Me 109e 24.25inch wingspan

[Heinrich Dorfmann]

Iam determined to build a 109e ,proper scale looking-but scaled down as much as possible ( I don’t have a lot of room ! )I tried for ages to do it with fusion 360 but had problems flattening the skins from the drawings and more or less gave up but Onshape,has a flatten feature (free apparently) and seems promising so am going to give it amother go .
Rather than start from scratch,what about taking the plans for this

SFRC Mighty Mini BF109

Over the few months, I have been working on my own design for a mighty mini BF109 as it seems like there aren't any smaller scale BF109 plans out there, that I can find at least. This is my first design of a foam board airplane, the SFRC Mighty Mini BF109. I wanted to create a very scale flying...

forum.flitetest.com

And am going to take a chance and reduce it by 15% maximum,to 27.2 inches ,build it and hope it all still fits!
I plan to use a 2S, 300 mah battery with a 20 A esc and 1806 2300 kv (A-pack)- with a 6x3 prop .-only looking for scale speed

What could possibly go wrong ????!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for any advice ( other than don’t bother)

 

[bisco]

all the best!

 

[Heinrich Dorfmann]

Just resizing and then build it out of cardboard first to get an idea of fit etc

 

[bisco]

good idea!

 

[Heinrich Dorfmann]

When I’m resizing with Adobe I can’t seem to measure it before I print,there’s no preview option so I put in 85% on the size option,printed and got a w/s of 27 inches ,not 27.2 .( metres Mr Towns ,metres! Heinrich Dorfmann my hero)

 

[Heinrich Dorfmann]

Have been talking with HAL and he’s been very helpful explaining how much a flyable wing can be enlarged / reduced without making any alterations,or if they do how much needs to be added to elevator/ rudder.It seems that reducing from 32 inches to 27 (approximately 15% reduction)will mean I’ll have to add 10% more to rudder / elevator from the hinge to the edge and some cavities would need enlarged ,but if I only reduce from 32 to 29 inches I don’t need to do anything.
I also asked him about enlarging these wings/ rudder/ elevator
https://forum.flitetest.com/index.php?threads/mighty-mini-bf-109-swappable-build-thread.24426/ and he said I could go from 24.25 up to 27 inches with no structural changes ,and then design a new scale fuselage ( using balsa plans ) and mate the two and he was very positive about that and said yes, no structural changes needed and no change to flying performance.
Only problem is whether battery will fit inside ,am currently drawing the front end at 25/26/27 inch wingspan to see which of these sizes would allow it to fit
He also said he had made some poor decisions recently but was better now and had the greatest confidence and enthusiasm in the mission….

 

[AIRFORGE]

Have been talking with HAL and he’s been very helpful explaining how much a flyable wing can be enlarged / reduced without making any alterations,or if they do how much needs to be added to elevator/ rudder.It seems that reducing from 32 inches to 27 (approximately 15% reduction)will mean I’ll have to add 10% more to rudder / elevator from the hinge to the edge and some cavities would need enlarged ,but if I only reduce from 32 to 29 inches I don’t need to do anything.
I also asked him about enlarging these wings/ rudder/ elevator
https://forum.flitetest.com/index.php?threads/mighty-mini-bf-109-swappable-build-thread.24426/ and he said I could go from 24.25 up to 27 inches with no structural changes ,and then design a new scale fuselage ( using balsa plans ) and mate the two and he was very positive about that and said yes, no structural changes needed and no change to flying performance.
Only problem is whether battery will fit inside ,am currently drawing the front end at 25/26/27 inch wingspan to see which of these sizes would allow it to fit
He also said he had made some poor decisions recently but was better now and had the greatest confidence and enthusiasm in the mission….

Be careful. HAL doesn't always play well with others, Albert.

 

[Heinrich Dorfmann]

It’s Heinrich Dorfmann now ,decided on a less controversial name .
Also asked HAL about using balsa plans to design a wing .My concern is that flitetest fold over wings have a flat lower surface but many balsa plans have formers which are curved underneath.
He said “
The key challenge you've identified is the difference in airfoil shape.

It's true that many balsa wing plans use complex, curved airfoils, while FliteTest's "fold-over" method is designed around a simpler, flat-bottomed airfoil.

📝 How to Adapt a Balsa Plan

· Adapt the airfoil for flat-bottom foam construction. The simplest approach is to use the balsa plan mostly for the planform (shape) of the wing, while designing a new, flat-bottomed airfoil for the ribs. This makes construction straightforward and preserves the plane's overall look and flight characteristics.
· Convert an undercambered airfoil. If your balsa plan has a classic undercambered airfoil (curved on both top and bottom), you can flatten the bottom to create a flat-bottom airfoil. This can be as simple as adding a thin foam sheet or even covering material across the bottom. This modification will increase stiffness and high-speed penetration (reducing drag) while only slightly sacrificing low-speed floatiness.
· Use balsa for structural elements. You don't have to use foam for everything. The lightweight and stiffness of balsa make it perfect for areas that experience high stress. You can keep the balsa spars, leading edges, and wingtips from your original plan.
· Build a hybrid wing. For a thicker, more complex airfoil, consider a "hybrid" approach. You can cut a series of foam ribs using your modified plan and then glue a thin top and bottom foam skin over them. This builds a very strong, lightweight wing with an accurate airfoil shape.
Anyway off to EVA pod so can talk in private without HAL overhearing. Will personally grab him by his dilithium crystals and disconnect him if he is proven wrong.

 

[Heinrich Dorfmann]

Ok as the eagle eyed among you will have noticed have changed wingspan in title to 24.25 inches.
Have decided to abandon downsizing plans and instead use local fiends wings / elevator/ rudder,which is definitely a flying success https://forum.flitetest.com/index.php?threads/mighty-mini-bf-109-swappable-build-thread.24426/
Now going to design new scale like fuselage from drawings attached using @Mr Man technique of having a central “box” the size of a standard ft firewall and mate wings to fuselage
Have checked and an 850 2S battery ( only flying scale speed )and 20 A esc can fit side by side between formers F2and F4 in the central” box “with top hatch access.Or they could go one behind the other ( esc at front?) or could also have another hatch below cockpit and put battery in there,
Rather than one single through “box “thinking of incorporating a “break” at former F2 as thinking if front end gets smashed in in a crash will hopefully only then need to rebuild forward of F2.There should be be room to open up ventilation underneath where the radiator cowl is .Theres no room for a Former at F1,it will be circular there with the “box “touching it at the corners like grizzwizz did with his 109( though I may introduce a former between F 1 /F 2 to make the “ box” /pod more stable/ sturdy.
Any thoughts?