Post by: Paul Taylor on November 13, 2024, 03:26:53 PM
If so what is the setup?
Retracts ?
Should be much easier to start. 😎
Post by: Gary Dowler on November 14, 2024, 06:20:19 AM
Post by: Ken Culbertson on November 14, 2024, 06:25:27 AM
Ken
Post by: Paul Walker on November 14, 2024, 09:27:19 AM
Both original B-17's have flown electric and one smaller 720 in^2 test plane to gather data for the new bomber that is now under construction.
The new one will be 700 in^2. The plans are 95% done. Critical parts have already been built. All the info is in a spreadsheet, as in every piece of wood, control systems landing gear motors, batteries etc. This is to check the weight and balance prior to construction..one of the critical parts is the vertical tail. 12 grams were estimated for the entire vertical and rudder. It came in at 13 grams. The HT was also close to the estimate as well. That was close enough for me to start overall construction.
There is no schedule for this one. It will fly only when fully ready. Hopefully that wil be sometime in later 2025.
Post by: Paul Taylor on November 14, 2024, 12:56:08 PM
In fact I have flown 3 different electric powered 4 motor planes.
Both original B-17's have flown electric and one smaller 720 in^2 test plane to gather data for the new bomber that is now under construction.
The new one will be 700 in^2. The plans are 95% done. Critical parts have already been built. All the info is in a spreadsheet, as in every piece of wood, control systems landing gear motors, batteries etc. This is to check the weight and balance prior to construction..one of the critical parts is the vertical tail. 12 grams were estimated for the entire vertical and rudder. It came in at 13 grams. The HT was also close to the estimate as well. That was close enough for me to start overall construction.
There is no schedule for this one. It will fly only when fully ready. Hopefully that wil be sometime in later 2025.
Cool Beans!!!
At least show us pictures for those that enjoy B-17’s.
What plane are you going to represent.
The Memphis Belle would be a good choice. 😉
Post by: Paul Walker on November 14, 2024, 11:32:44 PM
Am leaning towards a natural aluminum model.
Time and weight will tell!
Post by: Lauri Malila on November 15, 2024, 01:09:11 AM
Post by: Matt Neumann on November 15, 2024, 08:09:38 AM
Have not decided which to use as the basis for the paint.
Am leaning towards a natural aluminum model.
Time and weight will tell!
I remember us talking a bit a couple of years ago on this subject. You were working on getting the weight down and was thinking of a C or D model to try and save weight. So I am now curious, which model?
Post by: Paul Walker on November 15, 2024, 09:58:35 AM
The target weight is 70 oz (1980g)
Post by: Paul Walker on November 15, 2024, 10:12:23 AM
I had enough trouble wiring a twin even with Bob Hunt's help. I can't wait to see how he wires a quad!
Ken
The basics of the wiring is not the issue. The second one was wired based on the take apart "pieces"
There are two esc's attached to the inboard wing half, two on the outboard half. The arming plug and switch are mounted on the aft section of the fuselage and the battery in the forward fuselage section. All these pieces have to come apart for transport, thus....there are a lot of connectors in that system. Also, there is a single timer that runs the motors. Several Y conne tors that also have connectors. Since this was a retrofit, space is limited. That arrangement was a test to verify functionality and "ease" of use. The one pain with this is having to change settings in the esc's. Since they are all connected to one timer and a single on/off switch the switches on three esc's were removed and a connector in its place. The other side of the connector can be attached to an on/off switch. This is necessary for adjusting each timer. Change one, move switch to the next, change settings until all are changed. It tried it the simple way and it didn't work....
The new one will be a one piece plane so many of these connectors are not necessary, thus simplifying things
Post by: Ken Culbertson on November 15, 2024, 11:51:17 AM
The basics of the wiring is not the issue. The second one was wired based on the take apart "pieces"Thanks for the explanation. I have resorted to toggle switching the ESC2/Timer port on the Fiorotti and it took the better part of a day to get all of it right without any smoke on a twin. I can only imagine how long it took to figure all that out on a quad. Sometimes I miss the simplicity of setting the needle valve.....but not for long.
There are two esc's attached to the inboard wing half, two on the outboard half. The arming plug and switch are mounted on the aft section of the fuselage and the battery in the forward fuselage section. All these pieces have to come apart for transport, thus....there are a lot of connectors in that system. Also, there is a single timer that runs the motors. Several Y conne tors that also have connectors. Since this was a retrofit, space is limited. That arrangement was a test to verify functionality and "ease" of use. The one pain with this is having to change settings in the esc's. Since they are all connected to one timer and a single on/off switch the switches on three esc's were removed and a connector in its place. The other side of the connector can be attached to an on/off switch. This is necessary for adjusting each timer. Change one, move switch to the next, change settings until all are changed. It tried it the simple way and it didn't work....
The new one will be a one piece plane so many of these connectors are not necessary, thus simplifying things
Ken
Post by: Doug Moon on November 15, 2024, 02:47:39 PM
The basics of the wiring is not the issue. The second one was wired based on the take apart "pieces"
There are two esc's attached to the inboard wing half, two on the outboard half. The arming plug and switch are mounted on the aft section of the fuselage and the battery in the forward fuselage section. All these pieces have to come apart for transport, thus....there are a lot of connectors in that system. Also, there is a single timer that runs the motors. Several Y conne tors that also have connectors. Since this was a retrofit, space is limited. That arrangement was a test to verify functionality and "ease" of use. The one pain with this is having to change settings in the esc's. Since they are all connected to one timer and a single on/off switch the switches on three esc's were removed and a connector in its place. The other side of the connector can be attached to an on/off switch. This is necessary for adjusting each timer. Change one, move switch to the next, change settings until all are changed. It tried it the simple way and it didn't work....
The new one will be a one piece plane so many of these connectors are not necessary, thus simplifying things
This will be most excellent! Hopefully pics will be available along the way. Cant wait to see it.
Post by: Dan McEntee on November 15, 2024, 07:38:07 PM
It will be an E/F version.
The target weight is 70 oz (1980g)
The B-17 has been modeled a lot through the years, mostly R/C but I would hazard a guess that you have the record for C/L variants!! When ever I think of the B-17 I always think of the earlier versions, the prototype 299 through the D with what some call the Shark Rudder with no dorsal fin. I think almost all of those were natural aluminum polished out with colorful red, white and blue national markings. I guess I fell in love with that by watching the movie "Air Force" that follows a crew delivering one of the B-17s that flew into Hawaii and Peral Harbor in the middle of the attack. Great cast and great shots in it. The subject plane was an early B-17C I think, and was in olive drab but typical prewar national markings. I loved the part where they invented the tail gunner position by sawing off the tail cone and installing a single .30 caliber machine gun I think. When I first saw the article on the Mathis Excalibur and saw that rudder, the Boeing 299 was the first thing I thought of!! Their isn't much structure back there, and very little side area which raises some plus and minus questions on building that version. But I'll give my vote for a polished aluminum E/F model!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Post by: dave siegler on November 16, 2024, 07:33:10 PM
all the same speed? Do the inboards run a little faster?
Post by: Walter Hicks on November 17, 2024, 01:27:49 PM
Post by: Paul Walker on November 17, 2024, 04:30:45 PM
What direction are the motors turning? All the same way?
all the same speed? Do the inboards run a little faster?
Every test I have run so far had them all turning the same way. This new one will do the same to start.
As far as motor speed, I would not do what you suggested. It is about the last thing it would need. If anything motors 2 and 3 might be the same speed in level flight but power up more in maneuvers than 1 and 4 will.
Post by: dave siegler on November 17, 2024, 08:35:19 PM
Every test I have run so far had them all turning the same way. This new one will do the same to start.
As far as motor speed, I would not do what you suggested. It is about the last thing it would need. If anything motors 2 and 3 might be the same speed in level flight but power up more in maneuvers than 1 and 4 will.
OK great. I am developing a timer/ controller with a MEMS sensor. iIt adds power in maneuvers and turns off the power if you nose over or crash. I may try a multi-engine this winter.
Post by: Paul Walker on November 18, 2024, 01:51:44 PM
OK great. I am developing a timer/ controller with a MEMS sensor. iIt adds power in maneuvers and turns off the power if you nose over or crash. I may try a multi-engine this winter.
Multi motors are fun to work with. Hope you have as much fun as I have have!
Post by: Paul Taylor on November 18, 2024, 07:35:49 PM
Or a video. 👍🏼
Post by: Paul Walker on November 19, 2024, 09:52:42 AM
Some of us are still waiting on pictures. 😉
Or a video. 👍🏼
Not much to see currently. Just a VT, HT and ribs cut.
Post by: Paul Taylor on November 19, 2024, 03:57:05 PM
Not much to see currently. Just a VT, HT and ribs cut.
👍🏼
Getter-Dunn 🤣
Post by: Matt Neumann on November 19, 2024, 05:11:59 PM
Not much to see currently. Just a VT, HT and ribs cut.
I personally would be interested to see how you make the fuselage and then your alignment jigs. Normal people have to only align one engine. You get to align 4 on the same plane. Be interested to see that jig. I am going to assume molded fuselage but there seems to be many different ways to molding these days. The fuselage is not really standard shape.
Post by: M Spencer on November 19, 2024, 10:27:00 PM
Post by: Paul Walker on December 14, 2024, 10:51:58 AM
Not hard, just a bit tedious.
Big hole in front will be the ESC bay.
Post by: Paul Taylor on December 14, 2024, 02:27:27 PM
Post by: Ken Culbertson on December 14, 2024, 05:44:19 PM
Ken
Post by: Paul Walker on December 14, 2024, 07:07:20 PM
Paul, what motors are you using and do you have tunnels built into the wing for motor wires. I am guessing you have nearly 10' of wire in that wing. What gauge?
Ken
The motors will be BA 2310-1220.
There are aluminum tubes from the LE cutout to each nacelle. They can be seen on the photo where they exit the LE sheeting.
The wire will be either 16 or 18 gage. I am not home right now or I would go look at the test plane.
Post by: M Spencer on December 15, 2024, 08:14:14 PM
Some P & T wire used for a rear mounted battery , in the mighty Cortina ! was ALUMINIUM .
The Thought Occured , Aluminium Wire Would Be Lighter . and as theres a bit of it there ,
it could be appreciable . Might have to alumn. Braze the fittings . Low Temp rods .
This'd keep the cows out ! ( theres other stuff on the picture thing .) https://www.amazon.com.au/GearIT-Gauge-Wire-100ft-Each/dp/B095C3GJ3H?th=1
(https://fieldguardian.com/cdn/shop/products/AF1650_dddd2ed0-8bbc-49cc-8639-eec657b9ee30_grande.jpg?v=1595346954)
Now , If you used it for LINES , the plane'd be a lot lighter . ;) :(
Post by: Matt Neumann on December 16, 2024, 05:46:52 PM
The motors will be BA 2310-1220.
1220 kV? Wow seems high from what I normally see. What props are you using and how big is the battery and how many cells?
Post by: Paul Walker on December 18, 2024, 12:11:47 AM
The motors will be BA 2310-1220.
1220 kV? Wow seems high from what I normally see. What props are you using and how big is the battery and how many cells?
There are limitations in this. The first one is the Jeti Pro 22 ESC's. They can only tolerate 17 volts. This limits the battery to a 4S.
With the need to power up in maneuvers, the KV needed is arou f 1200, thus the ones I have selected.
In the new B-17-3, I will use at 4S4500 45 amp battery. I have test flown a test plane and verified that this will work. The old big bomber likely will require motors of at least 1500 KV as the weight will require more rpm in maneuvers.
As far as props, the new one should use APC E 8*6. They too have been tested. That test plane weighed 85 ounces, flew at 5.9 laps and still did maneuvers! The big bomber uses APC E 9*6 props. They both sound really cool as they are so balanced in level flight.
More fun to come!
Post by: Steve Thompson on December 18, 2024, 04:31:38 AM
Faster on the inside wing? All the same? All close but intentionally slightly different?
Is resonance significantly less of a concern with electric vs reciprocating and disregarded?
If I am peaking behind Oz's curtain, an entertaining answer is fine.
Post by: Dan McEntee on December 18, 2024, 07:04:41 AM
There are limitations in this. The first one is the Jeti Pro 22 ESC's. They can only tolerate 17 volts. This limits the battery to a 4S.
With the need to power up in maneuvers, the KV needed is arou f 1200, thus the ones I have selected.
In the new B-17-3, I will use at 4S4500 45 amp battery. I have test flown a test plane and verified that this will work. The old big bomber likely will require motors of at least 1500 KV as the weight will require more rpm in maneuvers.
As far as props, the new one should use APC E 8*6. They too have been tested. That test plane weighed 85 ounces, flew at 5.9 laps and still did maneuvers! The big bomber uses APC E 9*6 props. They both sound really cool as they are so balanced in level flight.
More fun to come!
So, it will be a single battery and single speed controller for all four motors? That's what I was curious about. I'm not sure how to ask the next question?? The number 1 and the number 4 motors are fairly far apart, and flying different distances around the circle. When doing maneuvers, the airplane will try to wind up in any wind, so how does that affect those two motors, which I think are loading and unloading at different rates? One might be close to wind milling and the other loaded and pulling, even just by a little bit? In your test flying, that didn't cause any kind of funny yawing effect/
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Post by: Paul Walker on December 18, 2024, 09:32:48 AM
Each can be adjusted independently. Will eventually learn if that will help OR NOT.
Multiple motors can NOT run on one ESC, unfortunately.
BTW, on the first IC bomber engines 1 and 4 used 1.0 ounces of fuel, engine 2 used 1.5 ounces and engine 3 used 2.0 ounces. That is a pretty significant difference. Yes, I moved the engines around to different locations to verify it was not an engine issue.
So 1 and 4 seem to do the least amount of work!
Post by: Dan McEntee on December 18, 2024, 03:22:56 PM
Nope. Four ESC's are required. One for each motor
Each can be adjusted independently. Will eventually learn if that will help OR NOT.
Multiple motors can NOT run on one ESC, unfortunately.
BTW, on the first IC bomber engines 1 and 4 used 1.0 ounces of fuel, engine 2 used 1.5 ounces and engine 4 used 2.0 ounces. That is a pretty significant difference. Yes, I moved the engines around to different locations to verify it was not an engine issue.
So 1 and 4 seem to do the least amount of work!
I think you have a typo. You mean that #3 used 2 ounces of fuel? That is interesting!!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Post by: Matt Neumann on December 18, 2024, 03:36:47 PM
I think you have a typo. You mean that #3 used 2 ounces of fuel? That is interesting!!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
I agree with the typo. What would be interesting but a bit difficult (and a bit expensive) would be to have 4 different battery packs. One for each motor and see what the usage is per motor location.
Post by: Paul Walker on December 19, 2024, 09:10:14 AM
I agree with the typo. What would be interesting but a bit difficult (and a bit expensive) would be to have 4 different battery packs. One for each motor and see what the usage is per motor location.
Yes, and clearly heavier. Weight is critical here, so this is not an option.
Post by: Matt Neumann on December 19, 2024, 09:41:06 AM
Yes, and clearly heavier. Weight is critical here, so this is not an option.
One option that I did just think of is you could take the temp of each of the motors right after a flight. It would be somewhat reasonable that the ones that use more juice would be warmer. Might not be super accurate but at least it might give you an idea.
Post by: Paul Walker on December 19, 2024, 03:28:41 PM
One option that I did just think of is you could take the temp of each of the motors right after a flight. It would be somewhat reasonable that the ones that use more juice would be warmer. Might not be super accurate but at least it might give you an idea.
It really doesn't make any difference. I still need a battery big enough to run all four.
The first bomber converted to electric had four batteries, one in each nacelle. The plane flew fine. In fact it was very similar to the IC version. There was a variation in how much each motor used and it was not unlike the fueled version. The problem with this attempt was the batteries were no where big enough for a full flight.
The new smaller bomber will use Igors new timer with Jeti Spin 44's on motors 2 and 3. Motors 1 and 4 will use Jeti Pro 22's. These do not respond as fast as the Spin versions, but they are on the two motors which do less of the work. I do not need an ESC bigger that 22 amps, but the 22's are not available in the Spin versions, so I had to go to 44's to get that functionability.
But, not sure I really care who is doing the hard work. As long as it flies well, a non issue. However, if the wrong one used too much, how would I change that? They are all running the same rpm, so not sure what could be done if the rpm is to remain the same. They sound so good when four motors are in perfect sync. It seems to quiet down when they sync like that.
On a worse case scenario, I can use two separate timers. One for 2,3 and one for 1,4. I can run agresstve settings on 2,3 and flat on 1,4. Small weight penalty for tha
Post by: Doug Moon on December 20, 2024, 10:07:18 AM
>>>
On a worse case scenario, I can use two separate timers. One for 2,3 and one for 1,4. I can run agresstve settings on 2,3 and flat on 1,4. Small weight penalty for that
That seems like the BEST case scenario.
Post by: Matt Neumann on December 20, 2024, 03:29:35 PM
It really doesn't make any difference. I still need a battery big enough to run all four.
The first bomber converted to electric had four batteries, one in each nacelle. The plane flew fine. In fact it was very similar to the IC version. There was a variation in how much each motor used and it was not unlike the fueled version. The problem with this attempt was the batteries were no where big enough for a full flight.
The new smaller bomber will use Igors new timer with Jeti Spin 44's on motors 2 and 3. Motors 1 and 4 will use Jeti Pro 22's. These do not respond as fast as the Spin versions, but they are on the two motors which do less of the work. I do not need an ESC bigger that 22 amps, but the 22's are not available in the Spin versions, so I had to go to 44's to get that functionability.
But, not sure I really care who is doing the hard work. As long as it flies well, a non issue. However, if the wrong one used too much, how would I change that? They are all running the same rpm, so not sure what could be done if the rpm is to remain the same. They sound so good when four motors are in perfect sync. It seems to quiet down when they sync like that.
On a worse case scenario, I can use two separate timers. One for 2,3 and one for 1,4. I can run agresstve settings on 2,3 and flat on 1,4. Small weight penalty for tha
Out of curiosity, is the Spin versions a specially made version for this application or an off the shelf version? I know they are faster than the non spin version.
Post by: Paul Walker on December 20, 2024, 03:54:10 PM
It makes his timer sing!
Post by: M Spencer on December 25, 2024, 02:01:20 AM
Control line 2000 Landres in France , video .onyouuu tuuubbe .
His handle there is " revive001 ".
As thisis a clockworkcompuputer, it wont copy & paste . New spring Fitted ! S?P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZztngCrnuE
Alligator is at 42'00 odd (engine run up ). Flight around 1- 32 -00.
The B 17 .
Sorry.No Alligators . THIS is a lot clearer than the other one on there offitt . As Kaz has used a camera , once or twice , before .
ALSO his tape of your 88 Nats . on his playlist there . = " Control line 1988 US NATS "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egLlx6MQCmQ
Post by: M Spencer on December 25, 2024, 02:27:17 AM
The alignment will be superior .something like that. Anyway .
Post by: Paul Walker on December 25, 2024, 12:12:45 PM
Post by: M Spencer on December 25, 2024, 03:41:38 PM
The motors will be BA 2310-1220.
There are aluminum tubes from the LE cutout to each nacelle. They can be seen on the photo where they exit the LE sheeting.
The wire will be either 16 or 18 gage. I am not home right now or I would go look at the test plane.
sorry . id read this as the nacelles were aluminum tube ,and dithered on fromthat.
Ths Electric ,you me ntion a ' silver finish ' , obviously with nooil ,plainsilver basecoat
gets it airborne .So the ' finish / can be done at liesure.
Post by: Paul Walker on January 08, 2025, 04:23:06 PM
All 4 nacelles made. Next step is to make the fuselage.
Just that simple......
Post by: Crist Rigotti on January 08, 2025, 04:31:47 PM
Post by: M Spencer on January 08, 2025, 08:04:39 PM
Post by: Paul Taylor on January 12, 2025, 08:17:04 AM
Update.Oh Wow!!!(https://media2.giphy.com/media/oYtVHSxngR3lC/giphy.gif)
All 4 nacelles made. Next step is to make the fuselage.
Just that simple......
Post by: Ken Culbertson on January 12, 2025, 09:54:49 AM
But why not a Spin Pro 44? It seems that the weight differential between a larger 4s battery and a smaller 6s would be about the same.
I am also dying to see how you got 4 ESC's crammed into that hole in the wing LE.
Ken
Post by: Paul Walker on January 12, 2025, 10:43:37 AM
Yes I am using 4S batteries. I will use at 4S 4500 to start with. I heard that there are new batteries that will take that to 5400 mah capacity for the same weight. Time will tell if I need those.
But weight is critical. The 44's weigh around another ounce than the 22's. I am spending considerable time perfecting the fuselage mould so the fuse shells can be 1/16" iso 3/32. It has a long tail so this becomes more critical. I have to keep the weight down if this is going to be more than an interesting thing because of its shape. I want it to fly well!
Motor testing to date indicates they are sufficient along with a 4S configuration. First tests were on the number 1 B-17 with 4 independant power systems. It was to verify the motor size. It flew just like the IC version but the 4 individual batteries could only give me 2 1/2 minutes on a charge. The 2nd big B-17 has a central 4S 4200 battery feeding 4 ESC's etc. With the motors in it ( Park 480's) the KV was too low to produce any meaningful boost. The third test shop was a 725 in^2 Impact. 4 profile nacelles were added. It flew originally with the smallest BA motors available. It could fly at 5.1 sec laps but had no room for boost. Could not maneuver at all. Switched to a higher KV motor and tried again. This time it flew at 5.9 sec laps and could do many of the maneuvers. A 4S4200 LiPo was powering it. It was not a great test article as it weighed 85 ounces. Weather closed in up here before more testing of battery capacity could be done. But using info from those flights indicate that it had enough capacity and then some for a complete pattern.
Based on these tests I will be starting with BA 2310-1220 motors. I can jump to 2310-1660 motors if needed with no significant weight penalty.
Time will tell, but am anxious to fly it. The 85 ounce Impact version had plenty of power even at 5.9 to do a pattern. Now, back to the shop!
Post by: Ken Culbertson on January 12, 2025, 12:24:17 PM
Ken
Post by: Doug Moon on January 12, 2025, 03:32:13 PM
Post by: M Spencer on January 12, 2025, 09:55:46 PM
fudge : https://stunthanger.com/smf/sina-goudarzi-3-views/w/
or under W there . https://stunthanger.com/smf/sina-goudarzi-3-views/
a 3 view of Mr Walkers Aeroplane . or Airplane . Think of the time saved not having to clean oil from four engine bays .
Post by: Paul Walker on January 13, 2025, 09:37:59 AM
I see a Mustang tail in the background. Is that plane still flyable?
Yes it could.
Post by: Dave_Trible on January 13, 2025, 12:38:47 PM
Dave
Post by: Steve Helmick on January 13, 2025, 01:55:58 PM
Post by: Paul Walker on January 14, 2025, 09:51:25 AM
The new ones are balsa laminate. It turned them on my lathe (aka a drill press) and when done weighed 2.5 grams each. With the electric power, and the way the motors are mounted, there is not as much overhang as with the carbon ones.
Working now on the fuselage shell mould, and then the assembly fixture. Fun times...
Well, not really. Just tedious....
Post by: Crist Rigotti on January 14, 2025, 04:28:39 PM
Check your PM.
Post by: Doug Moon on January 14, 2025, 05:57:00 PM
Yes it could.
If it needs a new home I will pay the shipping! :) :)
Post by: Howard Rush on January 15, 2025, 01:24:26 PM
It happens that I know who made the CF cowls for the #2 airframe (Howard), and also the guy that machined the aluminum pattern that the CF cowls were made from (me). I would not be surprised if Paul could easily adapt CF cowls, but my recaller says they were 10g apiece, which sounds light until you multiply by 4.
Just another way I set the B-17 project back. I should have had you make that pattern in halves so I could make a hard mold in halves. I made a silicone mold so I could get the parts out. The vacuum bag pressed the cloth weave into the mold, leaving a bumpy part, to the dismay of the finishers. If I’d done it right, that cowl would have been lighter and blown farther.
Post by: Steve Helmick on January 15, 2025, 03:44:46 PM
Just another way I set the B-17 project back. I should have had you make that pattern in halves so I could make a hard mold in halves. I made a silicone mold so I could get the parts out. The vacuum bag pressed the cloth weave into the mold, leaving a bumpy part, to the dismay of the finishers. If I’d done it right, that cowl would have been lighter and blown farther.
I recall asking if you wanted a slight draft angle on the cowl diameter, but that idea was declined. I envisioned that you'd make a fiberglass splash off the aluminum plug and then mold all 4 (+) cowls in that.
The first time I worked at Boeing ('65!), I worked in the fiberglass shop in Mockup, Renton plant. All the resin we used was epoxy. The most horrible thing we had to make was FG "P.I.E." award plaques. "Pride In Excellence"...or at least, that was what we were told! LL~ The funnest project was the cowl LE ring for the C-5A mockup. Molded that (about 9' diameter through the bore) with a lap-joint, and removed the ring from the mold about like an orange peel. Sometimes, when parts just didn't want to come out, a small hole was drilled and an air nozzle held against it did the trick. H^^ Steve
Post by: Dave_Trible on January 15, 2025, 04:11:22 PM
Dave
Post by: Steve Helmick on January 15, 2025, 07:37:31 PM
Back (way, way back) in the days I was a BIA boat designer getting 19-24 foot boat hulls out of the molds was done by doing just that- we'd jam an air nozzle into the mold flange and pump air until the hull broke loose. Sometimes that took a while, maybe 20-30 minutes to get enough air worked between the surfaces.
Dave
Where possible, a Schraeder (sp?) valve (aka tire valve stem) or pipe fitting (or 6) could be epoxied into the mold, so you could hook up air hose(s) to the mold and really get some umph between the part and mold. We sometimes did that, and plugged the divot(s) with wax. Bee's wax, IIRC. D>K Steve
Post by: Paul Walker on February 02, 2025, 12:21:41 PM
Aft fuse shells on. WFA installed, and removable HT mounting in place. VT there for the photo op.
Now to build the remainder of the aft fuse which is the lower aft hatch and Vt install along with the tail gunners greenhouse.
Then on the the forward fuselage. It is removable to access the electronics bay and battery mounting.
Post by: Doug Moon on February 02, 2025, 10:06:51 PM
Post by: wwwarbird on February 02, 2025, 10:10:03 PM
Post by: Paul Walker on February 03, 2025, 08:27:03 AM
Looking great, an awesome project. It may have already been mentioned, but what's the wingspan/area?
65" span
700 in^2 area
Post by: wwwarbird on February 03, 2025, 07:40:26 PM
65" span
700 in^2 area
Wow, interesting, nearly identical to my 64"/704 square PBY. Enjoying watching this build, the original IC one is one of the coolest C/L models of all time. y1
Post by: Paul Walker on February 03, 2025, 07:55:13 PM
Wow, interesting, nearly identical to my 64"/704 square PBY. Enjoying watching this build, the original IC one is one of the coolest C/L models of all time. y1
Thanks.
I liked it except for the speed it had to fly at. This new one shouldvresolve that issue!
Post by: Brett Buck on February 03, 2025, 08:00:55 PM
Thanks.
I liked it except for the speed it had to fly at. This new one shouldvresolve that issue!
Didn't the first one fly a lot slower than the W/C airplane?
Brett
Post by: Dan McEntee on February 03, 2025, 10:19:43 PM
Thanks.
I liked it except for the speed it had to fly at. This new one shouldvresolve that issue!
Can I asked what lap times were and line length, just out of curiosity? I always imagined that you were right out there as far as you could go at 70 feet on a model that big.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Post by: Paul Walker on February 04, 2025, 08:53:37 AM
Can I asked what lap times were and line length, just out of curiosity? I always imagined that you were right out there as far as you could go at 70 feet on a model that big.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Yes, I am on 70's, and it is big
Lsp times were 4.8 to 4.9 many times. At over 100 ounces that becomes oppressive.
Post by: Paul Walker on February 04, 2025, 08:58:13 AM
Didn't the first one fly a lot slower than the W/C airplane?
Brett
A lot...no...some...yes.
It had engines on tanks and could power up a little in maneuvers, thus allowing somewhat slower lap times. Plus that was the lighter of the two, at least when new.
The sound might have helped as well.
Post by: Dan McEntee on February 04, 2025, 10:15:21 AM
Yes, I am on 70's, and it is big
Lsp times were 4.8 to 4.9 many times. At over 100 ounces that becomes oppressive.
You don't say!! n~ n~ I only got to see you fly one of them at a NATS, ( not sure of the year, Sean was flying Senior then) and I could tell that it was pretty intense!! I have flown some of my own at 70 ounces and that's manageable. I had Walt Brownell's Typhoon that while the airframe only weighed in the upper 50 ounce range, by the time I added in the OS .70 four stroke, prop and such it got to about 82 ounces. The airplane turned quite well for that weight, but it had to be flying at exactly 5.2 seconds on 70 foot lines for it to be some kind of comfortable to fly a pattern. I had a heck of a time trying to find the right prop and I'm not sure I did. That plane is hanging in someone's hanger now. I still want to do a twin and have a Sheek's Mosquito in mind, but I'll leave the four engine stuff to you more adventurous guys!! Thanks!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Post by: Ken Culbertson on February 04, 2025, 10:18:38 AM
The sound might have helped as well.There is always this: 3.5grams (that does not include the grain of salt) LL~
https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256805556941544.html?gatewayAdapt=glo2usa4itemAdapt
I am curious, in the last picture it appears the inboard nacelles are mounted but the outboard are not. If they are mounted how will the covering attach? Never mind - I was using a low resolution for the pix. Expanded I see the place for the covering.
Ken
Post by: Paul Walker on February 04, 2025, 06:33:10 PM
There is always this: 3.5grams (that does not include the grain of salt) LL~
https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256805556941544.html?gatewayAdapt=glo2usa4itemAdapt
I am curious, in the last picture it appears the inboard nacelles are mounted but the outboard are not. If they are mounted how will the covering attach? Never mind - I was using a low resolution for the pix. Expanded I see the place for the covering.
Ken
They are all there. I can see them in that picture.
What is missing is the forward fuselage. One last mould in work for that.
Post by: Doug Moon on February 04, 2025, 07:30:12 PM
You don't say!! n~ n~ I only got to see you fly one of them at a NATS, <<<
Dan McEntee
We were there that year too. Me and Bob G were sitting off the edge of circle 4 in the grass and PW is getting ready for a practice flight. Bob says "I cant wait to see this..." Grinning ear to ear. I'm saying the same thing as this would be my first time to see it fly. Flight starts like clockwork and looking solid at 4'. Over the top for the RWO and out at 4'! As it comes by Bob says in a very surprised voice "I thought for sure that rudder was coming off at 4'!" He was chucking like a little kid, me too. We both intently watched the whole flight as were many others. After it was over he shook his head and smiled real big. We watched alot of other flights that day from that spot but that was the flight that got the most reactions and comments out of him. He really liked watching that plane fly, I did too. That is one of my favorite nats memories and there are many but that one stands out pretty good. Thanks.
Post by: wwwarbird on February 04, 2025, 07:40:41 PM
Lap times were 4.8 to 4.9 many times.
It's a C/L "Combat" plane though, the ones I've seen are way faster than that! :##
Post by: wwwarbird on February 04, 2025, 08:01:51 PM
At over 100 ounces that becomes oppressive.
100 ounces at that speed is COOKING! y1
I can sort of relate, my PBY is 82 ounces and ended up real happy on 68 foot lines. That gave lap times around 5.2-5.4. It was a really fun airplane but definitely demanded your attention. I didn't consider it oppressive, a VERY firm pull, but with the four-strokes it was consistent and quite manageable. Mainly, before giving the signal, I just had to be doubly conscious of establishing a good solid grip on the handle. Not a "panic" grip, just firmly and comfortably situated. From there it rolled out like it was on rails and gave a helluva ride!
Post by: Paul Walker on February 05, 2025, 09:31:19 AM
It's a C/L "Combat" plane though, the ones I've seen are way faster than that! :##
Yes, but they don't weigh over 100 ounces!
Post by: wwwarbird on February 05, 2025, 06:50:22 PM
Yes, but they don't weigh over 100 ounces!
You got me on that one! H^^
Post by: Ken Culbertson on April 24, 2025, 10:24:20 AM
Ken
Post by: Brett Buck on April 24, 2025, 10:57:57 AM
Update.
All 4 nacelles made. Next step is to make the fuselage.
Just that simple......
I just looked at the wing carefully - that's some airfoil you got there! That makes my wing look perfectly normal and reasonable. Scale is a NACA 0018, that looks like a NACA 0028.
Brett
Post by: Paul Walker on April 24, 2025, 07:08:11 PM
All ink lines done. Awaiting weathering. Then clear.
Hope to make it it GSSC in Oct.
Brett, the chord is rather long where the wing looks so thick. Not at all 28%.
Post by: wwwarbird on April 24, 2025, 07:28:02 PM
Awesome. What's the nose art?
Post by: Ken Culbertson on April 24, 2025, 07:34:43 PM
Ken
Post by: wwwarbird on April 24, 2025, 07:42:39 PM
This is by far the most impressive stunt ship I have ever seen.
Ken
You've never seen the world famous IC version? Coolest Stunt model of all time IMO. y1
Post by: Paul Walker on April 24, 2025, 08:18:13 PM
Awesome. What's the nose art?
It is modeled after the "Knockout Dropper. Flew 75 missions. One of only two to have survived from the first deployment of B-17's in England.
So the name is there with a "Dropper" dispensing bombs.
Post by: Paul Walker on April 24, 2025, 08:20:48 PM
This is prior to all ink work being finished on nose section.
Post by: wwwarbird on April 24, 2025, 08:47:17 PM
Nice, commemorating actual history. H^^
Post by: Ken Culbertson on April 24, 2025, 09:24:41 PM
You've never seen the world famous IC version? Coolest Stunt model of all time IMO. y1I have seen the pix and several videos. This one is still #1.
Ken
Post by: Claudio Chacon on April 25, 2025, 09:00:56 AM
Which is the projected weight?
Thanks,
Claudio.
Post by: Dan McEntee on April 25, 2025, 09:35:26 AM
Here is nose art.
This is prior to all ink work being finished on nose section.
If you were to look at the old magazine from the WW-II period, they always had several plans for several kinds of models. There was always a plan for a solid scale model, and the plan showed that window and opening details were just dark patches like this, as for a solid wood model there was no way to make 3 dimensional lazed windows at that time. I have always found that kind of old school neat looking, the way the were presented in the magazines. Looks like it might have just jumped out of the pages of Air Trails magazine! 75 missions was quite a record, and I wonder how many original crew members made it that far? I think it was 25 missions before being rotated home for crew members in the early days of the war, but that requirement increased as the war drug on.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Post by: Ken Culbertson on April 25, 2025, 10:18:40 AM
I think it was 25 missions before being rotated home for crew members in the early days of the war, but that requirement increased as the war drug on.My uncle flew some B-17s and mostly B-24s out of Italy and Libia in WWII and B-26s in Korea. He was a navigator/bombardier. He kept a fuse safety pin from each mission in WWII. I counted 46 but he was still deployed when the war ended so I think you are right. I think he flew somewhere around 50 in Korea. He never got over the low-level strafing and napalm missions in the B-26. My father was on a destroyer at Normandy and his other brother was a tank commander with Patten. All three came home without a scratch.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Ken
Post by: Paul Walker on April 25, 2025, 12:59:42 PM
Another stunning, awesome plane, Paul!
Which is the projected weight?
Thanks,
Claudio.
Around 70 ounces.
Post by: M Spencer on April 25, 2025, 09:27:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo2Y52AgijI
Post by: Doug Moon on April 28, 2025, 04:47:02 PM
Post by: Paul Walker on April 28, 2025, 11:26:32 PM
I'm curious how you paint it. I have been using a paint stand for my models forever. But this one has no center motor mount??
Good observation. The main fuse/wing assembly has to be done one side at a time. It sits on a "table" with foam over it covered by a picnic plastic sheet all held down by clamps.
The nacelles are not strong enough to cantilever it like a normal plane. I knew this problem was coming, but put off the solution until I couldn't procrastinate any longer...
Post by: Paul Taylor on April 30, 2025, 10:09:54 AM
Norm Faith worked on the restoration years ago when she was still in Memphis.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250430/fa6c0691097ba2239377a7174e8e45fc.jpg)
Post by: wwwarbird on April 30, 2025, 08:31:45 PM
Waiting for some finished pics sitting on the wheels, it's gotta be close. :)
Post by: bill stavros on April 30, 2025, 08:47:19 PM
Bill S
Post by: Paul Walker on April 30, 2025, 11:21:32 PM
Hope to fly it by September.
Post by: wwwarbird on May 01, 2025, 09:13:17 PM
Awesome, looks great! September??? What's the holdup?
Post by: Paul Walker on May 03, 2025, 07:46:01 PM
Awesome, looks great! September??? What's the holdup?
I have a multitude of tasks waiting for my attention at the WSR.
Post by: Howard Rush on May 04, 2025, 01:54:10 PM
Post by: Paul Taylor on May 04, 2025, 09:08:10 PM
As a person confronting a mere five acres of unruly biology, I understand.
Buy some goats, problem solved. Or maybe just another set of problems. 🤣
Post by: Steve Berry on May 05, 2025, 07:45:05 AM
Buy some goats, problem solved. Or maybe just another set of problems. 🤣
And remember, if the goats start to become a problem...
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YcJRkx0OC7I/maxresdefault.jpg)
Steve