The same way all delta flying wings do... by making a LOT of drag. If a FA or an F106 (I prefer the 106 over the 102 cause I flew it for a few years 
) had a separate elevator behind the wing, it would create a given amount of lift at a specific Angle of attack.
Since the elevator is attached to the wing, up elevator changes the camber, changing the coefficient of lift (in the wrong direction) requiring an increased angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift in the above example. Increased AOA means increased induced drag.
The 106\102 were designed to go fast is a straight line. They did that very well. But, they didn’t turn worth a hoot. They would give one eye watering, high G, low turn radius “bat turn” but then they were done. That turn cost a lot of airspeed and then turn performance was mediocre at best.
Now, all airplanes suffer from this phenomenon, but a delta flying wing is doubly cursed: the low aspect ratio delta wing platform bleeds energy and it suffers from the change in camber making the problem worse.
The T-38 is perhaps the best example of a delta wing with a conventional tail. It bleeds energy almost as bad as the 106. There is a reason our stutters didn’t evolve to look like jet fighters.
Hey Bruce!!
I remember well the time you and your Dad were at the SIG C/L contest when we arrived one year, and knowing at that time that you had been in F-15's through the first Gulf war and some other endeavors, I asked you what equipment you were flying then and you said "F-106's" with a sly grin on your face! The only way I knew what you were talking about was that the company that was converting high time ex-Air Force fighters to target drones was at Alton Civic Memorial Airport in Alton Illinois at that time, and through some other contacts I heard that they were doing a batch of F-106 fighters. As the crow flies I live only about 15 or 20 miles from that airport, and they must have done any test flying out over central Illinois, as I never saw any in the sky in my travels in my area. We did hear an errant6 sonic boom form time to time, and that was more frequent at the time they were working on the 106. I'll bet that raises some eye brows when some one that is some what knowledgeable views your log books! The 102/106 was one of my favorite airplanes that doesn't have a propeller, as are all the Century Series fighters. I would love to see one of those in the air, along with a B-58 Huslter. I have long been a fan of flying wings and delta designs. If you know SIG products, you know the name Paul McIlrath from their rubber powered free flight models and other magazine articles. Hi son, Paul Jr., was frequently at the SIG contest flying stunt and judging. Paul Jr was lucky enough to have met and worked with Dr. Alexander Lippisch just as he graduated from college. I should have put your two together when you were there, but that is one problem with contests, the days are too short and there are never enough of them to get in all that you want to do. Thanks for jumping in to the thread and your information.
Brett;
Thanks for the explanation of the "wrong way camber" effect. On my first flights of the airplane, just round and round with an occasional loop, I think I only experienced the phenomenon on take offs and landings, and I did have the idea that it was just "a delta wing thing" and that it may have been just a tad tail heavy. It was only on the last couple of flights that I made wi8th it with a new handle and the nose weight that I tried to really hit the marks on the maneuvers, and I don't recall anything funny during the powered portions of flight. My next time out with it I will pay more attention on what is going on. On take offs, it seems to jump right into the air, and I haven't been able to get it to stay on the ground, and with slight down input trying to achieve that, it may be exhibiting that backward camber effect. On landings, the thing doesn't exactly have a great glide. I think I am pretty good at landings, but haven't gotten this airplane figured out. As soon as the engine quits it starts to slow down immediately, and as far as my memory serves me, its at a certain speed that it gets really squirrelly. It was a bit better with the extra nose weight, but more flights are needed. I think I am getting more comfortable with the airplane and have more confidence in it to be able to be more observant as I fly it. I realize that I will only get to a certain level of trim with this as it is presented to me, but my main interest is to keep the model as original as possible and fly it only occasionally because of what it is and who built it. I'm just thrilled to own it, and feel that it must be kept in flying condition in honor of who designed it and who built it.
I appreciate everyone's interest in it. I have long been a fan of flying wings and delta configuration aircraft. I built some scratch built gliders and such along with all the usual 1/2A combat kits we all did as a kid and read what ever I could on the subjects, what little I could really understand! I have flown a Berkeley Orbiting Ace, and I also have Half Fast plans and a kit by Walter Umland that I ought to throw together for some experiments, At one of the last SIG C/L contests, Mike Pratt had a new model that he was working on at the time that was a delta wing that he called 'Delta Force" that got my interest, but he has stalled on that project. The Half Fast could provide me with a platform for a simple test, and that is to find out just how little elevator area one would need for maneuvering? On this design and on all other similar designs, they have the elevator run the length of the trailing edge. It wouldn't be too hard to cut that down to about half, and see how that affects things, not getting any camber change on the outer half of each wing??. I would just use a Fox .35 or similar engine and it would even be legal for Classic if I were so inclined, and I would add the landing gear as the other example presented here has done.
I believe that Bill Netzaband lived here in the St. Louis area about the time that he designed some of his models including the Half Fast and the Fierce Arrow. Two members of our club, Gary Hajek and Paul Gedders were teenagers at that time and they say that Bill would often load up his car with them and their models and head off to contests. Sure would have been fun to go along on some of those trips! Paul emailed me and said that the original was painted in the same pattern as Mike's model but he remembers it being yellow in stead of cream. Either would look good. I have plans, bot the magazine plans and John Miller redrawn plans, for the 400 Fierce Arrow and want to do that in the same paint scheme. I had exchanged some emails with Bill about the model and some problems with the magazine plan and he suggested using a modern .15 in it instead of the .19 that is shown on the plan. I have yet to make that decision. Todd Lee built a 400 when he was in college and did pretty well in classic competition with it, and it's smaller size makes it easier to build, store transport and cheaper to build also.
Some one mentioned the engine run and yes, it does sound neat!! I have yet to remove the engine from the model but as far as I can tell, it's just an stock, early three bolt back plate Fox .35 with no muffler ears. running on what ever 5% nitro fuel I have at easy reach, and probably the last modification I will make to the plane will be some sort of exhaust stack to get the goo out of the engine compartment as much as possible. Gotta study how to do that so I don't butcher up the airplane, but do have some ideas, just need the time to spend on it.
Thanks again and keep comments coming!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Topic: Mike Gretz's Fierce Arrow (Read 3121 times)
