F86-HPX-Sabre, By Rossco & IrvineJ

Rossco
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:16 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Australia, Brisbane
Contact:

F86-HPX-Sabre, By Rossco & IrvineJ

Post by Rossco » Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:14 am

Ok, have to put something up on this new project.

We have a couple to go up in this forum now, including several planes, boats and some video to come soon.

Great thanx and appriciation goes to James and all his work on these engines, equipement and concepts.
Awsome things are on the way people, and in such a short time. Some of us have been slugging away at this game for years. Its all about the passion imprinted on every product. (play company jingle now, dah, dah, Irvine Aeropulse...)

This one is not through the design or testing stage, although it is looking pretty good so far, if i do say so myself.

Without further addo, i present the latest project.
F86-HPX-Sabre.....................
Attachments
render-rear.jpg
render-rear.jpg (23.93 KiB) Viewed 4599 times
render-separated-engine.jpg
render-separated-engine.jpg (30.32 KiB) Viewed 4599 times
render-top.jpg
render-top.jpg (25.66 KiB) Viewed 4602 times
Big-render.jpg
Big-render.jpg (21.44 KiB) Viewed 4919 times
Last edited by Rossco on Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
Big, fast, broke, fix it, bigger, better, faster...
Image

Irvine.J
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:28 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

F86-HPX-Sabre

Post by Irvine.J » Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:19 am

WOOT!
James- Image KEEPING IT REAL SINCE 1982
http://pulseairdefence.com
[url=callto://project42labs]Image[/url]

milisavljevic
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:36 am
Antipspambot question: 125

Re: F86-HPX-Sabre

Post by milisavljevic » Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:44 am


W-O-O-T, indeed! :o

A very, very, very nice concept, gentlemen. Beautiful renderings, Rossco. Too cool. 8)

Cheers!
M.
no safe haven for merchant scum


for ye merchants who do the prop'r t'ing only if
ye be haul'd-up on charges b'fore ye ship-mates
an' threat'nd wit' forfeiture of all ye precious loot
hear this - so-called stand-up guys YE BE NOT

avast!
Cap'n M.

Rossco
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:16 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Australia, Brisbane
Contact:

Post by Rossco » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:10 pm

Just a bit more tweeking.

Some cockpit mods (it wont be glass anyway, although it looks cool here).
Getting the weight down, big job!
Now to start adding auxilaries and fix CG with mounting equipement.
The section view explains the breathing port a little more. Notice the flare, for augmentation, moreso for drawing cooling air through the couling/fusalage than anything.

Rossco
Attachments
sectioned.jpg
sectioned.jpg (27.59 KiB) Viewed 4558 times
new-cockpit-side.jpg
new-cockpit-side.jpg (25.72 KiB) Viewed 4562 times
Big, fast, broke, fix it, bigger, better, faster...
Image

Eric
Posts: 1859
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:17 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by Eric » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:22 pm

Very cool guys, I think an aerodynamic cowl on the engine is going to improve performance greatly, even just half a sphere on the end cap would dramatically improve flow around the engine and hopefully improve stability.

Cant wait to see one fly!
Image

Talking like a pirate does not qualify as experience, this should be common sense, as pirates have little real life experience in anything other than smelling bad, and contracting venereal diseases

larry cottrill
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:17 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Mingo, Iowa USA
Contact:

Yes, Cool, But ...

Post by larry cottrill » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:03 pm

Yes, I agree this is a cool concept. Having flown jet models (U-control), I think some comments might spur some further design thinking, though.

From the standpoint of marketability, usability and liability, you have the problem that you're offering what is basically a speed model ("all engine") that LOOKS like a sport model. This is a very serious problem - this kind of model will be very appealing to possibly thousands of purchasers who will have no idea about the hazards of trying to handle a high-performance model craft. It will certainly be overpowered for anything resembling sport flying. Be aware, also, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to protect yourself from liability issues that arise. If you think a cleverly worded disclaimer is going to keep you out of court every single time life or property gets damaged by some incompetent (or unlucky) user, you are sadly mistaken.

From a purely technical standpoint, the relatively large volume occupied by the engine creates issues. You have little choice on where to park vital ancillaries, such as electrical power, control, landing gear (for those that want it) and a reasonable volume of fuel (and its associated pump, valve, and so forth). Again, your problem is trying to put too little airframe around your engine.

You certainly have a nice handle on how to get airflow for cooling. I'll attach a similar idea that I don't think I posted since I sort of wanted to be quiet about it. I'm not trying to be discouraging, for heaven's sake - I'd just like to see something I think I could actually fly, AND enough airframe to support the hardware that you'll really need to make it work! If the airframe is properly sized to make a sport flyer, you open up the possibility for true scale modeling for those that might be interested! That opens up another "niche" market for you.

Forge on, gentlemen - at least you're trying to get out beyond the "jet geek" community to a bunch of supposedly "ordinary" people that are willing to pay good money for a chance to have some real fun. Go for it!

L Cottrill
Attachments
Lady_Anne_ultimate_ram_shroud_augmentor.GIF
A full shroud around the Lady Anne engine, providing intake-driven full-engine cooling and heat recovery ramjet action. Latest in a series ;-) Drawing Copyright 2007 Larry Cottrill
Lady_Anne_ultimate_ram_shroud_augmentor.GIF (10.39 KiB) Viewed 4548 times

Rossco
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:16 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Australia, Brisbane
Contact:

Post by Rossco » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Hahaa, Bingo again Larry! It has been a while since we have had near exact drawings, even though being rather goegrphicaly distant. That must be about the 4th time!!!!

Im glad that you agree with my gap for drawing air, very encouraging!
Ill be building something similar for testing soon and will let you know.

Thanx for the tips on people that must sue everyone for there own misfortune/stupidity... very hard one to get around!

Now... about being a sports plane... i WISH!
I spent quite a few hours last night in the simulator, from the ground.
She is rather hard to handle for the novice RC pilot... i tested that one well!
Im remodeling now, for some compromise on handling.
The goal for this plane was not aimed at a sports plane though. I was after the most suitable and smallest airframe that would fit a valveless.
Any suggestions on model would be appritiated, although im hooked on the sabre now, and will try to fix this to be a flyer, rather than a missile.

Rossco

PS, i dissagree with how close your couling comes to the end of the tail pipe. Very hard to pursuade those pressure pulses not to feed air back up the wrong way! Ill be testing the closest position you can get it, although i would say that yours is far too close
This may be the issue with the intake arangement also... only testing in the real world will tell. Ill get a ball park in CFD and see what you think.
Big, fast, broke, fix it, bigger, better, faster...
Image

Rossco
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:16 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Australia, Brisbane
Contact:

Post by Rossco » Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:15 am

Eric, you think, even in the shroud that it would be that much an issue?

I do see that it is a great impedence to flow around the engine, although it should cause minor drag inside the couling?

As said, im working on a larger model. Im planing to have a cone in the front, still inside the couling, that actualy is mounting for the engine as well as streamlining the internal flow. I do like the look of that better.

Bigger plane... owwww, its disapointing me already.
The Sabre is ALL about being an engine with wings!
1:1 jet power to weight is proving troublesome to contol tho!

Rossco,
back at the drawing board........... (i miss my drawing board, im going to pull it out and try using a pencil again one of these days)

PS. ahhhhh, jumping to conclusions without looking at what is in front of me. Larry, you have adressed any rearward pressure/interferance from the intake. Compleatly isolated, as well as being just that much less steel.
I was thinking that it would be nice for the intake to be pulling from the foward section of couling as well? Push me-pull me. Too much to ask?
Big, fast, broke, fix it, bigger, better, faster...
Image

Irvine.J
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:28 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

F86-HPX Sabre

Post by Irvine.J » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:15 pm

Ok first of all its great so many of you like this concept!
I think if anything it will be a real basis to ascertain the viability of internally mounted engines using a design that should be reasonably accommodating.

Just so you know, this sabre is exactly scaled by rossco's superb rendering skills, to accommodate a single HPX. We debated fuel and ancillary electronics placement for some time. I am discussing with rosco currently a slightly increased fuselage length to bring the cockpit forward of the top of the CC;

As we have an unbelievable little pump from flightworks, the tiny unit (size of an AA battery at 140psi) with only 1.5 amps at 12V draw. we only need a small 12V lipo battery, receiver and ESC, (along with the pump) which could easily be housed in the cockpit section for easy access.
Heya Eric, yah we intended to put some sweet little noze cap, maybe run it all the way down to a spike at the front of the intake, as long as its not visable for aesthetic/original look purposes, or rossco will kill me! :)
This is a very serious problem - this kind of model will be very appealing to possibly thousands of purchasers who will have no idea about the hazards of trying to handle a high-performance model craft.
She'll be right mate ;)
It will certainly be overpowered for anything resembling sport flying.
Precisely!

Not to worried about liability issues yet larry, though I've got your invoice already printed up cause I know your gonna want one :D

Rossco and I are both quite keen on keeping it as original as possible, so the installment of 2 external drop tanks as the main fuel tanks will quite possibly take place. We have already sourced the appropriate fuel tanks to fit in the scale model. I know some will gasp, but I'd rather they detonate outside the aircraft then inside the wings, I recently watched a video of a Mk108 30mm hydrostatic shell detonating INSIDE a spitfire wing....NASTY.


Anyway. pic of the sabre with its fuel tanks attached.
I heard the other day about NASA pilots getting busted for flying drunk. and I couldn't resist...
Attachments
86-2.JPG
86-2.JPG (32.16 KiB) Viewed 4516 times
James- Image KEEPING IT REAL SINCE 1982
http://pulseairdefence.com
[url=callto://project42labs]Image[/url]

Jim Berquist
Posts: 1396
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:34 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: DEMING NM 88030

Sabre

Post by Jim Berquist » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:00 pm

That's going to be cool. How long of flight time are you looking at?

Wing Tip Tanks would be cool too!

Jim
Attachments
Saber.jpg
Saber.jpg (13.23 KiB) Viewed 4508 times
WHAT TO FRAP, IT WORKED![url=callto://james.a.berquist]Image[/url]

metiz
Posts: 1515
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:34 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Netherlands

Post by metiz » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:43 pm

I have absolutely nothing constructive to add to this so I'm just gonna go with : OMFG FRIGGIN' AWESOME! fame and fortune awaits you two in the future :wink:
Quantify the world.

larry cottrill
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:17 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Mingo, Iowa USA
Contact:

Issues and Answers

Post by larry cottrill » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:40 pm

Rossco wrote:Im glad that you agree with my gap for drawing air, very encouraging! Ill be building something similar for testing soon and will let you know.
As you mention later, the gap needs to be bigger to guarantee total lack of wave reflection back up the intake. Otherwise, I like your layout pretty well as an engine shroud. My disagreement is with its viability as a flyable airframe.
Thanx for the tips on people that must sue everyone for there own misfortune/stupidity... very hard one to get around!
...

Im remodeling now, for some compromise on handling.
The goal for this plane was not aimed at a sports plane though. I was after the most suitable and smallest airframe that would fit a valveless.
Any suggestions on model would be appreciated, although im hooked on the sabre now, and will try to fix this to be a flyer, rather than a missile.
Here's the deal: If you make it so only a handful of experts can fly it, you will be building a few of this "exclusive - not for everyone" type product and can charge a premium for them. That means they can (and must) be essentially hand crafted. On the other hand, if you can sell thousands, you can achieve "economies of scale" in your production - i.e. you can handle up-front fixed costs like die-making that will make production far easier. But remember, the lower cost and more easily available you make them, the greater number of incompetent idiots will try to fly them, and that's where your real problems come from.
PS, i disagree with how close your cowling comes to the end of the tail pipe. Very hard to pursuade those pressure pulses not to feed air back up the wrong way! Ill be testing the closest position you can get it, although i would say that yours is far too close
This may be the issue with the intake arangement also... only testing in the real world will tell. Ill get a ball park in CFD and see what you think.
Well, maybe - my plan is very simple to implement, because it's nothing but two cones kept round at the big ends and squished to ovals at the small ends where they're joined - so it would be VERY easy to try out. Now that I know I have a Lady Anne that will actually keep running, and a steel version that's easy to fiddle with, there's no reason I can't try this. The only headache is accurately measuring thrust figures "before and after".
PS. ahhhhh, jumping to conclusions without looking at what is in front of me. Larry, you have adressed any rearward pressure/interferance from the intake. Completely isolated, as well as being just that much less steel.
Exactly. Glad you noticed ;-)
I was thinking that it would be nice for the intake to be pulling from the foward section of couling as well? Push me-pull me. Too much to ask?
Looking at my plan again, note the line where the front shroud is cut away to expose the top of the intake, and the line where it closes in against the middle cone. Now, leave the line at the middle cone where it is, but rotate the forward shroud edge line upward so it runs along a little above and exactly parallel to the intake centreline. Make sure the shroud is bulged out around the bottom half of the intake for good airflow. As a final step, extend the rear edge of this section a little BEYOND the intake flare, and form it inward similar to the Melenric intake shroud rings (late model Thermojet designs) - we kind of need that anyway to prevent getting richer running at high speed. Voila!
Irvine.J wrote:We debated fuel and ancillary electronics placement for some time. I am discussing with rosco currently a slightly increased fuselage length to bring the cockpit forward of the top of the CC;

As we have an unbelievable little pump from flightworks, the tiny unit (size of an AA battery at 140psi) with only 1.5 amps at 12V draw. we only need a small 12V lipo battery, receiver and ESC, (along with the pump) which could easily be housed in the cockpit section for easy access.
All right, that strikes me as a good approach. A slightly scaled up fuselage will provide a LOT of extra room for all the stuff you need to carry. You will also need to get a buch of weight up in the nose - the Sabre, like many jet fighters before and since, is a very tail-heavy design. What you have shown will be practically unrecoverable in a fully developed spin, which means probably very poor recovery in case of cross-control stalls. As you know, it is VERY easy to stall on approach with an airplane having a very high minimum glide speed, which the design as shown would have.
Rossco and I are both quite keen on keeping it as original as possible, so the installment of 2 external drop tanks as the main fuel tanks will quite possibly take place. We have already sourced the appropriate fuel tanks to fit in the scale model. I know some will gasp, but I'd rather they detonate outside the aircraft then inside the wings...

Sounds quite reasonable (since you're pumping fuel), but here's a rule of thumb for you I used to use for the Dynajet: For somewhere around three to four minutes of engine run time, you will need a liquid fuel tank volume approximately equal to the combustion chamber volume! See if you can prove me wrong with the measured TSFC you're getting ;-) Don't forget to allow for the internal baffling of your tanks (or whatever you're doing to prevent fuel interruption). Remember, even if you have the nicest pressurized setup in the world, the first air gap running up the fuel line into the engine is still the end of powered flight.

L Cottrill

Rossco
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:16 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Australia, Brisbane
Contact:

Post by Rossco » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:01 pm

Larry, thankyou for your exceptionally thought out responce, as usual.
I shall try to follow your lead and not ramble.
...my plan is very simple to implement, because it's nothing but two cones kept round at the big ends and squished to ovals at the small ends where they're joined
Excelent. I have drawn up something similar, that i will attach. This would be more of a compleat internal implant or side/wing mounted assembly, rather than a combined fuselage. I had planned not to attach it to the intake as in your drawing, allowing the engine to be dropped into the couling, mounting the CC into the front cone, and clamped/spring mounted at the tail. I could isolate the intake from the front section by simply having the flare protruding slightly outside the couling.
All right, that strikes me as a good approach. A slightly scaled up fuselage will provide a LOT of extra room for all the stuff you need to carry. You will also need to get a buch of weight up in the nose - the Sabre, like many jet fighters before and since, is a very tail-heavy design. What you have shown will be practically unrecoverable in a fully developed spin, which means probably very poor recovery in case of cross-control stalls. As you know, it is VERY easy to stall on approach with an airplane having a very high minimum glide speed, which the design as shown would have.
Spot on Larry, there was some nasty consiquences here. We have spent much time now improving the flight of this little beast. As far as the model of a full sized Sabre i have flown in the simulator, they are quite horrid to fly... unless you are really moving. Energy fighters for sure. How they came out on top of so many migs i dont know. Just pilot skill? They had a 10/1 kill ratio on the migs.
After many improvements, it flies very nicely! Even lands now, rather than flying on the ground till it stops! I didnt like the final drop to ground you had to do to get it down, at high speeds, just asking for trouble.
I would go so far as saying that it IS a sports plane now. A very fast one, but at 1/4 throttle, pleasant to fly, with a lot extra power when you need it.

Ive printed out the flat plan of the wing, and will be folding/rolling the first full size one soon for testing. Very exiting.
We have gone for a diferent airfoil from the true Sabre, as one of the biggest problems with landing they had was the end portion of the aggressivly swept wing stalled well before the root. It has little enough surface area as it is, without more instability from such things. Proportions and sweep have changed a little too, although we are trying to keep true to the real thing even only as far as apperance.

Soon to come will be some video of crazy simulator flight. James got some good shots from our last fly.
Were planning to get together a heap of people on the server for a flyin/event on the sim soon. It will be fun to have a couple, (or 100, who knows) people putting the HPX-Sabre through its paces, all in the same air space. This will be for its public release, so a ways down the track yet.

A little futher work on the solid model and it Ill be ready for prototyping! Anyone up for a bet on how long before i bend the lot into a mess of scrap?

Rossco
Big, fast, broke, fix it, bigger, better, faster...
Image

Anders Troberg
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:38 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Central Sweden
Contact:

Post by Anders Troberg » Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:35 am

Looks hot!

If it turns out well, I'd suggest having a look at the Mig-15, Mig-17, Mig-21 (that spike in the intake would be nice for aerodynamics of the engine) and SAAB J-29 Tunnan, they all practically scream for such a treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Tunnan (it's ugly on the ground, but beautiful and agile in the air)
How they came out on top of so many migs i dont know. Just pilot skill? They had a 10/1 kill ratio on the migs.
In the beginning, they were pretty evenly matched, then the experienced Soviet pilots were replaced with less experienced Chinese and Korean pilots, and the scales tipped over in favour of the Sabres.

Irvine.J
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:28 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Saab

Post by Irvine.J » Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:53 am

Man, that saab bears striking resemblance to my ex-girlfriend... :twisted: LMFAO :lol:

Anders thanks for posting! To be honest I originally though one of the early migs would do very well, then we thought that the sabre would be moreso instantly recognizable, its was the only thing that tipped the balance in its favour really.
Thanks for letting us know why the sabres faired so much better, that answers allot of questions, thanks again.
James- Image KEEPING IT REAL SINCE 1982
http://pulseairdefence.com
[url=callto://project42labs]Image[/url]

Post Reply