Avro Super Arrow

John Howling Mouse · July 18, 2008, 08:49:54 PM

Quote from: kitnut617 on July 17, 2008, 01:19:00 PM
When the u/c folds away it looks like this. I had decided that the main wheels would have to be something bigger than what the original were and also had to be something that was available at the time. Some F-105 main wheels fitted the bill for what I had in mind, BTW this is 1/72 scale.

Um, silly question here, Captain Kitnut, but do you mean to tell us that the undercarriage is essentially "functional" and you can actually pose the same piece of hardware either in deployed or retracted configuration?

And all this in 1:72 scale?

Who's wearing the Completely Bonkers hat, now, friend?!

AeroplaneDriver · July 18, 2008, 08:54:38 PM

Splendiferous!!!!

kitnut617 · July 19, 2008, 10:44:00 AM

Quote from: John Howling Mouse on July 18, 2008, 08:49:54 PM
Um, silly question here, Captain Kitnut, but do you mean to tell us that the undercarriage is essentially "functional" and you can actually pose the same piece of hardware either in deployed or retracted configuration? And all this in 1:72 scale?

Erm! well yes I suppose it can, I made the u/c legs out of different diameter aluminum tubing made by K&S Engineering, you can get the shapes from any RC Hobby shop, the LMS I get it from does the RC stuff and plastic models. Each tube is made to slide inside the next size up. I used some styrene tube too for the bogie hinge. In this set of photos you can see all the bits seperated, then assembled but with the oleo extended (as if there's no weight on it) and then with the oleo compressed, last one shows how the bogie part would rotate as it would fold away. I don't intend to make it actually work on the model, it was a case of when it's done and some numpty chimes in and says 'that won't work', I can say "well yes it can 'cause I worked it out".

Eddie M. · July 19, 2008, 03:09:48 PM

Very impressive work on the gear. Looking forward to more of this one!
Eddie

sotoolslinger · July 19, 2008, 04:02:53 PM

Dang .....

If it actually works it's not a freakin model its an airplane

kitnut617 · July 20, 2008, 08:37:40 PM

In this photo of the F-14 main u/c leg you can see the very large diagonal strut, this strut not only acts as a stiffener for the u/c leg, it's what actually turns the oleo to make the wheel stow away horizontally with the only hydraulic action being the small cylinder which helps the strut fold in half and the retraction cylinder for the u/c leg. My u/c leg will have a similar one doing the same job but with one further hydraulic action, this would be a hydraulic motor built into the bogie hinge which would rotate the bogie first before the other actions start.

Gary · July 21, 2008, 04:16:00 AM

Wow dude, similar minds. I have one in the works using F-15 intakes but I had to shave them down to fit. I was going to thicken the wings to make her a better multi role rather than pure interceptor. I have the main wheels in the fuselage like yours but I sure as heck didn't put as much thought into it like you. I was thinking of having more dangly bits on the wings. Last of all, Cap Canada gave me a set of Dragon F-22 exhausts and they fit perfectly. I was debating twinning the tail but... I dunno. Too much re-engineering the structure and aerodynamics. Unfortunately I put waaaay too much putty in the sides to blend the add on parts and got bored. I should dig her out and a sanding block. Sand, putty and repeat. Sigh.

Neato- I like yours better.

kitnut617 · July 21, 2008, 09:33:48 AM

Go Gary

Loved to see that!

When I started this I had considered F-14 or F-15 intakes, but after searching for info and pics of any and all aircraft that were designed or actually flew at Mach 3 they all had one thing in common ---- more power was needed. The old tuner' adage for more power was " there's no substitute for more power than more cc's" so with that in mind I started to look for something with bigger engines. That's where the Mig 25/31 comes in, not only are the intakes about the right shape, they are nearly twice as big as the F-15 ones, plus the fuselages have a lot of similarities to the Arrow, being very boxy so doesn't look out of place if a developed Arrow was designed. The bigger fuselage also makes it easier to install more rugged u/c and the turkey feathers look about the right size for a Mach 3 Arrow.

In these two photos of the lower fuselage you can see the engine tunnels stand out, when I measured the depth of the fuselage of the Mig 31 from the top to the bottom of the depression between the engine tunnels, it was the same as the Arrow kits total fuselage depth where the bottom of the fuselage is almost flat. This worked into my story about making the engines bigger by being able to use quite a bit of the original airframe (it has a keel between the engines which the fin is part of)

You can also see from here I'm working on one side first, and once I get this right I'll duplicate it for the other side.

ysi_maniac · July 21, 2008, 09:54:38 AM

Most interesting thread indeed

bexwh773 · July 21, 2008, 10:01:05 AM

Absolutely brilliant Kitnut, and the way you thought about your UC problem is perfect, especially if someone does as youve mentioned be daft enough to say it wont work

Cant wait to see this Lady finished

Bex

kitnut617 · July 21, 2008, 10:13:34 AM

thanks guys !

kitnut617 · July 23, 2008, 07:29:22 AM

Quote from: Gary on July 21, 2008, 04:16:00 AM
I was going to thicken the wings to make her a better multi role rather than pure interceptor.

I was thinking about your comment here for your multi role idea, I don't think you have to worry about the strength of the wing. In the Arrowhead book it mentions something about how strong the wing would have to be to be able to turn hard at Mach 2 without losing speed but as we have both decided to put the u/c into the fuselage, this allows for an additional two wing spars in the space of the old u/c bay. I would think this more than does the job for what you're thinking off, as the load would have to be hung around this area anyway to keep the cg in place.

If you look carefully at the port wing you can see where I've scribed a couple of new panel lines, all these panel line that project outwards from the aircraft' center coincide with where a wing spar is BTW

Captain Canada · July 23, 2008, 10:21:35 AM

Wow, what a beauty, Robert ! Love the u/c idea....wicked stuff. You're definately not alone when it comes to an upgraded Arrow...I'm sure there are hundreds of us out there who dream the same dream. Mind you, the boy and I are probably the only two an Arrow tried to kill......

kitnut617 · July 23, 2008, 10:24:34 AM

Quote from: Captain Canada on July 23, 2008, 10:21:35 AM
Mind you, the boy and I are probably the only two an Arrow tried to kill......

Thanks Todd, I read about that RC thing trying to take you out

kitnut617 · September 06, 2008, 01:42:12 PM

Having just got an Italeri F-15 kit, I thought I would have a look at the intakes and see how much of a difference there is between the Mig-31 ones and F-15's. The intakes on my Arrow have been shortened in height but I left the width as it was, they're still quite a bit bigger than the F-15 ones, but not twice as big as I had stated earlier. I think that the F-15 intakes are just right for the Mach 2.5 Arrow though.