Announcement

**zeke** · 02-21-2007, 06:33 AM

Re: Do you need to use a wind tunnel ?

The TSII, got a bigger pic, that one is a bit small to see much. Looks a lot like a Mustang, based on that or is it your own design?

**First time Juke** · 02-21-2007, 06:57 AM

TS II_project

This was a co-operative design with several aafo/pylon-1 people some years ago.

I did some planning and drawing for it while learning to use Acad program. Since the plan has changed, but the original model has not been redone nor flown.

Here are the original ( no 99 ) and the more advanced design on paper.

I have become better modeller as well after that one...at least acquired tons of tools etc. I am also in better shape...since my back pains are virtually gone...hair has turned little more gray though.

Plane is now basically 6 feet shorter in span and lenght than a Mustang...also the lenght and span are somewhat opposite than those of Tsunami...since the fuel is in the wings instead of the fuse.

If everything went smoothly the model could go 110 mph...no more with those props and engine I am about to have soon ( except in a dive ). If you multiply that with 12 you get the picture how fast my reflexes have to be in order to survive the piloting ordeal of that kite. Teoretically it flies well beyond scale Mach 1,0 !

Attached Files

**deepsky** · 02-21-2007, 07:13 AM

Re: Do you need to use a wind tunnel ?

Takes me back to the pylon1 days.

**First time Juke** · 02-21-2007, 07:23 AM

Re: Do you need to use a wind tunnel ?

I hear you Deepsky,

I remember chatting hours with Matt Williams and Mark Kallio etc.

"Area rule" and "ram air effect" of the scoop were under discussion...Matt was very concerned about how the canopy would operate...he insisted racing canopy 100%. Eric A. wanted a lot more aspect ratio for the designed wing and totally dumbed my downward pointing winglets and the V-tail of one stage...and I am happy he did...aspect ratio is now little better too. I think Eric okayed the flying tail ( which the r/c model does not have ) and the NACA inlets.

I was concerned about the overall concept staying in proportions. Still foil and several other questions are open.

**Stevo** · 02-21-2007, 02:48 PM

Re: Do you need to use a wind tunnel ?

Originally posted by deepsky

Takes me back to the pylon1 days.

I still have my Pylon1 username and password in my secret password book.

**zeke** · 02-21-2007, 04:18 PM

Re: TS II_project

Originally posted by Juke

This was a co-operative design with several aafo/pylon-1 people some years ago.

Here are the original ( no 99 ) and the more advanced design on paper.

Nice machine, it even looks fast.

I'm sure there's been a bit of work involved there. What are some of the reasons, design features of the model? Naca scoop, wing sweep on leading edge only etc. Is it the ultimate for what a racer could be designed for with a current unlimited motor (ie WWII engine)?

**First time Juke** · 02-22-2007, 12:02 AM

Re: TS II_project

Originally posted by zeke

Nice machine, it even looks fast.

I'm sure there's been a bit of work involved there. What are some of the reasons, design features of the model? Naca scoop, wing sweep on leading edge only etc. Is it the ultimate for what a racer could be designed for with a current unlimited motor (ie WWII engine)?

Thanks for the compliments Zeke !

I think the design feature has been like in the Tsunami..to make smallest possible ( well flying ) tractor layout. Some dynamic features has been kept at all cost...some sweep, ram air, area rule, laminar foil, big dia prop ( two blades only ? ), flying tail, naca scoop, big spinner, smallish wheels in the gear to save weight and room...this sorta considerations.

This is a lot bigger than a Me 209 R, but considerably smaller than a Mustang. I increased the wing after seeing the model in 1/12 scale and decreased the rudder size + enlarged the radiator inlet room..also lifted the elevator higher into less turbulent air and shortened the fuse just a tad...this will need a heavier and sturdier stabiliser for the rudder.

All in all..most used design feature was...if it looks good it'll be ok.

Function is the key issue also...no compromise was allowed.

I remember reading the Fritz Wendel comment on flying the Me 109 R...It was a monstrosity to fly..I would not like to fly such a beast even as a model. Certainly TS II would not be flown from grass fields and a 3 point landing is also a no no. The landing will happen at high speed otherwise it will certaily drop the wing...or stalls through.

**First time Juke** · 02-22-2007, 03:56 AM

Re: Do you need to use a wind tunnel ?

It was the William Green book Augsburg Eagle that tells Fritz Wendel saying something like ..VICIOUS LITTLE BRUTE.. about the tiny record braker of 2300 hp.

Available in book stores;

Green (William)The Augsburg Eagle A Documentary History. Messerschmitt Bf 109,
illustrations, small 4to., fine with dust wrapper, Revised Edition, 1980

I think if one wants to see a very fast good looking small racer it would be the Heinkel He 100D v8..the record braker racer..it had some 1800 hp ( 1776 hp ) and still lost only marginally to 209R.

Heinkel He 100 - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_100

INSERT;
The 601R was then put in the aircraft on January 8, 1939, and moved to a new course at Oranienberg. After several shakedown flights, Hans Dieterle flew to a new record on March 30, 1939, at 746.6 km/h (463.9 mph).

He 100 D V8 needed less than 2,4 hp for each kilometer per hour whereas 209R needed more than 3 hp...and top speeds are nearly identical.

The fighter version looked pretty cool;

http://airwar.hihome.com/gwp/he100/gwp-he100_1.jpg

Funny, but Ernst Heinkel planned a fast interceptor for a DB603N ( 2750 hp ) engine and estimated it would have gone 880 km/h ( 540 mph ). To reach that he figured he needed 3,1 hp per each km/h !

**zeke** · 02-23-2007, 12:45 AM

Re: TS II_project

Originally posted by Juke

I think the design feature has been like in the Tsunami..to make smallest possible ( well flying ) tractor layout.

Does remind me a bit of Tsunami. Personally I like the look of a Mustang like racer/warbird without the scoop underneath, ala Stilleto,Anson Johnsons Race45

Reminds me a bit of some design I saw a while ago (Maybe called Intrepid?), only saw some computer drawings of it tho.

Are you going to fly it as an R/C?

**First time Juke** · 02-23-2007, 04:49 AM

Re: TS II_project

Originally posted by zeke

Does remind me a bit of Tsunami. Personally I like the look of a Mustang like racer/warbird without the scoop underneath, ala Stilleto,Anson Johnsons Race45

Reminds me a bit of some design I saw a while ago (Maybe called Intrepid?), only saw some computer drawings of it tho.

Are you going to fly it as an R/C?

Intrepid was least in my mind when drawing this.

I tried to fly it 7 times with the new, but unreliable engine. I just came from postal office and I have another brand new engine that I am going to modify to pull 4 K rpms extra ( 19 000 => 23 000 ) to really make it move and to be sure the next attempt is not missing rpms the plane needs and is designed for. I built the model to withstand lotsa Gs and therefore it is heavier and has more wingloading than most of my 1/12 air combat models...I have had a Mustang that weighed 1050 grams a same weighing Zero and a super heavy 950 grams Me 109..all flew tour de force, but the Zero was over the top with 1,4 hp .21 OPS pulling the 1030 gram Zero at power to weight ratio 1,36 hp/kg..this exceeds the power to weight ratio of the Rare Bear...normal fighters flew at 0,5 hp/kg. The speed Heinkel He 100D V8 had about 0,74 hp/kg power to weight ratio.

My Zero experiment really made me humble when concerning the issue of brute power. It was equipped with a 9/5 three blader and it literally skyrocketed into the clouds from the hand launch...I gently pulled the elevator stick and I got visual of it...plane was size of a fly s*** in the windscreen...after few aileron moves I got the idea which way it was there..upside down..luckily the engine vibration shook of the carburettor and the engine quit...I had no time to even think to touch the throttle...I was literally shaking when I brought the kite down to the fairly large area between a runway and a taxiing route in the local AF base after hours and I still managed tip stall it and it hit a taxiing lamp and wing broke on the first flight. After that I have never ever put bigger than a .15 engine on that size plane...a T-Bolt would need an even bigger .25 engine..but with 0,6-0,7 hp ( half of the OPS output ).

Since that I have flown 250 flights with several Mustang and Me 109 models so I think I should be ok with the TS II near 1/1 hp/kg power to weight ratio and ......I have learned how to use the throttle since.

The minus 25 degree Celsius weather here prohibits any attempt in near future. Later in the summer is the moment for the TS II to show, if it is any good.

**First time Juke** · 02-23-2007, 08:39 AM

Demise of the 1/12 scale Zero with 1,3 hp/kg P-W ratio !

If interested.

I flew about 10 flights with the Zero after the wing repair.

The end came in a classical way. I had not fixed the plastic material Perry carburettor in the OPS and time to time it got loose hanging in the end of the pushrod.

I tought I'd be lucky and took the Zero to a local civil air field that is closed on winters. Engine was running well and always started immediately and the sound was like F-84H Thunderscreech at 28 000 rpms...the overly heavy Zero ( 39 oz ) climed at 60 degree angle to about 150 feet and suddenly the engine quit. There is really nothing you can do in that situation.

It was high enough to pick momentum after the stall and really broke into fairly small pieces on the frozen ground.

If there is anything to learn from those 16 years ago happened early experiments with small ( scalish ) models it is that luck has to be kept minimum when you are about to take into the air with your craft.

-----------------------------

My comment on the Intrepid is based on that last notion...anything not really proven to work is a risk...a big risk...eventhough the idea itself could be interesting and in fact excellent.

**zeke** · 02-24-2007, 03:37 AM

Re: TS II_project

Originally posted by Juke

Intrepid was least in my mind when drawing this.

My Zero experiment really made me humble when concerning the issue of brute power. It was equipped with a 9/5 three blader and it literally skyrocketed into the clouds from the hand launch...I gently pulled the elevator stick and I got visual of it...plane was size of a fly s*** in the windscreen...after few aileron moves I got the idea which way it was there..upside down..luckily the engine vibration shook of the carburettor and the engine quit...I had no time to even think to touch the throttle...I was literally shaking when I brought the kite down to the fairly large area between a runway and a taxiing route in the local AF base after hours and I still managed tip stall it and it hit a taxiing lamp and wing broke on the first flight.

The minus 25 degree Celsius weather here prohibits any attempt in near future. Later in the summer is the moment for the TS II to show, if it is any good.

Thanks, interesting to know how it went (all of the different models). I agree that sometime there can be to much power for a design, or that the excess causes to much other problems in so many areas to make it not worthwhile. Heard some of the Radials that race cause some problems from the massive torque they generate trying to twist the motor from it's mounts. So then there are numerous other issues that arise from that/trying to combat the problem.

Now anything further on what happened with Intrepid? Just checked the archives on here and it seemed like a very promising design. I can see the design features that are different and similar to your own TSII. Would love to see either as a full size racer. Agree too Intrepid had some good, but unproven designs on it. Wonder how they would have worked in a real aircraft.

Hope it all goes well with the Flying of TS II when it's warmer. Where in the world are you living? -25C is freezing. Can you tell I don't live in a place that gets to cold.

**First time Juke** · 02-26-2007, 03:00 AM

Re: TS II_project

Originally posted by zeke

Hope it all goes well with the Flying of TS II when it's warmer. Where in the world are you living? -25C is freezing. Can you tell I don't live in a place that gets to cold.

Thanks Zeke,

I am living close to polarcircle in the northern Europe.
We have notised theat some miniservos cease to operate at -20 C.
Here is the pic of the .15 size engine that I think is suitable for TS II attempt. It is the identical engine with the 1/11 scale Sabre model engine that propels an old fashioned ducted fan unit with a tuned pipe..expect the starter and mounting is different.
In Sabre it turns 23 000 and 19 000 rpms with that regular muffler.

rgds,

Juke

Attached Files

**First time Juke** · 02-26-2007, 10:08 AM

1/12 scale Zero with 1,3 hp / kg P-W ratio !

Originally posted by Juke

Engine was running well and always started immediately and the sound was like F-84H Thunderscreech at 28 000 rpms...the overly heavy Zero ( 39 oz ) climed at 60 degree angle to about 150 feet and suddenly the engine quit.

Just wanted to give you some idea what an engine that makes the prop tips go well beyond supersonic looks like.

This says the marine version of OPS goes as far as 39 000 rpms.

http://www.tconl.com/~sjcarte/new.html

Here is more about the high performance model aviation engines;

F3D Pylon Racing: Engines

http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/pylon_engines.htm

The .15 OS I purhased costs only fraction of those biggies ( and does apparently not reach the supersonic speeds for the props tip )...but costs 2,5 times more than the previous engine ( on TS II ) and nearly triples the output.

There are a lot of engines for models...unlike for the unlimiteds.

Announcement

Do you need to use a wind tunnel ?

Do you need to use a wind tunnel ?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment