Author Topic: New Profile Mustang "B" model for Tom Dixon (Read 5245 times)

Pat Johnston · « **on:** December 29, 2011, 07:43:41 AM »

My friend Tom Dixon requested plans for the "D" Mustang which he was going to use as a basis to modify for a "B" model. I figured that it would not take much time to alter the plans for Tom this way, so in a couple of hours, the plans came to life. The wing had to be changed to remove the leading edge "cuff", and of course, the fuselage got the "B" treatment. I show the optional dorsal fin in ghost lines as an option because some "B"'s were modified with this option. Personally, I like the looks of the broader side area and side area also helps us stunt people. Here are PDF files for you to gander.
Pat Johnston
Alterations Department
Skunk Works

Pat Johnston · « **Reply #1 on:** December 29, 2011, 07:44:57 AM »

Looks like the fuselage plan did not transfer. Here it is.
Pat

john e. holliday · « **Reply #2 on:** December 29, 2011, 09:04:31 AM »

Not enough hinges, need more.

Looks great and I like it.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #3 on:** December 29, 2011, 09:07:25 AM »

Change the title.

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #4 on:** December 29, 2011, 09:11:43 AM »

Excellent! That out to be a real "Looker", especially in Chrome Monokote.

Don Curry AMA 267060 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 29, 2011, 09:24:02 AM »

Howard did you forget the but wait? Now you can double the amount and pay extra shipping and handling.

Pat Johnston · « **Reply #6 on:** December 29, 2011, 10:01:32 AM »

Right, Doc. Plenty of hinges on the wing flaps.
Also, right on the title, Howard. Of course, just testing to see if you all were awake. You passed! I'll edit it.
Pat

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #7 on:** December 29, 2011, 10:21:21 AM »

And Pat strikes again,, what is this now, 400 designs LOL
another great looking design Pat,,
hows your spitfire coming along?

Pat Johnston · « **Reply #8 on:** December 29, 2011, 11:11:54 AM »

Mark,
Contemplating on sanding more primer this winter...
Fingers crossed! Legs too, if I don't hit the can soon.
Pat

Bill Little · « **Reply #9 on:** December 29, 2011, 11:51:27 AM »

Hi Brother Pat,

I love the design! Looks like it will be a great performing design.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Dan Bregar · « **Reply #10 on:** December 29, 2011, 04:14:38 PM »

What's not to like ! Full span flaps & lots of dihedral. Fits right in with the rest of his Air Force ! Plenty of clearance for the compeller. Beautiful !

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #11 on:** December 29, 2011, 05:55:26 PM »

Nice job Pat however from a stunt perspective if I were to build it I would locate the flap horn closer to the fuselage. That way the bellcrank to flap horn push rod would be straight. The slight bend in the flap to elevator pushrod could also be eliminated by making a small cut out (if necessary) in the inboard flap just deep enough to clear the (now straight) pushrod.

Pat Johnston · « **Reply #12 on:** December 30, 2011, 06:17:25 AM »

Good observation, Pete. Here is a shot of the latest development in profile control geometry with the Chipmunk I recently did. (PDF file to follow). Note how the bellcrank to flap rod is on the right side and the flap to elevator horns are on the left side. This has a few benefits. The first is that the linkage is a lot easier to manage without using one horn (flap) for linking the whole system. The second is that multiple moment arms can be employed to allow for more independent geometry. The most important is that the right flap will get a more positive control from the bellcrank and with a little inherent flex in the flap wire joiner horn, the left flap will have a very slight less deflection than the right flap. This is the equivalent of having a larger outboard flap, which many people consider a good thing. It is totally difficult to quantify this, but so is building a larger flap.
Another bonus is the visual appearance of not having the rear pushrod on the outside is also nice.
That is the gospel according to me.
Pat Johnston
Control Geometry
Skunk Works

John Stiles · « **Reply #13 on:** December 30, 2011, 07:02:03 AM »

Good lookin bird right there Pat, I've always loved the mustang, just never was able to make one balance right....the last one I built, I thought I had it figured out, and on the test flight...it was like all the others, add lead to the tail or nose over everytime on landing. I bet you have that perfected by now...huh?

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #14 on:** December 30, 2011, 08:43:07 AM »

Hi Pat, thanks for that explanation. I like the linkage setup on the Chipmunk and follow your logic regarding left vs right flap movement thru the joiner. I am going to rework one of my profile stunt planes to this configuration and try it for myself.

Dan Bregar · « **Reply #15 on:** December 30, 2011, 09:49:31 AM »

Pat

I noticed you had the same linkage set up on your FW-190 plan. Now I understand why. Makes sense to me. I guess this would be "the preferred set up" then.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #16 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:30:32 AM »

Pat and I talked several times about this setup, we agreed there is a level of "finesse" about this that sounds plausable.
I have this setup on my new Electrajet profile and am looking forward to seeing how it works out. It should make adjustments and linkage setup much easier. and as Pat mentioned, its cleaner with no pushrod on the judges side of the plane..
Leave it to Pat to come up with something simple... that makes sense,,

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #17 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:11:37 PM »

Well, it makes sense to me so I re-did the flap linkage on my well aged Brodak P-51. Easy switch, I think it will only help what is already a pretty good flying plane. Cut-out on flap could be averted if pushrod were bent. Also pushrod would be closer to the fuselage if it were a new build rather than a "quick and dirty" experiment. Second pic is before, first is after.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #18 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:51:30 PM »

Pete, what I do on mine is to use a ball link and put the ball link on the inboard side of the control horn, this usually will clear the end of the flap and not require surgery,,

by the way, nice mustang

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #19 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:08:50 PM »

Thanks for the idea Mark, - I just may do that before the test flight.

Pat Johnston · « **Reply #20 on:** January 03, 2012, 06:55:06 AM »

Love your Mustang, Pete. Here is one last thought about your pushrod. You may already have done it, but you can paint it to match the color and trim to hide its appearance. Did that on my QED and it looked like there wasn't a pushrod there. Also, the tank was painted to match the rest. Little touches add a lot.
Pat

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #21 on:** January 03, 2012, 09:25:34 AM »

Thanks Pat, I am looking forward to flying it with the new control system later this week. Good suggestion - I'll get to it before the spring flying season starts.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #22 on:** January 03, 2012, 02:26:53 PM »

Quote from: Pat Johnston on January 03, 2012, 06:55:06 AM

Love your Mustang, Pete. Here is one last thought about your pushrod. You may already have done it, but you can paint it to match the color and trim to hide its appearance. Did that on my QED and it looked like there wasn't a pushrod there. Also, the tank was painted to match the rest. Little touches add a lot.
Pat

Pat,
It must work ,, all this time I thought the elevators worked by magic or something,, cause I couldn't see the pushrod,, yuck yuck yuck,, I crack myself up sometimes,,,

Serious. the QED was a pretty cute model, it inspired my Gee Bee

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #23 on:** November 21, 2013, 08:01:42 PM »

Here it is, entry 12 onward refers to the two horn flap/elevator setup. Mustang plan has standard flap/elevator connection. Chipmunk has dual flap horn setup.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #24 on:** November 21, 2013, 08:39:20 PM »

Looking at the fuselage plan I see the flap rod ends are the same distance from the hinge line. I have done that with a ball link on each side of the metal flap horn with one bolt minus the stand offs. Nut is a nylock type. Even done it on the nylon horns.

Perry Rose · « **Reply #25 on:** November 22, 2013, 04:16:14 AM »

Pat is this the plans for the one Tom flew at Baton Rouge last month?

MrSteve09 · « **Reply #26 on:** November 23, 2013, 07:16:03 AM »

Pat,...

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I was really intrigued by your Chipmunk design. Would you happen to have plans for the wing in .pdf format that you can share??

Thanks!!

Steve T.

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #27 on:** November 23, 2013, 04:50:44 PM »

Pat,
How do I get full size plans?

Just as a comment, certainly not criticism, wouldn't the verticle CG be a little better with about 3/4 inch of dihedral in the wing...I think that's the way I will build it if I can get plans.

Randy Cuberly

Bootlegger · « **Reply #28 on:** November 26, 2013, 06:31:16 AM »

Pat what is the cost of a set of plans, and with my OLD eyes I couldn't see the span or area, so can you share that info?

Thanks a lot, Gil