Beautiful model and finish, glad you can rebuild her and get her back into the air such a challenging and worth while model. I just love all the 50/60s jets. INSPIRING stuff!!,
Mike! I just saw the video of your 105 and Vance Gilberts' jet flying along. Yours was amazing as you couldn't see the pusher propulsion at all. We need another video of yours flying so we can see the whole thing. A thing of beauty. Great job! -Dan
This is proof of the rule of thumb. One square inch of wing equals one gram of flying weight, for sport flying and can help you get your 20 seconds of flight. Competition weight is half the wing area. Great video and awesome flying. It is fixable. :)
Thunderscreech was a completely different airframe, based on the F-84. My F-105 is from a Dumas kit, but there's a Rapier-powered stick and tissue F-105 plan here: www.ffscale.co.uk/plans14.htm. I used this plan as inspiration for replacing the Dumas plastic intakes.
Very nice work. A rule for prop size is the diameter should equal 1.5 times the square root of wing area. That is for tractor propellers. For tractor airplanes, the motor is up front so the CG is well forward. Jets have the motor midway, so the CG and wings are midway. One advantage is you can use a full length motor. In lateral balance, the propeller acts like a fin. Having both the propeller and fin at the back will be difficult to balance, hard to avoid a spiral dive. Might be better to put the prop up front. I notice you let the motor run down before launching. High turns has the highest concentration of energy. It is better to release the prop at the same time as you release the airplane.
Thanks - that rule seems to suggest a very large prop - more like you'd find on a duration ship than a scale model. It would suggest a ~13" prop for my F-105, which has a span of 15.4" and wing area of 75 sq in. I suspect that would lead to some unmanageable torque effects and would magnify the undesirable effects of the prop at the back of the model. As you note, launching this model is challenging due to the pusher prop and long fuselage. All part of the challenge and part of the fun.
@@michaelkelly7338Yes, that prop diameter is for duration. Propeller efficiency increases with diameter. This comes from William F. McCombs "Making Scale Model Airplanes Fly for Sport or Contests". I just checked the reference, on page 6.1 he says 1.5 x square root of wing area for non-scale duration models. On page 5.3 he has a graph and the formula is 0.75 times the wing area for greater than 180 square inches. This is under the sub heading FFS Outdoor Rubber Powered Models. Torque is determined by the motor cross section, not the prop diameter. The larger prop will be more efficient at turning torque into thrust, so may actually require less torque to generate the required thrust. But it will affect lateral trim.
If you invest in a compact zoom camera, you can get some really good up-close video of the whole flight, especially if you have dedicated cameraman and use a tripod. Two I have: Sony RX10 III (or IV); Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200 (pocketable). Neither is "cheap" but it could up your views.
Thanks - not too worried about view counts. I use the GoPro because it lets me video the flights hands-free without having to look through a viewfinder. My main reason for taking video is to be able to review the flights later for future trimming - this channel is just a part of the hobby for me.
Yes, scheme was printed on the dull side of silver Esaki tissue using an Epson Workforce printer with DuraBrite inks. I used GIMP and PowerPoint to edit the flight simulator graphics and format them for printing.
I’ve eyed that kit online many times with an idea to make a RC conversion. You did a fine job building yours. Hot damn, indeed!
Beautiful model and finish, glad you can rebuild her and get her back into the air such a challenging and worth while model. I just love all the 50/60s jets. INSPIRING stuff!!,
"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." W. Churchill. "Keep at it!" (me)... Happy New Year!
Wonderful challenge! Well done! I have chased Thuds, and that looked very realistic in the air! Great job, Mike!
Mike! I just saw the video of your 105 and Vance Gilberts' jet flying along. Yours was amazing as you couldn't see the pusher propulsion at all. We need another video of yours flying so we can see the whole thing. A thing of beauty. Great job! -Dan
Thanks Dan - it was a fun build and has been entertaining to fly. Vance's XB-51 has me thinking what might make a next good jet subject...
the absolute joy to see it fly!
all else is second.
Absolutely amazing jet. I really hope you repair and fly it again.
That thing looks so good in the air Mike, hope to see it up again before too long... and happy new year!
What a beautiful model, wow! I would love to see aerial footage of that chased by a small drone. Good luck with repairs!
Outstanding, even the crash. In the army we learned more from helicopter crashes than we did from anything else.
take your tine and repair it, congratulations for jour model. Impresonante!
Amazing model. Never thought a display model can be made to fly.
This is SO COOL, Mike. Really admire these attempts. Success indeed! -Dan
Thanks Dan - it's nuts but I'm having a lot of fun with it. Cheers - Mike
Absolutely brillant. I hope you will consider repairing that bird in the coming year.
Gorgeous model and a challenge to get good performance from it.
Great work!
This is proof of the rule of thumb. One square inch of wing equals one gram of flying weight, for sport flying and can help you get your 20 seconds of flight. Competition weight is half the wing area. Great video and awesome flying. It is fixable. :)
Fantastic looking model , such a shame that it ended with a crash 😢
Great project Michael. Very cool to see fly. Hope you can get it back in the air.
I've never tried free flight before but that was really cool.
Too bad it got busted up.
I love F-105's
Nice! Got plans? Would be cool to make a Thunderscreech out of this
Thunderscreech was a completely different airframe, based on the F-84. My F-105 is from a Dumas kit, but there's a Rapier-powered stick and tissue F-105 plan here: www.ffscale.co.uk/plans14.htm. I used this plan as inspiration for replacing the Dumas plastic intakes.
It was very realistic!
Very nice work. A rule for prop size is the diameter should equal 1.5 times the square root of wing area. That is for tractor propellers. For tractor airplanes, the motor is up front so the CG is well forward. Jets have the motor midway, so the CG and wings are midway. One advantage is you can use a full length motor. In lateral balance, the propeller acts like a fin. Having both the propeller and fin at the back will be difficult to balance, hard to avoid a spiral dive. Might be better to put the prop up front. I notice you let the motor run down before launching. High turns has the highest concentration of energy. It is better to release the prop at the same time as you release the airplane.
Thanks - that rule seems to suggest a very large prop - more like you'd find on a duration ship than a scale model. It would suggest a ~13" prop for my F-105, which has a span of 15.4" and wing area of 75 sq in. I suspect that would lead to some unmanageable torque effects and would magnify the undesirable effects of the prop at the back of the model. As you note, launching this model is challenging due to the pusher prop and long fuselage. All part of the challenge and part of the fun.
@@michaelkelly7338Yes, that prop diameter is for duration. Propeller efficiency increases with diameter. This comes from William F. McCombs "Making Scale Model Airplanes Fly for Sport or Contests". I just checked the reference, on page 6.1 he says 1.5 x square root of wing area for non-scale duration models. On page 5.3 he has a graph and the formula is 0.75 times the wing area for greater than 180 square inches. This is under the sub heading FFS Outdoor Rubber Powered Models.
Torque is determined by the motor cross section, not the prop diameter. The larger prop will be more efficient at turning torque into thrust, so may actually require less torque to generate the required thrust. But it will affect lateral trim.
One full size D model out of Thaland had a Polish pilot, he named his plane the Plish Glider😅
I like paint job and precise build. I would not risk rubber explosion, convert it for RC with qf009 su35 brushless guts.
If you invest in a compact zoom camera, you can get some really good up-close video of the whole flight, especially if you have dedicated cameraman and use a tripod. Two I have: Sony RX10 III (or IV); Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200 (pocketable). Neither is "cheap" but it could up your views.
Thanks - not too worried about view counts. I use the GoPro because it lets me video the flights hands-free without having to look through a viewfinder. My main reason for taking video is to be able to review the flights later for future trimming - this channel is just a part of the hobby for me.
Bravo bravo
Sorry for that😢
😁😁😁🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺👍
did you use inkjet printer for the covering and which program do you use
Yes, scheme was printed on the dull side of silver Esaki tissue using an Epson Workforce printer with DuraBrite inks. I used GIMP and PowerPoint to edit the flight simulator graphics and format them for printing.
looks like the migs were on its tail..yikes