RC Jet - Lockheed F-104N Starfighter NASA

[Winston]

[video=youtube;zqNA0MXjTzI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqNA0MXjTzI[/video]

 

[jd2cylman]

Very nice.
Just wondering.... How much invested in just the plane and electronics (roughly)? Are we talking $5000.00? More, less?
Just curious...
I'm not judging, hell, I spent $8000.00 on an antique tractor.... Hopefully the value will maintain or escalate (hopefully), they're not making new ones, so... I got a good chance, I hope (did I mention that I hope the value stays at least level or escalates?).

Adrian

 

[Titan II]

I wish. Over 5 grand for basic plane and gear without numerous required components, electronics and turbine (s).

https://www.skymasterjet.com/104.htm

 

[markkoelsch]

I wish. Over 5 grand for basic plane and gear without numerous required components, electronics and turbine (s).

https://www.skymasterjet.com/104.htm

Cool but really expensive. Just the basic plane kit at $2k plus is my rocket budget for a couple of years. Married, two kids, mortgage, car payments- not that much money available for hobbies these days.

Also, would be cooler if it actually did Mach- just saying.

 

[Rex R]

wonder if the drop tanks are functional?
Rex

 

[Winston]

Very nice.
Just wondering.... How much invested in just the plane and electronics (roughly)? Are we talking $5000.00? More, less?

Just for:

Kit: $2995
Turbine: $3236
Landing gear, exhaust tube, tanks, etc: $2100

Total - $8331

 

[Titan II]

The kit does not include the $2,100 landing gear, plus the exhaust tube, tanks, etc.

 

[Winston]

The kit does not include the $2,100 landing gear, plus the exhaust tube, tanks, etc.

Corrected my post.

 

[Rex R]

been a while since I was in the market for rc gear...I would guess at least $200 for the electronics(minimum 4 servos plus Rx).
Rex

 

[Winston]

been a while since I was in the market for rc gear...I would guess at least $200 for the electronics(minimum 4 servos plus Rx).
Rex

I know you're kidding...

The kit page says a minimum of 9 servos like this one:

https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking...al_Gears_and_Heatsink_25_0kg_0_19sec_69g.html

$116 each from that source, although the kit page has a deal - 9 for $799.

It's great that other people work very hard to build such things, spending huge amounts of money, then risk it all by flying it through the air and provide entertainment for the rest of us.

 

[Leo]

...

It's great that other people work very hard to build such things, spending huge amounts of money, then risk it all by flying it through the air and provide entertainment for the rest of us.

Completely agree. I've seen these things live and it's always great fun to watch.

 

[tab28682]

Cool but really expensive. Just the basic plane kit at $2k plus is my rocket budget for a couple of years. Married, two kids, mortgage, car payments- not that much money available for hobbies these days.

Also, would be cooler if it actually did Mach- just saying.

I actually have a turbine aircraft with an older Jetcat turbine. Have not flown it much of late.

While the idea of a Mach 1 plus R/C model sounds cool, it is quite impractical.

Taking the speed of sound as about 768 MPH, that gives a us a velocity of about 1126 feet per second.

A decently large R/C model can start being a little hard to see clearly at 1000-1200 feet out and very hard to see out past 2000-2400 feet. Ergo, the model would pass from just visible to almost out of sight in about 2-4 seconds, covering about half a mile to a mile in that time frame. That does not include any turnaround distance.

I personally have not flown a jet faster than about 160mph yet. That was fast enough for me.

 

[jd2cylman]

WOW, I knew they were expensive, but wow!!
I guess if you have the money, and that's what you enjoy, then why not?
I'd hate to see one of those neat planes auger in, but that's a risk we all take when we actually fly our models...
Which is why my Neubauer 4" Mercury Redstone has never flown yet...
One of these days I'll fly it, but first I need to convert it to rail buttons and add a Aeropack.

Adrian

 

[RocketT.Coyote]

Give me a 1:32 scale model kit to PMC. Too bad the Revell kit's not available.

 

[pyrobob]

Cool but really expensive. Married, two kids, mortgage, car payments- not that much money available for hobbies these days.

As the Little Rascals and/or Our Gang: And How!

 

[markkoelsch]

I actually have a turbine aircraft with an older Jetcat turbine. Have not flown it much of late.

While the idea of a Mach 1 plus R/C model sounds cool, it is quite impractical.

Taking the speed of sound as about 768 MPH, that gives a us a velocity of about 1126 feet per second.

A decently large R/C model can start being a little hard to see clearly at 1000-1200 feet out and very hard to see out past 2000-2400 feet. Ergo, the model would pass from just visible to almost out of sight in about 2-4 seconds, covering about half a mile to a mile in that time frame. That does not include any turnaround distance.

I personally have not flown a jet faster than about 160mph yet. That was fast enough for me.

I understand all of that. There is nothing practical about an 8-10 thousand dollar RC plane- so why no Mach too. Afterburners added to the engines...

 

[georgegassaway]

Scale-wise, it IS flying supersonic.

For example a 1/5 scale jet flying 160 mph is flying a scale speed of 800 mph, Mach 1.04 scale speed.

Anyone reading this, if you had an R/C F-104 that could fly at a real supersonic speed, you'd probably crash it very quickly.

Also, the aerodynamic loads on a truly supersonic version would require it to be way way stronger (otherwise it would shred, 25 times more aerodynamic loads at 800 mph compared to 160 mph!!!). And therefore way way heavier, and cost way way more (nearly 100% composite, graphite/kevlar, though some if it might need to be made out of metal, even titanium). Requiring way way bigger and stronger and heavier servos, and way way more engine thrust. At a cost that could easily exceed $100,000 for such a specialized hi-tech model too expensive to mass produce.

All for the very likely model's total life time, once at max speed (or attempting to), probably measured more in seconds than hours.

Man, this reminds me some comments about the 1/72 scale space shuttle I made. SRB's sep and deploy their own chutes by timer, Orbiter seps by R/C, flight computer detects orbiter sep and deploys chutes for the ET, orbiter glides back and lands via R/C. And despite ALL THAT, some people made comments like "it ought to have landing gear deploy", or "what, no tiles?" Hey build your own shuttle that does all that and YOU add deployable landing gear (that aside from the modeling impracticalities, would snap off landing in grass where the grass is like trees to a 1/72 model), and YOU add tiles to yours. Then we'll talk.

Yeah, like these incredible F-104 jet models are not "worth it" if they can't break the speed of sound. Nobody reading this would buy and fly them to fly supersonically even if that was possible for the existing kits/engines to do that at the existing prices.

- George Gassaway

 

[bobkrech]

Even if it was possible to exceed Mach 1 with an RC AC, there are FAA imposed speed limits for all AC operating below 10KFT MSL. The maximum permissible air speed is 250 KIAS and in many locations it drops to 200 KIAS. Plus RC AC are restricted to VFR LOS operations and even at speeds well below Mach 1 the AC could easily go out of sight.

The F-104 RC AC kits are spectacular. It appears they are above $10K before they get airborne, but they are extremely realistic. I was 7 when the F-104 became operational and that was the AC I wanted to fly. It had no speed competition for several years until the F-4 went operational, but the F-104 was still the fastest looking AC of the era. The USAF really didn't like it and took them out of service in 1969, but the Europeans and Canadians flew them for a long time. They were a difficult AC to fly properly and killed a lot of pilots, but they were cool. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/2/1360449/-The-not-quite-right-stuff-F-104-Starfighter

Bob

 

[markkoelsch]

Again, I understand the idea of scale speed. I understand the issues with aerodynamic load/airframe design and construction. I also understand the FAA issues. I never said it was going to happen, nor did I say the current tech makes it possible.

All I said was that it would be cool. You guys need to lighten up a bit.

 

[tab28682]

I understand all of that. There is nothing practical about an 8-10 thousand dollar RC plane- so why no Mach too. Afterburners added to the engines...

Actually, there are more turbine jet models out there than you might think, considering the price.
A number of guys with enough spare money are enjoying them, so they are practical for some folks at some level, if not for very many modelers.

I know a guy in Dallas that has spent 25k each on two custom RC turbine models. The local jet expert that owns a LHS did the work on at least one of them.

Adding supersonic capability is 100% impractical for these models, however cool that might be...

The most cost effective way for a modeler to break the sound barrier is the subject of this web site we are on....

 

[Winston]

Completely agree. I've seen these things live and it's always great fun to watch.

NICE closeups! Thanks!

 

[georgegassaway]

There is nothing practical about an 8-10 thousand dollar RC plane- so why no Mach too. Afterburners added to the engines...

Many would say that about a "big hobby rocket" project that costs $10,000 and flies once, costing perhaps $1,000 or more to re-fly it (many such super-projects never fly again even if they land safely).

They might say, all that money and effort and it does not fly into orbit? Nothing practical about those rockets.

That's sort of the equal to the complaint these do not fly supersonic (or Hypersonic scale speed).

Whereas these F-104 jets are way more practical models to fly over and over. Per-flight perhaps under $20 (?) in consumables (95% good quality kerosene or A1 and 5% turbine oil for fuel, some propane for startup, etc), long as it does not crash. And often fly multiple flights the same day, without having to totally disassemble the motor in order to re-fuel (reload) it, or replace the expendable turbine motor with a new motor. Or, fill out a bunch of paperwork and sit around for an hour or several hours to wait to fly (unless it's a scheduled R/C airshow or contest, I have never been to an R/C field that requires filling out flight cards. It is a hobby.....).

Practical? Glass houses.... throwing stones.

Bottom line, they are neat to see fly, if they fly well. And by neat to see fly I mean all the above. Does not matter the motivations or the cost that others are willing to dedicate to for their models.

- George Gassaway

 

[jadebox]

One of my coworkers flies R/C jets. Here is a video of him flying his F-15. It us really cool how realistic it looks and sounds. And the scenery in this video is especially cool since he lives in Florida where the only mountains have roller coasters inside them.

[YOUTUBE]MpVbqL2TCK4[/YOUTUBE]

-- Roger

 

[Titan II]

As there is a lot of interest in this thread....

Post #3 above was for at 1:5 scale kit. There is also a 1:4 scale kit on the market. One of the many neat things about the 104 are the numerous cool paint schemes.

https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/11599952-airworld-1-4-scale-f104.html

 

[markkoelsch]

Many would say that about a "big hobby rocket" project that costs $10,000 and flies once, costing perhaps $1,000 or more to re-fly it (many such super-projects never fly again even if they land safely).

They might say, all that money and effort and it does not fly into orbit? Nothing practical about those rockets.

That's sort of the equal to the complaint these do not fly supersonic (or Hypersonic scale speed).

Whereas these F-104 jets are way more practical models to fly over and over. Per-flight perhaps under $20 (?) in consumables (95% good quality kerosene or A1 and 5% turbine oil for fuel, some propane for startup, etc), long as it does not crash. And often fly multiple flights the same day, without having to totally disassemble the motor in order to re-fuel (reload) it, or replace the expendable turbine motor with a new motor. Or, fill out a bunch of paperwork and sit around for an hour or several hours to wait to fly (unless it's a scheduled R/C airshow or contest, I have never been to an R/C field that requires filling out flight cards. It is a hobby.....).

Practical? Glass houses.... throwing stones.

Bottom line, they are neat to see fly, if they fly well. And by neat to see fly I mean all the above. Does not matter the motivations or the cost that others are willing to dedicate to for their models.

- George Gassaway

George, I could care less what somebody spends their money on. I would never spend $10k on a rocket nor a RC plane. If you want to go ahead and incur the level of financial risk go for it. I will do my thing.

Your reaction to a couple simple statements (that going Mach would be cool, and that these things are very expensive) is completely ridiculous. I am done with this B.S.

 

[tmacklin]

Great post Winston! You seem to have a knack for finding interesting activities.

As for the bickering...what else is new? Happy New Year! [video=youtube;A_SrZBlHr2k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_SrZBlHr2k[/video]

 

[Leo]

The F-104... IMO the sexiest aircraft ever made and my all time favorite jet.

Here a very nice build video:

[video=youtube;sBNXOnnAM7E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNXOnnAM7E[/video]

 

[georgegassaway]

BTW - one of the neatest was the NF-104. It had a liquid propellant rocket engine attached in the rear fuselage, plus some attitude thrusters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_NF-104A
The Lockheed NF-104A was an American mixed power, high-performance, supersonic aerospace trainer that served as a low-cost astronaut training vehicle for the X-15 and projected X-20 Dyna-Soar programs.

This was the F-104 type that Chuck Yeager was flying when it flamed out during a zoom climb over 100,000 feet, and fell back out of control, Yeager had to eject (In the movie The Right Stuff, they didn't show the rocket aspect, and treated it like he was just going to make a routine flight in a typical F-104, when it was actually an official record flight attempt.

If I got into having an R/C F-104 model, I'd like to have it in NASA livery, like one of these two (the first being the one in the video at the start of this thread):

I'd never be able to justify the cost of a big turbine model, though. This would be more like it, and Electric Ducted Fan model with a few scale sacrifices (air inlets are oversized)

[video=youtube;se7cf7oM8fA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se7cf7oM8fA[/video]

However, I'm not quite sure what I'd really like the most for a scale type R/C plane, if I had a choice to pick one for free. I'm not really into fast-flying R/C birds. I'd rather have a good quality 12 foot or so span electric sailplane, but those cost $2000 or more. Although on some other days I wish I had a big Multicopter with FPV and a GoPro onboard (I may custom build a relatively inexpensive 1 meter Quadcopter this fall, not FPV but capable of it later. I custom assembled a 250 sized Quad, using a $10 nylon frame, early last year).

- George Gassaway

 

[tab28682]

I'd never be able to justify the cost of a big turbine model, though. This would be more like it, and Electric Ducted Fan model with a few scale sacrifices

- George Gassaway

There is s newer, better looking 70mm EDF F-104 from Freewing via Motion RC that I recently test flew for a guy at our field. Nice flyer, not too expensive and a lot of features for the money. I am trying to resist this one.


https://www.motionrc.com/freewing-f-104-starfighter-70mm-edf-jet-pnp/


https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=yUZWTzuW_ks

 

[Titan II]

Here is something many do not know about the 104....

"One of the unusual variants that would actually go someplace was the "CL-282", which was proposed by Lockheed in the mid-1950s as a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft based on the XF-104. The CL-282 was to feature very long glider-like wings and a P&W J57 engine; it was to be stripped of everything that could be removed to reduce weight, including the ejection seat. The USAF didn't bite on the idea, but the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) did, and approved development. However, as the design progressed, the machine changed to the point where it had very little parts commonality with the F-104, becoming essentially a completely different design with only a general reflection of its Starfighter origins. It would emerge as the famous "U-2" spyplane, in its own way as much a part of the Cold War as the Starfighter."