Full Scale Aim-4 Falcon Missile

Finished the gluing of the fins and added the front antennae(fins)...

Weight without motor is 4# 6 oz, 5# 3oz rtf with I-200 loaded.

CG is right at the LE of the front of the fins empty and about 5" behind with motor which gives me 1.5:1 with borrowman and 2:1 margin with rocksim equations. That is with no added nose weight.

Came home for lunch and applied the red and titanium color on the nose, just need to negotiate with Mark at stickershock for some markings.

I'm not going to put the little pivot arms/connecting rods between the two fin sets till I fly it once, I'm afraid that since the foam fins have a bit of flex if I tie them together that way it might break that connecting piece out or cause a break on the other fin..we'll see.
I could have done the fins one piece and just used black inbetween where the spaces are, a-la the wildman interceptor, but that would have been too simple, and you won't get that nice whistle when it flies


Frank

Might be enough to get the boys who are checking out the satellite photos a little start.

I figured out how to cover some thin styrene sheet srips with red monokote, and then slotted the le and te of the fins and inserted them into the slots to simulate the steering pivot supports/linkages.

Frank

What glue do you use?

I use foam safe CA+ for the foam and foam to tubing, 3m-77 spray contact cement for the skin
Small amounts of epoxy for the ply centering rings to the tubes.
In this case I used some 15 min epoxy for the fin to body, not because of strength, but because it gave me time to position and align things.


Frank

sooner.boomer said:

What glue do you use?

Click to expand...

Ok, here she is. I really have to commend Mark at Stickershock, based on the four photos in the beginning of the thread, a little help from me reading the markings and some measurements/rocksim file, he cranked these out in no time and they really went on great and really make the project. It used to be before I started a project, I would decide a go/no go based on whether I thought I could do the markings well enough myself with what I could do or find to make it worth it, with Mark that isn't a concern any more.

Frank

Looks fantastic.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Took some better pictures outside and one family photo of all the foamies...

Very nice! What red is that?

Its testors flat red, it covers the depron pretty well, the foam is still not totally opaque though.

Great maiden flight today at Tri-Cities on an I-200W to around 1000' in about a 10mph wind, great weather and great bunch of folks.

[video=youtube_share;4srYRpoMtSU]https://youtu.be/4srYRpoMtSU[/video]

rharshberger said:

I tried but its 12mb, too large to post.

Edit: Here is the link from Ninfinger though https://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/ModelRocketry/ModelRocketry.html it is September 1970 Issue 12.

I downloaded every issue they offer, lots and lots of scale data, every issue has scale data for at least one rocket.

Click to expand...

That's a great read and all, but it was obviously not anything more than "So called scale". I mean, look at the ridiculous looking model rocket nose cone for starters!!!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:oint:oint:oint:

The wings are totally wrong too, featuring only straight angles on the leading edge.
There are A LOT of details missing from that drawing.

burkefj said:

Great maiden flight today at Tri-Cities on an I-200W to around 1000' in about a 10mph wind, great weather and great bunch of folks.

[video=youtube_share;4srYRpoMtSU]https://youtu.be/4srYRpoMtSU[/video]

Click to expand...

Awesome!!!

As usual, nice work!:clap:

Those big foamies were a real treat to watch. The I200 is a perfect motor for those things!

TopRamen said:

That's a great read and all, but it was obviously not anything more than "So called scale". I mean, look at the ridiculous looking model rocket nose cone for starters!!!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:oint:oint:oint:

The wings are totally wrong too, featuring only straight angles on the leading edge.
There are A LOT of details missing from that drawing.

Click to expand...

I don't get the excessive criticism on that old magazine scale plan and article.

The basic nose cone and fin shape with the straight leading edge are correct/close enough for that AIM-4E semi active radar homing variant of the Falcon. There were lots of variants of the Falcon missile and they had a picture of a real AIM-4E in the Model Rocketry mag article that fully supports the design published. Hard to argue with that sort of scale documentation....

If you google around there are other drawings of the E model that match the model.

Sure, they did leave off some other scale details, but that is not uncommon in plans for a sport scale model.

I prefer the version that Frank built, but that is not the only Falcon out there.

Here is the Alway drawing of the a AIM-4E. It is based in part on those pictures of the real E model in that MR article.

tab28682 said:

I don't get the excessive criticism on that old magazine scale plan and article.

The basic nose cone and fin shape with the straight leading edge are correct/close enough for that AIM-4E semi active radar homing variant of the Falcon. There were lots of variants of the Falcon missile and they had a picture of a real AIM-4E in the Model Rocketry mag article that fully supports the design published. Hard to argue with that sort of scale documentation....

If you google around there are other drawings of the E model that match the model.

Sure, they did leave off some other scale details, but that is not uncommon in plans for a sport scale model.

I prefer the version that Frank built, but that is not the only Falcon out there.

Here is the Alway drawing of the a AIM-4E. It is based in part on those pictures of the real E model in that MR article.

View attachment 283069

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm just eccentric like that.:wink:

I liked the Article as a whole, but thought the drawing looked silly.
Just like TLP's ALARM Kit, sure, it is meant to be a semiscale model of the "Prototype", and I even baught one as my first TLP kit, but I look at the pictures of the actual missile and just think, "How silly".

I'm by no means a "Scale" modeller, as I take artistic license with my builds.

Here's a good article.:

https://mcfisher.0catch.com/scratch/aim4f/history/history.htm


And this one too.:

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

Still looking for that sweet drawing....


I used to have a nice line drawing of the Falcon, with Russian writing, but cannot find it.
If I do, I'll post it here.

TopRamen said:

Sorry, I'm just eccentric like that.:wink:

I liked the Article as a whole, but thought the drawing looked silly.
Just like TLP's ALARM Kit, sure, it is meant to be a semiscale model of the "Prototype", and I even baught one as my first TLP kit, but I look at the pictures of the actual missile and just think, "How silly".

I'm by no means a "Scale" modeller, as I take artistic license with my builds.

Click to expand...

News flash......the AIM-4E is an actual missile...

I hear you, but the complaints you had about the nose cone shape and wing/fin shape being "totally wrong" were still unfair and incorrect. It completely resembles the version of the real Falcon AIM-4E that was in the photos in the article that they were modeling. I agree it is not the coolest looking Falcon, but it is a scale model that looks like the chosen prototype.

Getting the thread back on track....here is a still from the video...

That does look good!

Frank definitely threw me for a loop when I RSO'd this rocket, I finally had to ask were the nose cone seperation point was. For those following its the little "eye" on the nose cone.

Nice Flight!

How far did you end up having to hike to get it back?

Not too far, 300 yards maybe..

Frank

Well, I feel pretty good about the foam structured rockets I've done. I did some data mining and they performed pretty well and stood up to some good accelleration/flight speeds relative to their construction. They all used chutes from 45 to 54" diameter to give a decent rate of 13-16fps. None suffered any major damage due to flight or landing, a couple had some minor fin damage just due to bad luck in landing on something hard, but were easily repaired. Some used clear fins, some used foam fins. All used altimeter deployment with no motor backup. None had any heat damage to the foam.

All flying on 29mm motors, H-128 the smallest for the redstone, H-180 the smallest for the others, and the largest motor was the I-200W, the below numbers are using the I-200.

Falcon Missile(full scale), 5#, 10 G's, 170mph max speed, 990' altitude(6.25" diameter)
Titan II 5#, 10 G's, 171mph max speed, 1010' altitude.(8" diameter)
Redstone Missile, 4.25#, 215mph max speed, 1250' altitude(7" diameter)
Hellfire missile(full scale) 5.5#, 217mph max speed, 1200' altitude (7" diameter)
Atlas Missile 6.5#, 140mph max speed, 600' altitue(10" diameter)
Pershing 1A 4.5#, 170mph max speed, 1100' altitude(8" diameter)

It's interesting the Titan II that I built using normal highpower construction with a J-510 has the same max speed as the foam version on an I-200, The highpower bird goes about 400' higher due to longer coast due to the higher mass with the same dimensions.

The Hellfire and Redstone have similar diameters and fin drag, so the max velocity is about the same, hellfire coasts to about the same altitude as the redstone which is about a pound lighter and burns off velocity faster...

Great build and great flight
As per the scale argument....

I am not a scale modeler, but if I saw that hanging off a fighter pylon I'd think it was real, and if I saw it coming at me from my cockpit I'd need new undies.

tab28682 said:

I don't get the excessive criticism on that old magazine scale plan and article.

The basic nose cone and fin shape with the straight leading edge are correct/close enough for that AIM-4E semi active radar homing variant of the Falcon. There were lots of variants of the Falcon missile and they had a picture of a real AIM-4E in the Model Rocketry mag article that fully supports the design published. Hard to argue with that sort of scale documentation....

If you google around there are other drawings of the E model that match the model.

Sure, they did leave off some other scale details, but that is not uncommon in plans for a sport scale model.

I prefer the version that Frank built, but that is not the only Falcon out there.

Here is the Alway drawing of the a AIM-4E. It is based in part on those pictures of the real E model in that MR article.

View attachment 283069

Click to expand...

OK, for the record, that drawing was 100% based on the old Model Rocketry Magazine article. I've done so many drawings, and I don't have my research handy to properly name the various versions, but this is obviously not the version burkefj/Frank built. Since then I've actually found data on his version. If I had noticed this build thread when it would have made a difference, I would have posted something--at least a couple of links! There's at least one NASA technical paper online with dimensions, as well as a NARTS packet. Unfortunately, I only check in here every couple of weeks, and often just check the "Scale" department.

I'll have to take some photos of the real thing at NARCON this weekend, since it might end up in RotW V...

Peter Alway

There are so many flown versions of the real AIM-4* out there that a modeler simply has to pick the version that appeals to them the most. And, they are all scale....

Look at all the AIM-9 variants out there. There is even a radar guided version of the Sidewinder, the AIM-9C, just like the oddball AIM-4E.

Frank picked what I think is the nicest looking version of the Falcon to model.

I took photos at narcon this weekend and other than the straight nose taper I did on purpose to make construction easier, rge shape and markings were spot on.

Frank