Whoaaa! Chines!

My gosh, how am I going to make a fuselage with a cross section like this? The "chines", 1st cut:

[photo not recovered: 40d3a3e97fdc939a.jpg]

I "kinda" see what I need to do, but have not hit on the mathematical rules for making the cross sectional view.

But Stealth is so studly that I can't NOT do it, guys!

[photo not recovered: 40d3a60a02e71274.jpg]

Remember, the magnificent SR71 is my inspiration for this ship!

I'm not there yet..

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -Benjamin Franklin

You draw it up in CAD, mold the top and bottom shells, and use bulkheads. In the center of the nose just make a normal engine crutch. Paint it black, fly it at night, and even if the neighbors hear it, they won't know what it is.

If ever a fuselage cross-section called for CF or F/G laminated construction, this is it! Maybe you need to correspond with Windy ? ? ?

I really want to see in-process photos. This is gonna be one fantastic bird!

(Edit) I think I like Leonard's answer better, but note the timing . . .

>If ever a fuselage cross-section called for CF or F/G
>laminated construction, this is it! Maybe you need to
>correspond with Windy ? ? ?
>
>I really want to see in-process photos. This is gonna be one
>fantastic bird!
>
>(Edit) I think I like Leonard's answer better, but note the
>timing . . .

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Larry:

If you can carve the buck,you can mold it in balsa!I'm not blowing smoke ,I'm serious.It's alot easier than you think!Carbon,glass,kevlar,been there done that.the only way to get light and strong is with very sophisticated techniques,not the least of which is matched molds,or,at the very least,female molds.Balsa is easy,light ,strong and inexpensive.Unless you plan to mass produce this fuselage I wouldn't even consider any thing else.

Do you really want the chines not to line up with the wing centerline?

>My gosh, how am I going to make a fuselage with a cross
>section like this? The "chines", 1st cut:
>
>I "kinda" see what I need to do, but have not hit on the
>mathematical rules for making the cross sectional view.
>

The old fashioned method of planking with balsa strips over formers would work here if you do not want to go to the trouble of making forms to make balsa or composite shells.

Did you mean Chinese instead of Chines? Not another arf!

NICE plane, but let me make a suggestion!

Throw the "old engine up the front" rule out the window.
and do it properly..
Look at the picture and think..

2 x saito .72's

mmmmmm yes.. now thats a stunt ship.

Sometimes I wonder if Larry just spends his days lurkin' around, looking for the right moment to post his fancy stuff...

What engine is that, Larry?

Ion

"The race isn't given to the swift nor the battle to the brave, but that's the way to bet..."

Aero .51, Ion.. (available in DXF or DWG, from the Autocad library, download on the PAMPA web site).

[photo not recovered: 40d489f92ada0cfd.jpg]

(Como vai, Amigo?)

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"After the last of 16 mounting screws has been removed from an access cover, it will be discovered that the wrong access cover has been removed." -de la Lastra's Law

"After an access cover has been secured by 16 hold-down screws, it will be discovered that the gasket has been omitted." -de la Lastra's Corollary

>
>I "kinda" see what I need to do, but have not hit on the
>mathematical rules for making the cross sectional view.
>
>But Stealth is so studly that I can't NOT do it,
>guys!
>
>You don't need no stinking mathematical formulas. Studly is more than sufficient reason!

Not to seem negative about a beautiful design, but at high angle of attack won't those chines induce separation over the root area?

PROBABLY, Bill!

Clearly, there's no compelling reason to make a fuselage like this, and it will probably be the biggest turkey in history. But it will be *interesting*, won't it?

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives." -Albert Einstein

>PROBABLY, Bill!
>
>Clearly, there's no compelling reason to make a fuselage
>like this, and it will probably be the biggest turkey in
>history. But it will be *interesting*, won't it?
>
>Wrong, there is a very compelling reason. It is going to look bitchin!!

I subscribe to the rule: Workee it may, Lookee, it MUST!

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"If competitive advantage can be achieved from just-in-time participatory management styles, then bottom-line oriented organizations can better facilitate their gain-sharing systems to network for the new global technologies. At my company, for example, detected casualties fluctuate between generic niche discontinuities and complementary enculturative yield functions." -Harvard Business Review article

Sure there is a reason!! It looks great, and it's art!! Appearence points???

Just an observatuion Matt.

Larry,

>>But it will be *interesting*, won't it?<<

Man, how many times have I said that.

Next year, I plane to build a Bernie Ash Supersonic Stunter for classic. Looking at the thing, I can't imagine it will be very competitive, but it will certainly be interesting.

Actually, the chines on the F-16 promote lift by energizing the airflow over the inboard portion of the wing. I would think the chines could very well be beneficial.

Hi

If this is a one off, I'd go the fastest simplest and easiest way to build.

(It'll be interesting to see what my engine and tank mounting ends up..)

I know a way, not sure it is the best way, however.

Thanks to everyone for your interest and encouragement.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don't try." -Beverly Sills

Really? That's interesting. It seems I always learn a little something new about aerodynamics here.

My recollection of the F-16 design was that the fuselage/wing *strake* was an evolved concept learned from experience with the Swedish Viggen, and that the key to the idea was to change the usually smooth-blended forebody to a *sharp* edge (meeting the sharp wing leading edge), to increase the strength of the vortice for additional lift. My comment about Larry's beautiful design was based upon the softness of chine edge, and it's blending into the wing away from the separation line. I thought these factors might result in a series of small vortices, and a zone of *low energy* turbulent air quite unlike the smooth swirl that curls around the F-16 fuselage/wing root blend area.

That said, I still love the looks of the whole model. For me it has the visual appeal of a Tom Warden design.

Son of a gun, Bill, you're treading on classified information here!

Warden's Continential was my original inspiration for the wing perimeter shape of my Special Effects ship and I "evolved" the Stealth wing perimeter shape from that.

Also, Warden's gorgeous Minado has those exaggerated curved flap root fairings. And the front of the cowl inlet shape might relate too.

As for the sharpness of the chine edges, this is not set yet, I was experimentally trying a radius of 1/4", but this could be sharper.

It would seem that I might refer to this as a "hull" rather than a fuselage, and one suggestion has been to define a keel and build on that. I have no doubts I can make an acceptable surface shape, my problem is that it may end up excessively heavy. At best, it has a much larger surface area, and the way I paint, that in itself make it heavy.

At this point, I'm only in the data gathering stage. Drawings can be changed.. (and probably will).

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"The course of true anything does not run smooth." -Samuel Butler

Well, now you've really got me hooked. Wardens models made me drool, and now that I know your new effort will at least somewhat evoke that design impression, I can't wait to see it finished. You realize, don't you, that a shape that sensuous calls for the ultimate miles-deep finish!

Al, any thoughts on the Bob Palmer Skyscraper and its inboard wing root L.E. additions? The received wisdom I've heard is that they are detrimental to flying characteristics, (and an advantage structurally). It seems to me they may be considered as vestigial chines? And therefore not an aerodynamic disadvantage?

What a beauty...I love the cross section. I like the small windows in the cockpit as well. May we see the rest of the drawing??

Matt (SoH)

I'm flattered.

While I'm coming clean on "stolen" shapes, the wheel pants are (almost) a la Road Runner.

[photo not recovered: 40d6fd2921a7827a.jpg]

There's the drawing so far, which I posted earlier.. (It's not completely correct, don't look too closely.)

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Half the work that is done in the world is to make things appear what they are not." -E.R. Beadle

Go with sharp. Easier to build. Lighter.

Al's explanation of how chines work is how I heard it from Dave Benepe, a free-flighter who designed the F-16 chines, as I recall. I think he also said that chines should be sharp-edged.

Lining them up with the wing and tail centerlines might be most effective, too. Maybe make the model an inline type like some of Jimmy Casalle's?
Chris...

Chris,

Therein lies the problem. I can't deal with clobbering my nose outline by dropping the engine inline with wing, so I might try moving the wing up to the centerline, like this:

[photo not recovered: 40d7d42a0cd788a9.jpg]

Somehow that doesn't work for me, however. But give me time.. That helps the alignment problem on chines and wing and stab, however.

Wonder what that would do to the vertical CG? Seems like my favored wing mounted gear begins to suck. I've never favored the fuselage mounted gear, but maybe I need to free up my thinking..

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"I keep tryin' to think and nothin' happens!" -Curly Howard

Sharp looks better as well, Al!

[photo not recovered: 40d7be017adc66ea.jpg]

(It's mathematical now too.)

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"You have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it." -George Bernard Shaw

Larry, what cad program do you use and why?

AutoCad LT 2000i..

I use it because I've been using AutoCad at work now for about 10 years and I'm (mildly) familiar with it. It is an academic (light) version, adequate for a casual user like me.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Expert: Someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing." -Nicholas Murray Butler