F-104 Starfighter - Semi Scale (BT-60 + 3D printed Parts + Plywood Fins - BT-80 is next)

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Any chance of adding wing pylons and some printed Sidewinder and Sparrow missiles? I'd like to make mine the F-104S variant. :)

1671881383319.png
 
Any chance of adding wing pylons and some printed Sidewinder and Sparrow missiles? I'd like to make mine the F-104S variant. :)

View attachment 552803

Hi Bill,

I noticed earlier this week there are various 3-D Resin printed scale missiles for sale on E-bay, not sure about wing pylons.

The feature resolution was quite good for these products given that they are resin printed.

Thought this might be beneficial information for you.

Best regards,

Keith
 
Hi Bill,

I noticed earlier this week there are various 3-D Resin printed scale missiles for sale on E-bay, not sure about wing pylons.

The feature resolution was quite good for these products given that they are resin printed.

Thought this might be beneficial information for you.

Best regards,

Keith
If I had to, I could use balsa or plywood to make pylons, but it would be cool if they were printed and available. Or integrated into the missile to make them sturdier?

Maybe an add-on kit, sold separately so that those who want one could purchase it?
 
Had another successful launch today -- this time my 2nd build which was the NASA style w/o wing pods. Launched on a D12-5 w/ 1oz in nose.



I cooked the rear booster tube which was made of cardboard. I am revising the model w/ ABS printed booster although another option is to remove the cardboard booster tube for launch. I hope to test with an 18mm engine and a plugged mini engine in the booster soon, lots of options with this design.

For those that are interested, I posted the BT-60 kit on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/groups/1078069588922549/posts/6133492873380170/

You can also message me here if you are not on FB.
 
I've wanted a model of the F-104 ever since I saw the discontinued Fat Cat version. Definitely interested. I'd prefer BT-80 size.
 
Some more flights today to test out the 3rd build... I will have my own armada of F-104s on the shelf...

I decided to upgrade the NF-104 version with Booster to a single piece ABS printed booster. It withstood the heat of a few Cs and a D engine quite well (despite no protection -- not even a coat of paint). It is still in the line of fire but definitely works better than the cardboard tube which was my V1.

1672887933420.jpeg

Here it is after the 1st C5-3 launch.

1672887966422.jpeg

Here it is after 3Cs and a D12-3.

1672887999179.jpeg

Most of that is just surface buildup. Here it is after a wipe-down with some paper towel with a bit of rubbing alcohol on it... I think I would recommend leaving the buildup generally speaking (seems like it might protect the underlying material) but wanted to check for damage here.

1672888193810.jpeg

Has anyone used a high-heat spray paint? Does it protect the underlying components or just keeps a good finish? Any other thoughts on what could be applied to further protect a part like this?
 
Looks great, I love the model.

Has anyone used a high-heat spray paint? Does it protect the underlying components or just keeps a good finish? Any other thoughts on what could be applied to further protect a part like this?

I've used aluminum tape with adhesive on one side. I'm not sure if it really helped or not, but it did seem to protect the cardboard underneath and it was easy to clean off. Plus it looked kinda cool.
 
Looks great, I love the model.



I've used aluminum tape with adhesive on one side. I'm not sure if it really helped or not, but it did seem to protect the cardboard underneath and it was easy to clean off. Plus it looked kinda cool.
Thank you! I was thinking of that -- like the foil tape for heating systems. Even if the glue melted and it fell off it would probably provide some protection. I was also contemplating a removable 3D printed cover that you could just dispose of after several launches.
 
Going to start a quick build thread on this, but for now I wanted to post my launch this morning on a C5-3. Epic!

20230128_070239.jpg
(Wanted to test it before tackling the paint job.)

~15` flame? :D
Screenshot_20230128_075519_Gallery.jpg
20230128_070400.jpg
I set it up for a separate chute for the nose cone and a triangular fish line attachment to the tail so it would come down flat to protect the parts and future paint.

It did come down flat; however, the lines got tangled. Will work on that.
 
I saw this on Chris Michielssen's blog for his Odd'l F-104. It's a smaller build but this arrangement should work so you don't need two chuttes. It works very nicely on my Odd'l F-18 and F-104.
http://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2022/04/oddl-rockets-f-104-recovery-suggestion.html?m=1
Thanks!

I think it was my mistake packing that tangled things up.

With the dual chute rockets I've flown, I was in the habit of overlapping them so that the nose cone chute would pull out the bt chute.

In my case I didn't account for the fish line being stiffer and it popped up into the edges of the nose chute, snagging it.

I think the elastic with a single chute makes sense; however, I used two chutes for my build since:
  • The fish line attachment ends up taking the shock of the nose cone ejection if attached (since it's shorter than the line attached) and that may break the attachment point in my case.
  • I plan to double the nose cone weight (or more) for using 24mm motors
  • I wanted the body to fall as gently as possible
  • The weighted nose cone over the body can still damage it or it's finish on landing and I plan on a somewhat elaborate paint scheme.
I'll try the double chutes one more time, but without overlap and if it doesn't work, I'll try a version if what you've used using elastic after the kevlar-to-fishline attachment point and connect the nose to that.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I saw this on Chris Michielssen's blog for his Odd'l F-104. It's a smaller build but this arrangement should work so you don't need two chuttes. It works very nicely on my Odd'l F-18 and F-104.
http://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2022/04/oddl-rockets-f-104-recovery-suggestion.html?m=1
Thanks -- that is very good information!

There are actually a ton of places that you could mount a tail line on this model in the boat tail 3D printed part (or on plywood fins as Ken did). I thought about including a couple of pilot holes / marks in the boat tail but given the number of options it made it difficult for me to decide where to put it.

I also think that the plywood fins + 3D printed fully slotted boat tail is actually far stronger than many other systems. As long as you size your parachute right the plane should survive many launches.

That being said, I launched an early model with an undersized chute (18" instead of 24") before I fully slotted the boat tail (it was just a shallow notch) and had a hard landing on frozen ground and it damaged the rear of the horizontal tail fin and popped the tail off the model. This led to some of my design modifications as well as advice about where to reinforce the wood fins with thin CA glue.

I also think the dual chute options is a good one and there is plenty of space in the BT-60 body to fit a couple of largish chutes.
 
Thanks -- that is very good information!

There are actually a ton of places that you could mount a tail line on this model in the boat tail 3D printed part (or on plywood fins as Ken did). I thought about including a couple of pilot holes / marks in the boat tail but given the number of options it made it difficult for me to decide where to put it.

I also think that the plywood fins + 3D printed fully slotted boat tail is actually far stronger than many other systems. As long as you size your parachute right the plane should survive many launches.

That being said, I launched an early model with an undersized chute (18" instead of 24") before I fully slotted the boat tail (it was just a shallow notch) and had a hard landing on frozen ground and it damaged the rear of the horizontal tail fin and popped the tail off the model. This led to some of my design modifications as well as advice about where to reinforce the wood fins with thin CA glue.

I also think the dual chute options is a good one and there is plenty of space in the BT-60 body to fit a couple of largish chutes.
I had drilled a small hole at the leading edge root of the vertical stabilizer and made sure to strengthen that area with CA.
20230129_123753.jpg
This was done this way more as a temporary test to see if it works and would come down flat... and partially to see if it was removable in case I wanted to display the rocket without the line in the way (yeah, I be vain sometimes :p).
I figured that I can later make a smaller hole further back and just thread the line through and knot to some small ring, etc.
 
Good news for all the Chuck Yeager / NASA booster F-104 fans out there... Successful flight today with the main engine D12-5 + booster (A10 plugged).

So I basically followed my own advice that I had put in the build guide for the kits = Widespread launch lugs + strong main engine + extra nose weight.

Here is the launch:


My earlier attempt to launch with the booster got hung up on the launch rod since I had only included a single launch lug and had used a weaker main engine (C5-3). This resulted in a really halting launch with very low speed off the rail and a pinwheeling rocket once it got off.

So for this attempt:

1) I added two more small launch lugs to the rocket at either end of the body tube (I don't think 3 lugs are necessary but already had one around mid-body; I suspect that a lug at the front and another in the rear would be sufficient).
2) Added more nose weight - I added 1 oz more to the 1.5 oz that was already in this model. 2.5oz may have been overkill but I wanted to try my best to get a stable model -- also, heck launching this little model with an engine in the booster is overkill so this whole post is for those of us with an overkill M.O.
3) Launched w/ D12-5 and A10 plugged engines. I also demonstrated that you can twist the leads together for a main and booster on this rocket pretty readily.

1675362834161.png
1675362872066.jpeg1675362880679.jpeg1675362891594.jpeg1675362906271.jpeg
 
My only concern would be the case when the A10 lighted but the main motor did not. I'm guessing though that the overall liftoff mass means it couldn't cause much ruckus in that case.
Good point -- we always need to be conscious of what happens if only one engine in a cluster ignites.

As you said, in this case, I do not think that it would actually take off with the amount of nose weight added in this instance.

Max lift for the A-10 is only 3oz and this weighs a fair bit more than that with the additional nose weight added.
 
Scale looks good by my eyeball, but it looks like they should be farther forward.
Thank you -- Yes, I realized that after I took the pictures...

EDIT: Here it is positioned a bit better:
1675803997611.jpeg

I also think that maybe the rear fins are a little big (but there are lots of different variants of AIM 9 missiles and it is easy to trim the fins on these prints to make whatever size/shape you want to).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top