Official Freewing MiG-29 Fulcrum Twin 80mm Thread

[crxmanpat]

DD,

That would be awesome! Are you also going to attempt an opening mechanism similar to the F-22?

[Gringotuerto]

I ordered decals from Callie, I'm going with DPRK livery (may or may not paint it green). It is really hard finding pictures of these planes, and nobody knows exactly how many DPRK has. Also I couldn't find any picture clear enough to read the text in the two red rectangles. So I just guessed that they say "조선인민군 항공 및 반항공군." (Korean People's Army Aviation and Anti-Air Force) and "김정은은 뚱뚱한 바보" (Kim Jong Un is a big fat idiot). Close enough.

Is anyone planning to make a decal set for the ordnance? I put a lot of detail on the A-10 ordnance and it improves the appearance quite a bit.

[crxmanpat]

Now that I'm done with my F-14 repaint and assembly, I may tackle decals for the missiles on the Mig-29.

I also plan to do the following to mine:

1. Design and 3D print bird cutters.
2. Add radiation hazard decals (already printed).
3. Paint the gun port gunmetal.
4. Repaint these panels a darker gray.
5. Design and print a more scale antenna and housing rear of the canopy.

[Dirty Dee]

DD,

That would be awesome! Are you also going to attempt an opening mechanism similar to the F-22?

I'll see how the kinematics work out, but it will likely be provisions in-place, and would be up to the end-user to figure out servo placement and a positive-latching method to prevent canopy loss in-flight.

[crxmanpat]

Found some excellent pics of the R-73 and R-27 missiles on a 3D design website. Lots of detail on stencils and panel lines. Downloaded the cyrillic language into Windows and decals are in development now!

[HFBZZX]

Thanks Man! Happy to be here, my post nowhere did any comparison with the Aerotetris Mig or the 10S Setup either, because such comparisons are out of question. You simply cannot compare some cnc cut foam foam parts to a PNP kit. I already mentioned the Freewing Mig design is exceptional :)
I hope you also picked up my point about a J10 80mm having 1kg thrust to spare (at least) with under 2kg AUW. If a scratch builder can do it so can Freewing with all it's resources. Here is a short video of my friend who never went above 60-70% throttle. https://youtu.be/VxILhLvwvRM

All i meant was :
I hope technology in Foam Jets advances and we are able to reduce the weight on these Jets further to have a better thrust to weight ratio, which will further boost the performance/speed and flight times. Even mere 2-300g savings can boost the performance a lot. Everything in the Foam Jet world is just the same since many years apart from the electronics, yes EDF technology have come a long way in terms of thrust/weight/sound and performance.

I know this is going to take years, but i hope to be positive. And it can be done in simple cheap ways too, please look into 'Future Model Edge540t with polypropylene skin' (Just as an example! again, no comparison done' )

Btw, i got my 80mm Avanti delivered this week, and i am heading to the Avanti thread to post some updates and questions :)

Happy flying everyone.

Registered only to reply to this post and several of this guy's post.

@stormseq

I really don't understand why you feel a 1000g extra thrust of a 2kg auw is a good thing. How much extra power do you think a real J10 has? enough of endless vertical? or less?

In my opinion everything need to be scale. that is also how judges in jet world masters and other competitions score those planes and pilots. Even if you have that extra power, do you really need to or should you enjoy flying regardless of the real condition? then why not just go and get a set of racing drone? or a pattern aircraft? or 3D or even 4D? pylon racing? So in my opinion more power doesn't at all always equal to better performance. Best performance, in EDF Jets, maybe that it allows you to fly just like the real one.

In fact I really appreciate those planes which has less than 0.3 in thrust to weight ratio, because not everyone can fly it but I can......

I hope you can get my point!

Have fun flying

[Gringotuerto]

Found some excellent pics of the R-73 and R-27 missiles on a 3D design website. Lots of detail on stencils and panel lines. Downloaded the cyrillic language into Windows and decals are in development now!

Pat, you are the man! Looking forward to it. I got your decals on my A-10, great job there.

[HFBZZX]

The only reason that kept me from buying the AL37 airliner was because it was too powerful to me to a point I feel its impacting the scale factors of the whole thing. If they can use half sized motor in trade of a much longer flight time, it will be awesome for my preference.

[Ghostman]

@y22raptor

Hi Dan, the main axles are 5.05mm and the nose axle is 4.1mm




Hi stormseq , welcome to Hobby Squawk and thanks for sharing your feedback, I appreciate it! Nice video, too, I enjoyed watching it and have always promoted Aerotetris' approach!

As to your comment, I'd have to say that for a MiG-29 to have the performance of 2x 90mm 10s, we would have needed to make our MiG-29 use 2x 90mm 10s. That is unfortunately well beyond the target price point of a 2x80mm 6s MiG-29 which is intended to be flight-ready in less than an hour with a single glue joint to assemble, instead of the hundreds of glue joints (plus many nights of surfacing work) required to get that Aerotetris MiG-29 in the air.

One of the reasons why I have always been an outspoken fan of platforms such as Aerotetris' unique puzzlepiece approach is that he gives us as modelers more options, if/as we're so inclined to spend the necessary hours and money to result in the performance you see in that video. I think --I HOPE!-- there will always be builders around the world who want to spend their time building a one-off KIT that they can personalize, outfit, and enjoy as fruit of their labor. If I had more time, I would buy and build more Aerotetris kits myself! Aerotetris is a great option for this because he doesn't need six figures for tooling and molds, so his enterprise can subsist on much lower volume to keep those foam blocks profitable, while the user covers the cost for outfitting the rest of the model's required components separately.

But as for the "sweet spot" within the marketplace for an EDF jet that is mass-produced, painted-and-decaled, panel-lined, fly-in-an-hour, spare-parts-available, screw-together, warranty-covered, scaled-out and lit-up out-of-the-box, (all things which the Aerotetris is not), the twin 80mm Freewing MiG-29 is about as large and costly as we're confident in backing at this time... for now. If it turns out there is a reliably sizeable group who would actually pay for a 2x90mm 10s F-15 or similar twin (just to use your twin as an example) and didn't sweat a price tag approaching $1k, then maybe we'd consider it.

Please stick around! It's always nice to welcome another big jet pilot into this Squawk community we all enjoy. Feel free to post your airplane ideas in the request thread, as well. We're always listening, counting, considering.


Also, for anyone not following along, Aerotetris' big MiG-29 can be seen here. I think it's such a neat way to build an airplane! Check out his website below and give him a shout out.

http://aerotetris.com/mig29-2.html

EDIT: On today's livestream the question came up about the scale cant on the vertical stabilizers, the sweeping angle approaching their TE, and the angled exhaust nozzles. As this picture shows, we were able to replicate all three of those aspects from the real MiG-29 onto ours.

I would totally be in for the twin 90mm, 10S. My A-10 is already twin 90mm and it's awesome! Fantastic Sound.

[xviper]

Screw "scale" performance. I want my model jets (and my prop planes) to have power to spare. "Model" being the operative word. It's always better to have the power and not need it than to have barely enough power and wanting more and needing more. I'm not flying a "real" plane. I could care less if my models fly "scale". In fact, that is SOOOOOO boring. Why do you think model manufacturers are putting in more powerful inrunners now? Because the market place WANTS it. The Al-37 is "too powerful"? You've GOT to be kidding. It's just right and if anything, it could use a bit more.
This Mig 29 is a BIG, HEAVY plane. It' needs enough power to make it move UNscale-like. I'll bet there will be plenty of guys who buy this plane and immediately start to mod it up with even more power.
When I see a new plane on the market and I hear people say that they have great fun flying it "scale". To me that means it's under powered and they have to fly it that way. I won't buy it.

[T-CAT]

I've never been a proponent of the "I want less power to fly it scale" mentality. It doesn't mean they are wrong and I'm right or and vice versa, just that it's not my thing.

The way I look at it is, I want more performance for the buck, and that's valuable to me. So, if I want to fly a RC model more "scale", and the model aircraft has much better thrust to weight ratio than the full scale equivalent, I'll simply use my left thumb on the throttle gimbal to ease back to power. Similarly, if I want extended flight duration, I'll ease back the throttle and fly more efficiently. As the saying goes, and in this context it's power, It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

[Quickstop]

Screw "scale" performance. I want my model jets (and my prop planes) to have power to spare. "Model" being the operative word. It's always better to have the power and not need it than to have barely enough power and wanting more and needing more. I'm not flying a "real" plane. I could care less if my models fly "scale". In fact, that is SOOOOOO boring. Why do you think model manufacturers are putting in more powerful inrunners now? Because the market place WANTS it. The Al-37 is "too powerful"? You've GOT to be kidding. It's just right and if anything, it could use a bit more.
This Mig 29 is a BIG, HEAVY plane. It' needs enough power to make it move UNscale-like. I'll bet there will be plenty of guys who buy this plane and immediately start to mod it up with even more power.
When I see a new plane on the market and I hear people say that they have great fun flying it "scale". To me that means it's under powered and they have to fly it that way. I won't buy it.

I would say that “scale” for the mig29 would BE an over abundance of power, if it can’t climb vertically than it’s not “Scale”

[HFBZZX]

Screw "scale" performance. I want my model jets (and my prop planes) to have power to spare. "Model" being the operative word. It's always better to have the power and not need it than to have barely enough power and wanting more and needing more. I'm not flying a "real" plane. I could care less if my models fly "scale". In fact, that is SOOOOOO boring. Why do you think model manufacturers are putting in more powerful inrunners now? Because the market place WANTS it. The Al-37 is "too powerful"? You've GOT to be kidding. It's just right and if anything, it could use a bit more.
This Mig 29 is a BIG, HEAVY plane. It' needs enough power to make it move UNscale-like. I'll bet there will be plenty of guys who buy this plane and immediately start to mod it up with even more power.
When I see a new plane on the market and I hear people say that they have great fun flying it "scale". To me that means it's under powered and they have to fly it that way. I won't buy it.

That is to my definition, a different level of enjoyment...I can only say maybe I am too boring..or maybe you should go to hobby rockets...being as a retired pattern flying competitor, I think we have different understanding towards it...

people want more power, that is also partially because they are advertised to do so...and i also bet all the brands and factories love to see that...

[HFBZZX]

I've never been a proponent of the "I want less power to fly it scale" mentality. It doesn't mean they are wrong and I'm right or and vice versa, just that it's not my thing.

The way I look at it is, I want more performance for the buck, and that's valuable to me. So, if I want to fly a RC model more "scale", and the model aircraft has much better thrust to weight ratio than the full scale equivalent, I'll simply use my left thumb on the throttle gimbal to ease back to power. Similarly, if I want more flight time, I'll ease back the throttle and fly more efficiently. As the saying goes, and in this context it's power, It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

I agree with your value thing, but you know when you have too much abundance in one aspect, you are losing much on other aspect, so there has always been the trade off

[HFBZZX]

Screw "scale" performance. I want my model jets (and my prop planes) to have power to spare. "Model" being the operative word. It's always better to have the power and not need it than to have barely enough power and wanting more and needing more. I'm not flying a "real" plane. I could care less if my models fly "scale". In fact, that is SOOOOOO boring. Why do you think model manufacturers are putting in more powerful inrunners now? Because the market place WANTS it. The Al-37 is "too powerful"? You've GOT to be kidding. It's just right and if anything, it could use a bit more.
This Mig 29 is a BIG, HEAVY plane. It' needs enough power to make it move UNscale-like. I'll bet there will be plenty of guys who buy this plane and immediately start to mod it up with even more power.
When I see a new plane on the market and I hear people say that they have great fun flying it "scale". To me that means it's under powered and they have to fly it that way. I won't buy it.

I noticed you used the word UNscale like, I really understand a lot of people love that, then its totally a different thing to me. I have never wanted anything that way...

[T-CAT]

I agree with your value thing, but you know when you have too much abundance in one aspect, you are losing much on other aspect, so there has always been the trade off

Yeah, tradeoffs are always apparent. The AL37 you mentioned earlier is a nice plane, and is worth considering even if you may not agree with the power system choice. Hopefully you'll consider it in the future if you feel it's still worth the purchase.

[janmb]

I'm going to do a cockpit set for this one to a similar level as I did for the A-10.

Not sure if any more exterior greebles are needed, but I'll be open to suggestions.

That's awesome news Chris, looking forward to it!

[HFBZZX]

Screw "scale" performance. I want my model jets (and my prop planes) to have power to spare. "Model" being the operative word. It's always better to have the power and not need it than to have barely enough power and wanting more and needing more. I'm not flying a "real" plane. I could care less if my models fly "scale". In fact, that is SOOOOOO boring. Why do you think model manufacturers are putting in more powerful inrunners now? Because the market place WANTS it. The Al-37 is "too powerful"? You've GOT to be kidding. It's just right and if anything, it could use a bit more.
This Mig 29 is a BIG, HEAVY plane. It' needs enough power to make it move UNscale-like. I'll bet there will be plenty of guys who buy this plane and immediately start to mod it up with even more power.
When I see a new plane on the market and I hear people say that they have great fun flying it "scale". To me that means it's under powered and they have to fly it that way. I won't buy it.

sorry it looked like the system posted twice..

[HFBZZX]

Yeah, tradeoffs are always apparent. The AL37 you mentioned earlier is a nice plane, and is worth considering even if you may not agree with the power system choice. Hopefully you'll consider it in the future if you feel it's still worth the purchase.

I totally agree its awesome plane! I watched all the videos I can find on youtube.. I also own 2 blue angles and one avanti from freewing and some other edf jets from either FMS or that other brand. I will for sure be buying a al-37 later and I will definitely set a switch on my radio to reduce power so that I feel more comfortable cruising and maneuvering....the structure and overall quality of that airliner is just awesome

[HFBZZX]

I would say that “scale” for the mig29 would BE an over abundance of power, if it can’t climb vertically than it’s not “Scale”

I have never enjoyed flying an airplane vertically for a long time. you know, for 170 sized F3A aircraft, I can climb all day using only 45% to 50% throttle, but its really, really hard to climb a perfect straight line especially when its windy..

I enjoy more doing roll maneuvers or inverted low passes or in combination..so power has really not been a problem to me most of the time if not at all...