Motion RC

You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments

Register now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could freewing produce a twin 80mm F/A-18F super hornet?

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Could freewing produce a twin 80mm F/A-18F super hornet?

    This is purely a speculative and some could say, plea, to MRC and freewing. I'm sitting here thinking about what freewing could produce next while watching videos of F/A-18F super hornets.

    I've always loved the F/A-18F super hornet. Given the line of twin 80mm jets that are already in the inventory, this could well be something not too far from the scope of what they've produced already.

    Twin 80mm, 2 x 6S 5000mah, 100ish amp esc's. Because it's a 2 seater, it could allow for room in the design to fit the extra battery, a true twin engine fighter should be twin engine, right? It could incorporate the awesome system the a-10, t-45 and other models use for wiring consolidation from the wings and have the tried and proven wing attachment hard points from a lot of the other models with button head screws and a wingspan around 1500-1700mm.

    I'm no model designer but man I'd love one of those in my hangar! Pretty please freewing and motion rc?!

    thoughts, suggestions, supporters, critics, speak now or go forth never knowing what could be possible!

  • #2
    Hello Jung and welcome to the Squawk.
    You are not the first to think this and it has already been asked. Here's a link to that on the 'Motion RC Product Requests' section
    https://www.hobbysquawk.com/forum/mo...a-18-e-request
    Warbird Charlie

    ScaleTech OV-10 Bronco; HSD A1 Skyraider; FlightLine: F7F-2D, P-38 Allied Green, Sea Fury; FMS 1400: P-40B, P-51 Marie, F4U Olathe, F6F, T-28, P-40E, 1500 Razor, 1700 F4U and a Fox glider; Freewing: A-10 Artic Thunder(100+ parts to rise again), A-6, P-51 Iron Ass; VQ: P-39, JU-52; LX PBJ-1(B-25), P-40E; Dynam: ME-262, FW-190, Waco, Catalina; Phoenix Spitfire; Maxford Antonov AN-2; Starmax L-4 Grasshopper; Eflite 1100 T-28 float; Tech1 P40; NP O-2 Skymaster; ASM A-26 Invader

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for that! I figured i wouldn't be the first haha. Short of scrolling through every thread, i did a few searches but nothing came up.

      or else I'm just totally blind and didn't see it when i did a brief scroll through haha... imagine twin 90mm!

      Comment


      • #4
        I am flying the mig 21 with a 80mm fan and upgrades for it are not that easy to find so I would prefer 90mm or 70mm as they are available everywhere, the mig seems lacking in power but my stinger was a missile

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jay bennett View Post
          I am flying the mig 21 with a 80mm fan and upgrades for it are not that easy to find so I would prefer 90mm or 70mm as they are available everywhere, the mig seems lacking in power but my stinger was a missile
          That's a pretty good point. With their proven 90mm power systems it's a no brainer but also if you want a kit+ 90mm options are a everywhere!

          Comment


          • #6
            Too many Super Hornets I would love the curved intakes of a F-18C ...Single 90mm fan with minimal bling to keep weight & cost down....Decent battery space for larger batteries so upgrades can be possible..

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by HellHathNoFury View Post
              Too many Super Hornets I would love the curved intakes of a F-18C ...Single 90mm fan with minimal bling to keep weight & cost down....Decent battery space for larger batteries so upgrades can be possible..
              Plus one on that !

              Comment


              • #8
                Plus two on HHNF's comment, and add a F-22 to that as well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T-CAT View Post
                  Plus two on HHNF's comment, and add a F-22 to that as well.
                  Yes please! F-18C, F-22, F-35, F-106, F-100, A-5, F9F, F-4, and I could go on... All in 80-90mm size. Hopefully they don't all release too close together or I'll go bankrupt..

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HellHathNoFury View Post
                    Too many Super Hornets I would love the curved intakes of a F-18C ...Single 90mm fan with minimal bling to keep weight & cost down....Decent battery space for larger batteries so upgrades can be possible..
                    I really like the round intakes too, i threw the 2 seater idea in because possibly it could allow a little more space for bigger batts. The 'B' and 'D' variants are 2 seater. Cost would not be too much for twin 80mm 12 blade fans. That's what is in the f-14 and they're not much more expensive than the f-15 or t-45 pnp (around 50 - 100 USD more i think)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Twins are fine when absolutely necessary, but I'd take a single 80 far before a twin setup... Lighter, faster, cheaper, simpler and just as good looking IMHO.

                      Single 80-90mm, if possible, is the sweet spot for almost all planes when going EDF IMHO.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree, I'm not a huge fan of twin EDF and twin battery unless it has to be, like the A-10 (and in that case it's understandable). If it doesn't have to be a twin due to the nature of the airframe design, I prefer a single 80/90mm EDF.

                        Comment


                        • #13

                          Sure a single EDF might be lighter, faster, cheaper, simpler but it will never have the added redundancy that a twin has in the case of a flameout. Which might not be a big deal in cheaper jets but its a great peace of mind to have in larger expensive jets.
                          One of the most over looked factors people consider about an airframe with a single engine setup is how good would it glide incase of a flame out. Most straight wing jets might fair better than swept wing or small wing jets that would fall like a brick with out power. They didn't call the F-4 Phantom the flying bring for nothing. At least you can limp back a twin with an engine failure.

                          I am all for the complete scale setup. If I cant afford a twin I am sticking to an affordable entry level jet that is of an original single engine airframe design like the 80mm F-86 or 70 mm F-16.
                          It is always interesting to see people demand scale aircraft with scale looks, scale performance but with out the scale weight and cost.


                          Here are some cases in point.

                          Freewing Me 262 Flame out with successful emergency landing
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVHqen7RsCo

                          F-4 converted to single 90mm. See how fast it drops without power.
                          https://youtu.be/0jbxG2xtgpk

                          Twin turbine F-14 Flameout with successful emergency landing
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdRbRXl7jIQ

                          Single turbine F-15 Fameout with un-successful emergency landing. It just dropped like a brick
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaupQOJNWBs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evoman View Post
                            Sure a single EDF might be lighter, faster, cheaper, simpler but it will never have the added redundancy that a twin has in the case of a flameout. Which might not be a big deal in cheaper jets but its a great peace of mind to have in larger expensive jets.
                            One of the most over looked factors people consider about an airframe with a single engine setup is how good would it glide incase of a flame out. Most straight wing jets might fair better than swept wing or small wing jets that would fall like a brick with out power. They didn't call the F-4 Phantom the flying bring for nothing. At least you can limp back a twin with an engine failure.

                            I am all for the complete scale setup. If I cant afford a twin I am sticking to an affordable entry level jet that is of an original single engine airframe design like the 80mm F-86 or 70 mm F-16.
                            It is always interesting to see people demand scale aircraft with scale looks, scale performance but with out the scale weight and cost.


                            Here are some cases in point.

                            Freewing Me 262 Flame out with successful emergency landing
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVHqen7RsCo

                            F-4 converted to single 90mm. See how fast it drops without power.
                            https://youtu.be/0jbxG2xtgpk

                            Twin turbine F-14 Flameout with successful emergency landing
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdRbRXl7jIQ

                            Single turbine F-15 Fameout with un-successful emergency landing. It just dropped like a brick
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaupQOJNWBs
                            Let's be honest... We fly EDFs because they're cheaper, cleaner, more reliable and convenient than turbines.

                            And if you somehow have a motor quit on a FW F-14 in a situation without great altitude... You're goin down lol

                            It's a 15lb plane and a little 2.8kg fan isn't going to keep it up much longer than a glide would. If anything you'd be better off killing it and gliding/flaring due to the imbalances...

                            I vote single for the simplicity, more power options, and lighter wing loading.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Alpha10 View Post

                              Let's be honest... We fly EDFs because they're cheaper, cleaner, more reliable and convenient than turbines.

                              And if you somehow have a motor quit on a FW F-14 in a situation without great altitude... You're goin down lol

                              It's a 15lb plane and a little 2.8kg fan isn't going to keep it up much longer than a glide would. If anything you'd be better off killing it and gliding/flaring due to the imbalances...

                              I vote single for the simplicity, more power options, and lighter wing loading.
                              I would tend to agree as well. I've had a motor quit in me in the Freewing F-14 and brick was the right term. Even full throttle on the remaining engine just couldn't keep it in the air.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by F106DeltaDart View Post

                                I would tend to agree as well. I've had a motor quit in me in the Freewing F-14 and brick was the right term. Even full throttle on the remaining engine just couldn't keep it in the air.
                                That'll pucker your butt! Haha! Wow...

                                I had a wingbox failure on approach, one wing was out and the other limp and tucked in and I managed to tuck the gear, click to high rates, flatten it out and belly it, but man... That'll wake you up let me tell ya haha!

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by Alpha10 View Post

                                  That'll pucker your butt! Haha! Wow...
                                  That's an impressive save! I had to do the same to my 90mm F-16 when the power died. For my F-14, i should clarify that there were no equipment failures involved. Maybe 1 min-30 seconds before I was getting ready to land, a big gasser ugly stick, (upscaled plans with a 60CC motor), landed and nosed over dead in the middle of the runway and busted the prop. The pilot was in his early eighties, and hobbled towards the plane at a leisurely pace to right it. It was about a 400 ft walk from him.. So the runway was blocked almost completely by the older gentleman, and the giant gasser. Meanwhile, I am circling, yelling that I need to land. This was at my field in Arizona, were there is the runway, and nothing but thick brush, trees, and cacti, surrounding the runway. I tried to power up and bring it back, but one of the batteries ran out, and I couldn't keep it airborne and it went into the brush. Best I could do was keep it reasonably flat on impact. I got lucky, and it landed in a small clear area but the fuselage was beyond repair. Luckily, after a replacement fuselage, it got back in the air a few months later.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by F106DeltaDart View Post

                                    That's an impressive save! I had to do the same to my 90mm F-16 when the power died. For my F-14, i should clarify that there were no equipment failures involved. Maybe 1 min-30 seconds before I was getting ready to land, a big gasser ugly stick, (upscaled plans with a 60CC motor), landed and nosed over dead in the middle of the runway and busted the prop. The pilot was in his early eighties, and hobbled towards the plane at a leisurely pace to right it. It was about a 400 ft walk from him.. So the runway was blocked almost completely by the older gentleman, and the giant gasser. Meanwhile, I am circling, yelling that I need to land. This was at my field in Arizona, were there is the runway, and nothing but thick brush, trees, and cacti, surrounding the runway. I tried to power up and bring it back, but one of the batteries ran out, and I couldn't keep it airborne and it went into the brush. Best I could do was keep it reasonably flat on impact. I got lucky, and it landed in a small clear area but the fuselage was beyond repair. Luckily, after a replacement fuselage, it got back in the air a few months later.
                                    Aw man... That's a tough sell and I'm sorry to hear that. Old timers kinda do what they want haha!

                                    If there are planes in the air you have to wait until they land before stepping onto the field at our spot... Just common sense for safety really.

                                    Then again, all of our guys are pretty cool about letting everyone fly solo and waiting their turn etc... Pretty nice group up here.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by F106DeltaDart View Post

                                      I would tend to agree as well. I've had a motor quit in me in the Freewing F-14 and brick was the right term. Even full throttle on the remaining engine just couldn't keep it in the air.
                                      That's a really good point, most people wouldn't often think of motor failures in EDF's or electrics in general really. Redundancy is only good if it can save the plane. Twin 90mm would be big and heavy which i guess is why some other manufacturers have gone to single 105mm on 12S to save weight and space without another fan and esc. These tend not to be very good setups from reports I've heard. Freewing and i believe MRC have stated that 90mm single or twin 80mm is the best options for thrust:weight ratio and also allowing easy transport in the back of a sedan/family car. A more scale F/A 18 in any of the variants would be awesome, removable wings, scale lights, no thrust vectoring in the 1500-1700mm wing span which, who knows, may require a twin setup.

                                      Hopes and dreams, maybe, but if you don't ask, you dont receive

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by The Junganaught View Post

                                        That's a really good point, most people wouldn't often think of motor failures in EDF's or electrics in general really. Redundancy is only good if it can save the plane. Twin 90mm would be big and heavy which i guess is why some other manufacturers have gone to single 105mm on 12S to save weight and space without another fan and esc. These tend not to be very good setups from reports I've heard. Freewing and i believe MRC have stated that 90mm single or twin 80mm is the best options for thrust:weight ratio and also allowing easy transport in the back of a sedan/family car. A more scale F/A 18 in any of the variants would be awesome, removable wings, scale lights, no thrust vectoring in the 1500-1700mm wing span which, who knows, may require a twin setup.

                                        Hopes and dreams, maybe, but if you don't ask, you dont receive
                                        I think a nice sized single 90mm F-18c with a HV capable battery bay would be great in a 40-48" wingspan. Great compromise between size, performance, economics, and weight.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X