Bill would always show up at the contest with the picks of the litter. One year it was Barecats.
We also include a "Coxy Hazel" 100 lap race--loosely patterned after a Fox Race. The rules require a Cox 049 engine and a Sig Baby Skyray. It is a "hoot" to fly, especially the pitting. (ok I realize this is another hijack now!)

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #123 on:** February 12, 2007, 12:29:11 PM »

So how did they fly (the little Fierce Arrows, I mean)? You can't be leaving out vital info like that...

--Ray

Jim Thomerson · « **Reply #124 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:42:33 PM »

Here is a picture, I hope, of a Dmeco Sportwing. I seriously think one could be made into a good 1/2A airplane. Barry Baxter has plans.

frank carlisle · « **Reply #125 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:56:20 PM »

Ray,
I copied page 1 of the magazine. let me know if you can read it off this post. If not I'll print copies of the pages and mail them to you.

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #126 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:53:58 PM »

Well I confess I remember seeing the plane, but not really remembering how well it flew. On the other hand, Gerry usually did well in the contest, so I am guessing that it flew well. I think Bill Smith (I think it is the same Bill Smith who worked with Gerry) is a member of Stunt Hangar, so if he sees this, maybe he could comment.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #127 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:19:56 PM »

Yup, Frank, I can read it fine. Just got my set!! Good ol' fashioned ammonia-based blueline. The dimensions are gonna be pretty accurate for a transparency printing; check the 6" scale at the title block: Mine is maybe 1/32" short.

30" span; area figures around 285. Our .061s will be plenty enough grunt to move this thing right along. Personally, I would have made it a little bigger if creating a 1/2A version from scratch for .061; I notice it was designed around the NOrvel .049 so that's probably just the right size. But a guy can never have too much power, right? Long lines, think long lines...

Looks like a very interesting, and kinda challenging, build. Whatta you think, Frank?

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #128 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:44:06 PM »

Well I can't read it Ray. So I made copies and already have them in an envelope with your address on it ( I know where you live). I'll put it in the mail in the morning. Also I'll post the rest of the article here.

I'm thinking long lines Ray. The magazine says keep it lite and then announces the finished weight is 14.5 oz. Go figure.

I think it will be challenging at least till we figure how to put it together. It's definitely the most complicated 1/2A I've built yet.

What do you mean transparency printing? Pray tell how are we going to make templates?

Here is the second page. Are you sure you can read it?

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #129 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:54:45 PM »

Yeah, I can read it OK. May not from a printout.

Transparency printing is drawing on tracing paper or vellum (probably inked vellum in this case), then laying it over light-sensitive paper and running both together through a blueprint machine--exposes to very bright light. Bleaches out everything on the print paper but what's under the drawn (or inked) lines. Then exposed to ammonia which turns the lines blue. It's just contact printing; often makes a slightly undersized copy. In this case they done good.

I'm thinking there's some changes need to be made. We can surely beat that 14.5 ozs; we better. I can see half a dozen already, to save weight and to strengthen it. The rib templates sure don't look accurate; at least the notches aren't.

I'll have more observations later...gotta go eat.

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #130 on:** February 12, 2007, 05:04:58 PM »

Here is page 3.

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #131 on:** February 12, 2007, 06:36:38 PM »

Well I can tell by reading the article that this is a "Gerry-built plane"

frank carlisle · « **Reply #132 on:** February 12, 2007, 06:40:34 PM »

Quote from: Alan Hahn on February 12, 2007, 06:36:38 PM

Well I can tell by reading the article that this is a "Gerry-built plane"

That's rich Alan.

Do you think he was in a ruscke when he built it?

bob branch · « **Reply #133 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:23:59 PM »

Hey, is it my imagination or is there more sheeting on this thing than you'd need to drop a .15 in it? Looks awefully overbuilt to me.

bob

frank carlisle · « **Reply #134 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:39:55 PM »

Quote from: bob branch on February 12, 2007, 07:23:59 PM

Hey, is it my imagination or is there more sheeting on this thing than you'd need to drop a .15 in it? Looks awefully overbuilt to me.

bob

Good point Bob, but.............
The wing sheeting needs to go back to the shoulder of the airfoil to get a clean cut in the air....the center sheeting only covers one rib bay and the center (foselage area). Plans call for just 1/32 plaanking so I don't think it's over built.
But Ray is the engineer on this project.

I think he's going to make it a bigger, lighter plane out of it. We'll see.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #135 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:42:52 PM »

I agree, Bob, I think it could easily stand to lose 2-3 oz. of beef...the article says "14.5 oz" on p. 2, then apparently another one weighed in at 12.5 oz., p. 3. I would hope we could get it down to 10 or 11 oz. range.

At the same time, the center section generally seems to be awfully weak--nothing in the wing runs completely through except the TE...there's a 1/16" ply wedge "carry-thru" at the LE, but that still leaves nearly 9" of chord with no visible means of support. The fuselage even interrupts the 1/32" wing planking on the LE and center section. Unless I'm missing something here.

It appears we could eliminate at least 2 fuselage formers (#5 & 7) without any consequences, strengthwise. Also ribs R-4, -6 and -8 could be half ribs, under the LE planking only. And we gotta drill some holes in, or reduce the cross section of, those 5" long maple motor mounts. And, and, and...

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #136 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:52:57 PM »

Quote from: minnesotamodeler on February 12, 2007, 07:42:52 PM

I agree, Bob, I think it could easily stand to lose 2-3 oz. of beef...the article says "14.5 oz" on p. 2, then apparently another one weighed in at 12.5 oz., p. 3. I would hope we could get it down to 10 or 11 oz. range.

At the same time, the center section generally seems to be awfully weak--nothing in the wing runs completely through except the TE...there's a 1/16" ply wedge "carry-thru" at the LE, but that still leaves nearly 9" of chord with no visible means of support. The fuselage even interrupts the 1/32" wing planking on the LE and center section. Unless I'm missing something here.

It appears we could eliminate at least 2 fuselage formers (#5 & 7) without any consequences, strengthwise. Also ribs R-4, -6 and -8 could be half ribs, under the LE planking only. And we gotta drill some holes in, or reduce the cross section of, those 5" long maple motor mounts. And, and, and...

--Ray

Yer scarin' me here Ray.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #137 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:55:54 PM »

Oh, I've just begun, Frank...I do see now that apparently the back 4" or so of wing planking runs through, the fuselage being cut around it; that should help. I gotta study this some more.

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #138 on:** February 12, 2007, 08:02:43 PM »

I hope I can sleep tonight. While we're at it how about spacing the ribs another 1/4 inch apart each? Then we'd be at 34 inch span.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #139 on:** February 12, 2007, 08:56:48 PM »

Quote from: frank carlisle on February 12, 2007, 08:02:43 PM

I hope I can sleep tonight. While we're at it how about spacing the ribs another 1/4 inch apart each? Then we'd be at 34 inch span.

With just slightly less taper, yeah...better than just adding another bay, then the tips would look too narrow. Your way would leave the tips the same...I like it.

The TE is called out as 1/4" x 5/8", tapered obviously; the rib tips would be 3/16" high, making the 1/32" capstrips flush with the TE. They are drawn, however, at a fat 1/8"...makes me think the TE could be 3/16" thick and the ribs an honest 1/8" at the tip. A few more grams gone.

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #140 on:** February 12, 2007, 09:15:33 PM »

How about sheeting the trailing edge with 1/32 X 1/2 planking and adding a 1/8 strip across the back of that?

See my drawing--------------

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #141 on:** February 13, 2007, 01:30:59 AM »

Quote from: frank carlisle on February 12, 2007, 09:15:33 PM

How about sheeting the trailing edge with 1/32 X 1/2 planking and adding a 1/8 strip across the back of that?

See my drawing--------------

That would work very well, looks like, and save a few more grams maybe. That 1/8" sq. strip is already used in one of the spars. Good idea.

I'm a little confused, by the way, about all those wing spars. 1/16" x 1/8"--laid which way? Flat, or on edge? The rib templates are less than no help. And where exactly do they terminate at the center?

The fuselage side, too, looks like it will assume a rather odd shape, part of the wing going through and part not. Guess I'll try later to sketch how I think it's supposed to go. And speaking of the fuselage, I do know from my LittleAxe experience there is WAY too much interior bracing toward the tail. I took nearly all of it out of the latest LA, even cut big lightening holes in the sides, and it is still plenty rigid.

--Ray

frank carlisle · « **Reply #142 on:** February 13, 2007, 06:58:30 AM »

Quote from: minnesotamodeler on February 13, 2007, 01:30:59 AM

That would work very well, looks like, and save a few more grams maybe. That 1/8" sq. strip is already used in one of the spars. Good idea.

I'm a little confused, by the way, about all those wing spars. 1/16" x 1/8"--laid which way? Flat, or on edge? The rib templates are less than no help. And where exactly do they terminate at the center?

The fuselage side, too, looks like it will assume a rather odd shape, part of the wing going through and part not. Guess I'll try later to sketch how I think it's supposed to go. And speaking of the fuselage, I do know from my LittleAxe experience there is WAY too much interior bracing toward the tail. I took nearly all of it out of the latest LA, even cut big lightening holes in the sides, and it is still plenty rigid.

--Ray

That 1/8 strip on the trailing edge will be easier to shape too.

It looks to me that the fuselage side runs from the nose ring back to former #2. Then the rest of the fuselage is built from former #3 on top and bottom of wing. This would leave it so the center sheeting would start right at the leading edge planking.

The cowl hold down screw is in a really bad place. I traced out a drawing of the nose and moved the hold down screw and added locating pins just behind the nose ring. I also drew a heavy line that shows what I think is the fuselage side. This would be assembly #1, I reckon.

And while I'm at it........I don't like the landing gear. It looks like it'll be a pain working around them through the build. I suggest aluminum gear. I can cut metal. See drawing.

Roger Vizioli · « **Reply #143 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:38:00 AM »

Mornin' Frank and Ray!

Just looked at the Fierce Arrow plan and had a couple of "suggestions".

1. "IF" the lead outs will be adjustable, and in adjusting same they have to be further fwd, looks like they might be fwd of the leading edge. Might want to make sure there is no "ram air scoop" effect that allows air into the wing while flying and possibly lifting the covering.
I would balance whatever the inboard configuration is on the outboard side. A wedge shaped shroud, 1/2 round or?? on LE or ??
2. I would add an additional hinge between the hinges shown on plan.

Not trying to interfere, just wanted to pass on some thoughts.

Roger

frank carlisle · « **Reply #144 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:47:42 AM »

Quote from: Roger Vizioli on February 13, 2007, 07:38:00 AM

Mornin' Frank and Ray!

Just looked at the Fierce Arrow plan and had a couple of "suggestions".

1. "IF" the lead outs will be adjustable, and in adjusting same they have to be further fwd, looks like they might be fwd of the leading edge. Might want to make sure there is no "ram air scoop" effect that allows air into the wing while flying and possibly lifting the covering.
I would balance whatever the inboard configuration is on the outboard side. A wedge shaped shroud, 1/2 round or?? on LE or ??
2. I would add an additional hinge between the hinges shown on plan.

Not trying to interfere, just wanted to pass on some thoughts.

Roger

Roger..........this is a public invited thread so please have no fear about interfering. Your input is invited and welcome.

I'm not too sure what you are saying about the leadouts? I'll bet Ray does though.

For sure more hinges.

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #145 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:21:26 AM »

Re: the fuselage--you're right: the front, from #2 forward, is a completely separate structure that the front of the wing is built around: MM beams have 1/16" ply floor full width, full length--that's what that crazy crosswise grain on top view is trying to show--and looks like it extends out into those wedges labelled "Plywood carry-thru", all one piece. Then the engine cowl is most of the top back to #2, with some small side pieces, shaped as your sketch except ending at the bottom of the MM beams (1/8" thick? top view), the 1/2" solid block being the bottom, back to #2 also. Then the rear part of fuselage, from #2 back, would have a cutout for the wing and slip on from the back. All the more reason to eliminate some of the formers/braces back there; that whole structure is really irrelevant; doesn't hold anything but itself--the plane would fly without it! Sure makes that front end beefy. I still think some strategically-placed holes would be in order.

On the gear, how would that compare weight-wise to the 1/16" wire shown? That #2 former could maybe become balsa without the gear anchored to it, that would help the weight loss too; but speaking of that, how would you anchor your alternative? If moved a little forward, the ply. plate could be recessed flush into that solid balsa block, perhaps. Would be nice to anchor it directly to the MM beams but that would leave quite a gap underneath.

I agree, too, the holddown screw location for the cowl is not good. Seems like moving it to the back and using alignment pins at the front might leave the front a little unstable up-and-down-wise. Why couldn't a block be put in behind the engine, just in front of the step-down of the sides, to hold a blind nut for the holddown screw there? The pins, I think, either front or back, would still be needed.

I'm still having trouble reconciling the various wing spars with the notches shown in the rib patterns. Help me out there, would you?

--Ray

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #146 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:35:46 AM »

Quote from: Roger Vizioli on February 13, 2007, 07:38:00 AM

Mornin' Frank and Ray!

Just looked at the Fierce Arrow plan and had a couple of "suggestions".

1. "IF" the lead outs will be adjustable, and in adjusting same they have to be further fwd, looks like they might be fwd of the leading edge. Might want to make sure there is no "ram air scoop" effect that allows air into the wing while flying and possibly lifting the covering.
I would balance whatever the inboard configuration is on the outboard side. A wedge shaped shroud, 1/2 round or?? on LE or ??
2. I would add an additional hinge between the hinges shown on plan.

Not trying to interfere, just wanted to pass on some thoughts.

Roger

Hi Roger,

All help welcomed! I hadn't really looked at the hinges but you're right, they look awfully scarce. Maybe at least a total of four per side would be better, or even 5 as you suggest.

Frank, about the leadouts: Envision the front leadout being moved forward 1/2" or so, exiting through the LE. The exit hole, being on the front of the LE, must be shielded from the slipstream or you'll be trying to inflate the wing...Roger's suggestion is a shroud covering the opening. I can imagine an airfoil-shaped "C" section coming straight out, blending into the LE taper, maybe from R-8 to the tip. The CG is shown to be at former #3, front of the canopy...if that's accurate, the front leadout as shown is an inch and a half behind, seems like it might need to come forward maybe even close to an inch more. That puts it exiting the wing just beyond R-8. Roger has a good point. Adjustables might not be a bad idea if we can make 'em light enough.

--Ray

Roger Vizioli · « **Reply #147 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:50:47 AM »

Frank, Ray,
I have lots going on right now. My K-9 training/competing hobby is in its high activity time of year. While I have retired my "guy", I am assisting others to get ready for the Regionals and National Championships.
However - I am going to try to set aside time each day to try to build along with you. should be fun.
My 1/2A Pathfinder and Barecat need some company!

Roger

frank carlisle · « **Reply #148 on:** February 13, 2007, 10:04:52 AM »

Quote from: Roger Vizioli on February 13, 2007, 08:50:47 AM

Frank, Ray,
I have lots going on right now. My K-9 training/competing hobby is in its high activity time of year. While I have retired my "guy", I am assisting others to get ready for the Regionals and National Championships.
However - I am going to try to set aside time each day to try to build along with you. should be fun.
My 1/2A Pathfinder and Barecat need some company!
Roger

I mailed you a set of plans and a copy of the nagazine article Roger. It's in the mail now.

And Ray I mailed you a copy of the magazine article. It's in the bin with Roger's stuff at the Post Office.

Let's not worry about the leadouts right now. Once we get to them we can always dangle the plane and see where they want to be.

As per the LG. Probably if you weighed both the wire gear and the aluminum gear once each was ready to install there would be very little difference. I think if the bottom block was pre shaped we could cut out the section that covers the gear and put it back on once the model was built and close to finishing.

About the cowl hold down-----we could always mount it like we did on the Snapper.

I think the wing spars would be strongest if they were placed in the slots so that the 1/16 portion was the glue surface for the wing sheeting.

Roger Vizioli · « **Reply #149 on:** February 13, 2007, 10:40:31 AM »

Thanks Frank.
Now I have a reason to clean off the bench.

Roger