telnar1236

Elite member
Most of my 3D printed planes so far have either been very experimental (tailless planes, early modular designs), highly loaded (F-104, Gee Bee, MiG 15), or designed to be gentle flying and carry a lot of load (modular trainer/base plane). But now I want to build something that is high-performance and capable of a wide range of maneuvers - a true fighter. So of course, I decided to build the ultimate interceptor, the F-106 instead.
1731170049431.png


However, in reality and as a scale plane, the F-106 is actually more maneuverable than a lot of dedicated fighter designs. Its big delta wing gives it low wing loading and a ton of angle of attack capability. Built with 6s, I expect this design to be faster than 100 mph but to be able to come to a near stop in the air. While it will have a rudder for easier landing, it is going to be built mostly as a bank and yank design intended to fly at a positive angle of attack (although it will be capable of inverted flight of course).
1731170092230.png

This jet incorporates a lot of what I have learned from my previous designs. It should have much robust structure than the F-104 and Gee Bee (more in keeping with the modular trainer) but have a lighter 3D printed structure than any of them (the AUW will be higher since it is a 6s design). The ducting should be more efficient than any of my jets except for the MiG 15 without having as many sharp angles as the F-104 or the wing spar through the center like the modular trainer. And the thrust line is right through the CG so it should be well behaved at all throttle settings. The hatch is a new design that sits much more stably in the fuselage. While none of the hatches are prone to flying off, this design always sits in the right place immediately without any finagling.
1731170397239.png

And this design also incorporates new features unique to it. It has a 3D printed clear canopy in keeping with the MiG 15, but this canopy can open to allow for a scale cockpit or possibly an FPV cockpit (with molded plastic, not 3D printed windows) sometime down the road. It has operating air brakes, more for aesthetics than anything else. It will have gear doors for all the gear, although they are not designed yet and the first flight will probably take place without them. And it has an internal payload bay, like the real F-106, so it can carry dummy bombs or possibly even a much smaller EDF "missile."
1731170670164.png

1731170776633.png

1731170801128.png

1731170854295.png

On top of these features, it has improvements to the assembly process. More of it is screwed and locked together mechanically and less is glued when compared to my previous designs. It does not use the same modular system as my other planes for the last couple of years since the fuselage is not circular, but the new system, while requiring more screws, is simpler to assemble. The servos also now screw into place and are covered by 3D printed material instead of being glued.
1731171050865.png

1731171088172.png

The power system was originally intended to be a 70mm Powerfun EDF (the 6s version of the original power system in the F-104) but recent bad experiences with that EDF mean that I have switched to the X-Fly 70mm fan instead, which just about fits in the same footprint. This should have the positive effect of giving the plane an extra 150 g of thrust. The retracts are the same Freewing units as the F-104 since they are reliable and lightweight.
1731171310255.png

To improve high angle of attack handling and energy retention, the wings have 7 degrees of washout and a conical camber (like the real plane). The wing root starts as an almost symmetrical airfoil before progressing to have a fair bit of camber at the middle of the wing. By the time the wing reaches the tip, the whole airfoil has a negative incidence angle compared to the root. Using 3D printing instead of foam also lets me make the wing tips very thin (only a couple mm) which improves looks and should reduce drag too.
1731171489340.png


The plane will have a final length of 51.9", a final wingspan of 30", and final height of 16.2" with the gear extended. Final AUW will be about 2.2 kg with about 2.4 kg of thrust so the performance should be exceptional.
 

telnar1236

Elite member
How are you doing the hinges?
The hinges for the control surfaces (elevon and rudder) use a barbeque skewer through 3D printed holes. I've used this design on all my 3D printed planes since the modular F-104 and have never had one of these hinges have a problem.
1731289416165.png

The remaining hinges are similar but use a paper clip as a pin instead of a barbeque skewer. They aren't as strong but they can be made a lot smaller.
1731289521074.png

1731289652149.png

The hinge for the canopy is the same paper clip design, and to lock the canopy shut in flight, a screw runs through the fuselage into the back wall of the canopy.
1731289814114.png
 

telnar1236

Elite member
Did some tests with the X-Fly EDF in the ducting today and it seems like we're back in the realm of overstated performance or large losses in thrust from even small pressure losses in the ducting. I redesigned the big cheater inlet to hopefully give it more air and added two smaller inlets on either side of it to give it even more still. Hopefully this helps boost thrust back up towards where I want it to be.
1731290091122.png

1731290151628.png
 

telnar1236

Elite member
I put together the payload bay for the first time and everything mostly works. The doors were a bit floppy and I didn't get as much travel as I wanted, so the servo will be repositioned, the doors made thicker, and I think I can reduce weight some, but it's a good enough proof of concept to be installed for the first flights. To make the doors work for now, I hot glued some chopsticks to them which makes them much less able to bend and should reduce the chances of them ripping off in flight. Sorry for the shaky video - I was trying to balance and flip the switch on my transmitter with one hand while videoing with my phone in the other.
GearDoors.gif
 

telnar1236

Elite member
Got all the parts assembled together for the first time! I'm pretty happy with how it looks, and the clear canopy came out way cleaner than I expected. The improved ducting and additional cheater area helped with thrust a fair bit. I also realized that I was using an older ESC with fairly poor efficiency, so switching ESCs added 100 g to the thrust by itself.
20241110_182153.jpg

I have also decided to switch from the X-Fly fan to a Freewing 6s inrunner EDF I had sitting around. I finally decided to bite the bullet and plunk down for a thrust test stand since I'm switching several of my planes away from the Powerfun 70mm EDF units, and I am glad I did. I gives me a much better idea of how my EDFs (and in the future other power systems) perform with precise measurements of thrust, voltage, current, and power. Right off the bat, the 70mm X-Fly EDF produced only 2100 g of thrust - 300 g less than I expected. On the other hand, the Freewing unit produces about 2500 g of thrust which is better than I originally designed around. The X-Fly fan is more efficient, drawing only 55 A to the Freewing fan's 77 A, and still gets plenty of power, and it's much quieter, so I will use it a future design. The F-106 is just on the heavier side for 70mm EDFs, so it needs a bit more oomph.
 

telnar1236

Elite member
And it flies! And it flies well. This was the least problematic maiden flight I have ever had of one of my 3D printed designs with the exception of the landing gear snapping off on a bad landing. The flight characteristics are interesting for a delta and somewhat unexpected. The conical camber means it doesn't bleed speed anywhere near as much at low to medium angles of attack, although it still loses quite a bit at high angles of attack. The airbrake is also quite effective and actually very useful for landing since otherwise the design really wants to keep its speed on the landing approach. I was debating trying to get rid of it to reduce weight, but after flying it, the airbrake is important and on the verge of necessary. The weight ballooned a fair bit, primarily due to going to a heavier EDF twice and quick but not necessarily light modeling for some of the parts, so it is a 2600 g airframe with 2500 g of thrust. Going back in and reducing thickness where possible should save about 100-150 g and an optional cover in place of the working payload bay should save another 80 g (I think I will keep the working bay in my version since even now it doesn't lack power) so with those changes it should go from having good performance to having exceptional performance. I didn't clock it, but it also feels fast - faster than most of my other jets and definitely significantly faster than the F-104. I'm guessing in the 110 mph + range. On landing, it sinks fast without power, but once it has touched down it can maintain a wheely which is something I specifically tried to design for.


The main landing gear, originally designed for a jet weight 600 g less than the current version, is not strong enough, unfortunately. But modifying it to behave better under the higher loads and printing it out of ABS should fix the issues. And apart from changes to save weight, that is the only fix needed. Everything else works amazing!
20241117_123829.jpg

The next steps are to fix the gear, reprint some of the unnecessarily heavy stuff, and paint it up. I'm leaning towards this scheme.
1731872389207.png

1731872441481.png
 

telnar1236

Elite member
Currently working on designing the gear doors and saving weight. There are actually fewer places in the main structure where I can cut out material than I thought, but a lot of the smaller parts should have plenty of room for weight savings by playing with the print settings. Originally, I was thinking of trying to make spring loaded gear doors, but now I'm leaning towards using small servos. There just isn't enough real estate inside the plane to fit the larger spring-driven mechanisms I can make with the limitations on how precise and strong 3D printed parts can be.
Screenshot 2024-11-22 233732.png

Screenshot 2024-11-22 233826.png
 

L Edge

Master member
Got all the parts assembled together for the first time! I'm pretty happy with how it looks, and the clear canopy came out way cleaner than I expected. The improved ducting and additional cheater area helped with thrust a fair bit. I also realized that I was using an older ESC with fairly poor efficiency, so switching ESCs added 100 g to the thrust by itself.
View attachment 246703
I have also decided to switch from the X-Fly fan to a Freewing 6s inrunner EDF I had sitting around. I finally decided to bite the bullet and plunk down for a thrust test stand since I'm switching several of my planes away from the Powerfun 70mm EDF units, and I am glad I did. I gives me a much better idea of how my EDFs (and in the future other power systems) perform with precise measurements of thrust, voltage, current, and power. Right off the bat, the 70mm X-Fly EDF produced only 2100 g of thrust - 300 g less than I expected. On the other hand, the Freewing unit produces about 2500 g of thrust which is better than I originally designed around. The X-Fly fan is more efficient, drawing only 55 A to the Freewing fan's 77 A, and still gets plenty of power, and it's much quieter, so I will use it a future design. The F-106 is just on the heavier side for 70mm EDFs, so it needs a bit more oomph.

Question for yah, Once the Freewing is in the air, do you run it at full power at all times or can you throttle back?

I have been using Freewing 64mm 5 bladed EDF's for over 14 years and since you are looking to reduce weight, if you know max amperage, of the Freewing, you might look at other brands of ESC"s. I have found other brands of Esc's that are(including bursts) are reliable and way less in weight. Might even get you some more oomph with no changes.
\
I have a bunch of Freewing's and I have destroyed fan blades(paid $2, now over $3) and they work the same as the original, so it saves me purchasing a whole new EDF!!!. That's why I stayed with them on all of my setups of EDF's.
 

telnar1236

Elite member
Question for yah, Once the Freewing is in the air, do you run it at full power at all times or can you throttle back?

I have been using Freewing 64mm 5 bladed EDF's for over 14 years and since you are looking to reduce weight, if you know max amperage, of the Freewing, you might look at other brands of ESC"s. I have found other brands of Esc's that are(including bursts) are reliable and way less in weight. Might even get you some more oomph with no changes.
\
I have a bunch of Freewing's and I have destroyed fan blades(paid $2, now over $3) and they work the same as the original, so it saves me purchasing a whole new EDF!!!. That's why I stayed with them on all of my setups of EDF's.
The plane cruises a bit less than half throttle. That's a good thought. I'm using this ESC since the EDF seems to run more efficiently/get more thrust with it, but investigating other ESCs could save a few grams. Any suggestions on a good alternative?
 

telnar1236

Elite member
I don't think I'm going to manage to reduce the landing speed as much as I want just based on reducing the weight, so I've been looking into ways to improve the aerodynamics. Delta wings aren't really compatible with conventional flaps since they would just make the plane pitch down so I need another option.

One possibility is to put a set of split flaps in the middle of the wing where they won't cause much pitch change.
1732753550195.png

The issue with this kind of flap design is that they don't actually do that much. Wings fly primarily due to the low pressure on top of them and the low pressure on top of the flaps is shared with the bottom surface of the wing. Therefore, they are mostly air brakes, only boosting lift by about 5% and slightly making the plane want to nose up decreasing the loss of lift due to trim forces on the elevons. They may be worth adding still since every little bit helps, though, especially if combined with reduced weight and other high lift devices.
1732756318255.png


I did some reading and also stumbled on a second possibility. Wing apex fences look very strange, but like flaps they increase the lift at a given angle of attack.

1732751386113.png

1732751424454.png


Since the wing has enough lift to fly slower, just while at a higher angle of attack than the plane lands at, the apex fence could be a good option and easier to design and more effective than the flaps. It works by generating and capturing a vortex similar to what delta wing generates at higher angles of attack which increases the lift at the cost of drag. Here's a paper from NASA describing how they work: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940019630/downloads/19940019630.pdf

Here is some CFD showing it a little more clearly. The wing with no fence doesn't generate much of a leading-edge vortex at all at 12.5 degrees AOA.
1732751634254.png

Adding in a small partial fence creates a vortex over the inboard part of the wing and boosts lift by about 5%.
1732751715818.png

And adding in a fence over most of the span generates a much larger and stronger vortex and boosts lift by about 10%.
1732751783712.png

The NASA paper shows that the lift increase should be able to be much bigger (about 20%) at least at the Reynolds numbers they tested, so I'm still trying to refine my designs. I'm trying to keep them relatively low profile to reduce how much of the wing the mechanism to deploy and retract them would take, but I think I should be able to improve performance by increasing the height and angle of the fence closer to 5 degrees or possibly by splitting the fence into a couple smaller ones. Tilting it back by 10 degrees should also help a tiny bit. In the last CFD of the full fence, the outer section of the fence doesn't actually generate much of a vortex, probably due to its smaller angle. I was trying to replicate a gothic wing fence with a smaller outboard angle (amazing name on the part of whoever designed it) that should get better performance, but that may not work the same on this particular plane. It's also possible that wing apex fences just work much better on full scale planes or I did a bad job designing it.

1732752869641.png

(From the NASA paper I found)