For those that have and interest in the B-58 Hustler please refer to this dedicated thread where I had re-posted an interesting statement by Alpha regarding the feasibility of the B-58 on post #27.
-
-
Dear Alpha and the MotionRC team,
Thank you for not dragging out announced releases for months or years before they are ever truly available. And, when they are released, thank you for not playing some crazy raffle game on who gets to order one. I know we all got a little impatient on Foil, but once it was announced it was ready to order the next morning and then will be delivered in 4-6 weeks from then. MotionRC and even Horizon seem to have gotten the "new release game" figured out in my opinion! A certain other hobby company that thinks they are "king" cannot seem to grasp this rather simple idea but I am thankful y'all get it!
Signed,
"All king'd out"Comment
-
The one thing that I found incorrect about his statement was about the B-1B, SR-71, XB-70, and AVRO Vulcan would be impossible. The problem would be if you duplicated the aircraft exactly as they were built, or ignored any variants. One the Vulcan and Bone, you could get by with a single EDF in each engine pod the way they do with "twin engined" models, like the 64 mm F/A-18s. And Nice Sky produced an XB-70 that used a single 70 mm EDF feeding a six exhaust manifold. Nice Sky's sole problem was flimsy servo-driven landing gear. And the way to get around black "gatoring" on the Blackbird would be to do it in the cover story A-12 color pattern of silver with black edging, probably ad a sticker vice paint.Comment
-
That and i think to do a proper xb70 i would do twin 70mm. The XB70 is a big boat to be throwing around with a single 70mm in my opinion.Comment
-
Indeed it definitely looks better, but for some reason being a bomber/atack craft, i would like to atleast see twin engines/motorsComment
-
I liked the landing.Comment
-
I like your flaring when landing. Keep it up!Comment
-
Yeah i just think it would be ok as long as the improvements in landing gear dont over weight the power. Thats the only reason i would like a twin 70 or so with it..or twin 65mmComment
-
It's the improved technology that would make the difference and only require a single 70 mm EDF. The original model had a flying weight of 1000g and the EDF produced 1000g of thrust or a 1:1 ratio. Stronger modern retracts would probably weigh just as much, if not less, since you eliminate the nose retract servo. So let's say that changing out the LG and adding a six cell LIPO takes it up to 1200g. FMS produces a 6S EDF that produced up to 2250g of thrust, so you'd be going from a 1:1 to a 2:1 thrust/weight ratio. So why go through all the problems and added equipment 2 EDFs would incur when one would do just fine?Comment
-
-
Let me shock the world just this one time... A bomber should be bigger. :Scared:LOL lets see how many fall out of their office chairs with that one!LOL
Comment
-
-
YES! I do concur with that, it would scale well with the B24Comment
-
I think the B-29 would look better than the B-24 does, but still too small. I have seen a 115" B-24 and 120" Lancaster among others in person, and I am always struck by how unimpressive they appear vs. say a 1/5 scale or larger WWII fighter. To me, the B-24 is especially bad, possibly due to the high thin wing and short landing gear. This is what I think rifleman is hinting at.Comment
Comment