B-47 9th Scale, Boeing Stratojet...In The Middle

[Flite-Metal]

With exception of 1 B all WB were originally E combat aircraft. Weather aka radiation detect and sampling was called weather
as a civilian cloak to disquise true missions thought they were also used for mission weather analysis and hurricane hunters.
As the SAM threat grew the WB-47's mission was 100% weather data.

I suspect the aileron issue is cable related.

Chaff dispensors are large units. I have a photo with its side panels removed. I am thinking two would not fit back to back. A
single unit should have been enough to confuse interceptor radar since the only threat was from the rear. Don't believe SAM
threat was legit until the early 60's. Although Gary Powers would probably be a good timeline reference...

[GALVDA]

The Boeing Field aircraft does not appear to have any means of dispensing chaff and no large side panels aft of the wing do not appear to be removable either. Interestingly, all the references to a chaff dispenser that I have found refer to it in the singular, never as "dispensers" plural. You show a display aircraft that was originally at McConnell AFB and later relocated. The history of restoring that aircraft mentions that some remaining chaff bundles were found to be "in the dispenser's hopper" and were left there.

That history of the aircraft on display in the midwest, a photo of which you posted showing the ailerons faired and not up, also reveals that it did indeed have its wings cut off for transport and the landing gear removed. It had spent years on a pylon in another location with the gear up and thus had to have landing gear struts located and reinstalled. The wheels and tires are from a B-52. This just points up the fact that one must be very cautious in assuming that any display aircraft shows a configuration actually used.

[tenacious101010]

Very nice, I hope to get to see it fly.
Denny

[Flite-Metal]

There are many removable panels on each B-47. The darkened panel above is removed for access to the right hand side chaff
dispensor. I have other system image showing the dispensor within the B-47 maintenance manuals we have.



Available free now.... :^) http://rapidshare.com/files/395019322/B47A-S.PDF

These manuals are condensed compilations sold for many subjects by Periscope Productions.



I just ordered a set for the YB-49 we will do after this is completed.

[Flite-Metal]

These are the additional manuals in our B-47 library: These are available from Italy on a DVD.

[GALVDA]

Went back and looked at my pictures, which I should have done before posting last time. (OK, I misplaced the camera and was relying on memory. Still can't locate my USB cable for the camera either.)

Yes, now that you mention the large side panels, there WERE apparently chaff dispensers on BOTH sides of the aircraft at one time if it is that large panel. They have a whole bunch of screws holding them on and if these are the really large panels above the gear doors with three small holes vertically oriented, loading the chaff must have been a major chore. I was not thinking "immense" unit I guess. Modern chaff dispensers are small enough to cloud one's thinking when looking fifties stuff like this. They are/were definitely on both sides however.

[GALVDA]

Didn't find the firewire but ran across a card reader I didn't know I had. Here's shots of both sides of the airplane. Sorry I haven't figured out how to blow up the detail like I can do it on my camera.

[Flite-Metal]

To better understand the chaffe system onboard the B-47E this will explain a lot. I am going to try to get a still of the
maintenance cycle with the panel removed so the cartridges can be refilled.

http://www.realmilitaryvideos.com/19...systems-color/

[GALVDA]

Ed, I actually found that video myself on the Military Videos website last week when I was curious as to what a prehistoric chaff dispenser looked like. Couldn't open it then, no joy now either. This website is totally unresponsive once an error bar appears at the bottom of my screen. Nothing seems to affect it. Even downloaded the latest update to Adobe Flash Player. All for naught. What is the secret handshake?

[Flite-Metal]

If Flash is the issue you need to change your internet settings within your tools under internet options. Go to Advanced, down
to Multimedia. All in that section should be "on" except for "Show image download place holders". You will have to restart your
computer to see if it changed.

[Flite-Metal]

Do not waste your time with this book...



I will extract usable data shortly. It is not a maintenance nor flight manual in the same light as the two B-47 books which were
excellent.

Not to say I was disappointed, any documentation is good documentation if it provides usable content. In this case, 40~50%
of its content is less than I had expected.

It appears to be a pilot/crew overview with a few cockpit details, general flight notation and in general not what I had hoped for
...though I must say, Periscope warned me (kinda sorta) that it was in no way the type document the two B-47 books were.

I have the 72nd Italiari YB-49 kit and it is superb! Plenty of detail and documentation for cockpit, gun stations, etc.

[GALVDA]

Thanks Ed. The film site is still pretty quirky. Turns out a MacAfee anti-virus program that was associated with another recently installed program was taking offense at my attempts to run the video. I had to sacrifice a goat to it.

Interesting film on many levels. To name but a few:

One, the system worked in a manner I never would have suspected or I would have probably sussed out the dispensers on the local airframe myself. I was of the impression that those ejector ports were pressurization outflow valves or something. (It ain't an airliner, Dave. Nobody sits back there. They're all sitting up in front of First Class.)

Two, current systems are far smaller and some actually cut the window strips to the correct length to fit the wavelength of the threat as they leave the dispenser. These on the 47 were far simpler in comparison. They could even have been replaced by two airmen with shovels. I bet that's the way the Russians did theirs back then.("What's that cap insignia mean? Oh that. I'm a waist shoveler on a TU-4.")

Three, the pictures of the B-47 taking off were fascinating. It is one of those aircraft that doesn't leave the ground all at once but in several installments. First the wings flex, then the outriggers are clear, then the rest of the airplane lifts off in a level attitude. No rotation of the fuselage to nose up whatsoever. ( I wonder if the call is "V1, levitate.")

The initial liftoff reminds me a lot of the U-2s that used to fly in and out of the Lockheed mod center at Van Nuys airport back in the 70s when I was putting myself thru college by instructing. (BTW, those U-2s would then rotate to about 45 degrees nose up and I never saw one go past the south end of runway 16 - just a breathtaking chandelle on steroids as they grabbed altitude and headed north for the desert.)

Thanks very much for posting it.

Back to the Goshawk.

[Flite-Metal]

The fuselage ejection is either side of the rear wheel so I don't have a lot of room. In the wing tanks
its simpler. I am using a serial bus receiver network so I probably will do the wing tanks as primary and
create a minimum of ejection from the fuselage.

I ordered a test batch of smoke generators. Early on that was one of the first eye candy elements I
knew I had to replicate. I figured the larger cartridges could be cut into thirds or quarters.

[Flite-Metal]

After receiving an email from a friend I realized few to none of you were aware of FAI F4C ground rules... This was part of a continuing discussion of
the Vortex Generators/Turbulators out on the wings of the B-47B~E.

I begin with his post releative to these:

You wrote... "You really are determined to attribute the need for the Vortex Generators to correct a low speed problem. They deal with high altitude,
high Mach number airflow."

I believe you misunderstand my point with respect to turbulators and their functionality on my r/c model. Back when I began this project I interviewed
the three modelers known to have competed with a B-47. The smaller of the two designs was actually a D turbo-prop and flown as a control line and
as an r/c model with its own set of problems based on too great an airspeed when landing.

However, the issue I return to is the 80" wingspan B-47 "D" was built from the design of its own builder back in 1962 and was built for competition
purposes from the beginning. This model "evolved" through multiple airframes and the experience gained from each.

I called Joe Martin and we spoke at length about one particular aspect of the B-47's flight....downwind, turn across base leg to final approach and
the behavior during the entire maneuver sequence. Ailerons were differential at the 1:8 up to down ratio required to reduce the imbalance caused
by the swept wing. Remember there were slots only on the "A" which obviously did little to reduce combined yaw and rotation.

This means I not only have to have vortex generators showing on the wing surface, I am mounting them in the same pattern and angle of attack to
the airstream as they were on the 1:1 in an attempt to break up the air that separated from the wing surfaces on Joe Martin's 80" B-47D model.
(read as totally ineffctive airlerons)

Joe Martin flew his B-47 for at least three years in the New England Scale Championships and suffered affect of older radio technology in the fact
he had neither yaw dampening, pitch dampening, nor properly mixed ailerons to flaperon through the first 20 degrees of outboard flap travel.

I have ample but not an excess of thrust to load against a flap extension greater than 25 degrees. In fact energy is the key issue with this project...
not its construction. The timeline of assembly has been defined by battery & ESC power controller technology capable of surviving the energy of
the wide range of throttle during my flight plans.

There are a total of 10 actual maneuvers in each flight plan. An 11th point value is awarded for "Realism In Flight". It is this 11th point value which
can ruin a flight round score. Of the minimum of three (3) mandatory flight rounds a single "best" score represents 50% of the total contest score
when combined with the "static" score portion.

The "K" factors are multipliers applied or awarded to each maneuver to reflect the % of difficulty in the overall flight plan performance. Below is the
current FAI CIAM (Aeromodeling) comp guide K factor multiplier of a point awarded to a competitor in FAI F4C (R/C Scale). Weighted values reward
the competitor willing to devote time to practicing their flight plans the greatest.

6.3.6.1. Take-off ....................................___...... K = 9

6.3.6.2. Straight flight ............................___...... K = 3

6.3.6.3. Figure Eight..............................___....... K = 9

6.3.6.4. Descending 360O Circle ............___....... K = 9

6.3.6.5. Option......................................___....... K = 6

6.3.6.6. Option......................................___....... K = 6

6.3.6.7. Option......................................___....... K = 6

6.3.6.8. Option......................................___....... K = 6

6.3.6.9. Option......................................___....... K = 6

6.3.6.10. Approach and Landing.............___.... K = 12

6.3.6.11. Realism of flight

a) Engine sound (realistic tone & tuning).___........ K = 3

b) Speed of the model aircraft................___......... K = 7 (requires understanding of a complex angle of attack formula)
c) Smoothness of flight ........................___......... K = 6 (meaned effects of wind vel. & direction related to the 1:1
(best defended with documentation )
d) Choice of options............................___......... K = 12

(were maneuvers represent 1:1 capability and aircraft family...verified with documentation)
Total .................................................. ___......... K = 100

You can see there is a direct relationship between the 1:1 flight behavior and the judges "opinion" effected awarding of points.

The better the documentation in support of the flight plan, the greater the probability of being awarded an appropriate score
for each maneuver and the flight round summation expressed by the judge in the Realism Of Flight points spread (which can
be where a competitor "controls" their destiny if they know how the "game is played").

Competitors must be prepared, if required by the judges, to give evidence that the options selected are typical and within the normal capabilities of
the aircraft subject type modeled. Only one maneuver involving the demonstration of a mechanical function may be included in a competitor’s

choice of options. These include (options D

(Bombs/Fuel Tank Drop), L (Parachute Drop), and, if applicable, P or Q

(Flight Functions by subject aircraft).
Selection must be given to judges in writing before taking off. The options may be flown in any order.

It is expected that options A, N, R, S, T and W are intended for subjects with little or no aerobatic capability. (See 6C.3.7. Realism in
flight and 6C.3.6.11. Choice of options). A competitor may not select option “C” (Retract and extend flaps) if option “B” (Retract and
extend landing gear) has also been selected.

6.3.6. Maneuver Index With Award Value:

A Chandelle . .................................................. ........................ K = 6
B Retract and extend landing gear ............................................ K = 6
C Retract and extend flaps .................................................. ..... K = 6
D Dropping of bombs or fuel tanks............................................. K = 6
E Stall turn.............................................. ................................ K = 6
F Immelmann turn .................................................. ................. K = 6
G One loop .................................................. ........................... K = 6
H Split S (Reversal) .................................................. ............... K = 6
I Cuban eight .................................................. ........................ K = 6
J Normal spin (three turns) .................................................. ..... K = 6
K Roll .................................................. ................................... K = 6
L Parachute......................................... .................................... K = 6
M Touch and go................................................ ....................... K = 6
N Overshoot .................................................. ......................... K = 6
O Side slip to left or right .................................................. ....... K = 6
P 1st Flight function by subject aircraft ............LABS................. K = 6
Q 2nd Flight function by subject aircraft .....GAM-63 Release....... K = 6

Competitors may demonstrate up to two different flight functions of their own choice, but must be prepared to supply evidence that each function

was performed by the prototype modelled. Competitors must indicate to the Flight Judges the nature of the demonstration(s) before going to the
flight line).

R Flight in triangular circuit .................................................. ..... K = 6
S Flight in rectangular circuit .................................................. .. K = 6
T Flight in a straight line at constant height (maximum height 6 metres)....K = 6
U Flight in a straight line with one engine throttled (for multi-engined model aircraft only) ... K = 6
V Lazy Eight .................................................. ......................... K = 6
W Wingover.......................................... ................................... K = 6
X Inverted flight .................................................. ...................... K = 6
Y Derry Turn.............................................. .............................. K = 6
Z Decending 360 Degree Circle............................................ ..... K = ?

6.3.8. Marking (flight points)

Each maneuvre will be awarded marks from 0 to 10, using increments of half a mark, by each of the judges during the flight. These marks are

multiplied by the appropriate K - factor in each case. The maneuvers must be performed in a plane and at a height that will allow them to
be seen clearly by the judges. The non-observance of this rule will be penalized by loss of points.

6.3.9. Flight Score

At World and Continental Championships, or whenever using five flight judges, the highest and lowest judge’s score for each maneuver will be
deleted. The scores of the remaining three judges will then count towards the final score. The flight score shall be the sum of the points awarded
by all three judges in 6.3.6.

6.3.10. Final Scoring:

Add points earned in 6.1.10. (static) average score of the two best flights under 6.3.9. If the competitor has achieved only one flight, the points
awarded for that flight will be divided by two. If for any cause beyond the control of the organizers (e.g.. B.11.1.) less than three official rounds
can be flown, the scoring shall be completed as follows : -

a) If two rounds are flown, the average of the two flights as in 6.3.9. is used.
b) If only one round is flown, the single flight score of that one round is recorded.
c) The scores in an official round can be recorded only if all competitors had equal opportunity for a flight in that round.

6.1.10. Judging for Fidelity to Scale and Craftsmanship
K - Factors
1. Scale Accuracy Side view 15 End view 15 Plan view 15
2. Color Accuracy 3 Complexity 2
3. Markings Accuracy 8 Complexity 3
4. Surface texture and realism 12
5. Craftsmanship Quality 11 Complexity 4
6. Scale detail Accuracy 8 Complexity 4
Total: K = 100 Items to be judged at a minimum distance of 3m in F4B, and 5m in F4C, from centre of model aircraft.
Judges must not touch the model aircraft.

6.1.11. Static Scoring
For Flying Scale Contests the combined Fidelity to Scale and Craftsmanship points shall be the aggregate sum of points awarded by the three
static judges. These static points shall be used for final scores classification only when the model aircraft has completed an official flight.

When is enough, enough?

6A.1.10.6. Scale Detail
Check that items such as those listed are present on the model where applicable, and that they are accurately reproduced and correctly positioned.
Hatches Brake pipes
Handles Landing gear springing
Footsteps Tire treads

Doors Wing slots
02.02.05 Page 24
Armament Navigation and landing lights
Bombracks
Pitot head

Control cables

Walkways
Control horns
Tanks

Fairings

Radiators

Bracing
Filler caps
Turnbuckles
Louvres
Struts
Cooling gills
Lacing or stitching
Mass balances
Aerials
Instrument panel
Venturis
Cockpit or cabin interior detail

The points awarded should reflect both the accuracy and the quantity of scale detail present.

Scale Detail Accuracy:
The documentation presented should clearly show the features that are being assessed. Higher marks should be awarded to those competitors

who accurately reproduce these items.

Scale Detail Complexity:
A well-documented highly detailed model should score proportionately more than a model with little detail, even if the full-size prototype is itself
sparsely detailed. Judges should ensure when marking this aspect that they are relating to the complexity of detail actually on the model, not
awarding marks for just what the prototype should have.

That's what they say it takes to make you happy at the end of the contest day... :^)

[pattern14]

Where do you find the time to do all this Ed I also wonder how much the judges of these competitions need to know about a particular aircraft so as to be objective, and not subjective. Of course I could be wrong, but it is unlikely that they would have put in the same amount of effort as yourself. If the difference between first prize and second boils down to the position of the needle on a fuel guage, or valve caps on the tyres I understand your comment of when is enough, enough. I only personally know of one dedicated scale builder on the island where I live, whose De Havilland Mosquito is a work of art. It hung from the ceiling of the LHS before it closed down, for quite some time, and did not appear to be a plane that was flown regularly. That much work makes for a devestating crash, and our weather conditions would not help much. I also remember reading about some one who cut the heads off thousands of pins to duplicate rivets on a B17, back in the balsa and glo days of the mid 70's. I can only surmise that there is no end to detail, except in your own mind all the best.....

[Flite-Metal]

Reply is in blue within your post.

Originally Posted by pattern14

Where do you find the time to do all this Ed

Actually this is no more or less than anyone scratch building a project. Its part of the task. Given that you build a "kit" you
need only worry about the exterior portrail of the model to match your documentation.

I also wonder how much the judges of these competitions need to know about a particular aircraft so as to be objective,
and not subjective.

This is simple, they know only what I provide them to compare to my model in competition...just as everyone else does.

Of course I could be wrong, but it is unlikely that they would have put in the same amount of effort as yourself.

Ironically, judges have typically served ten to tweny years judging and growing in the experience before they earn their
way to judging FAI F4C, especially at a WSC.

If the difference between first prize and second boils down to the position of the needle on a fuel guage, or valve caps on
the tyres I understand your comment of when is enough, enough.

Obviously, you have not been reading this thread or you would know the judges for FAI F4C are no closer than 3 meters
to an entry. There is a craftsmanship judge who is closer. He is typically more concerned with the texture and prototypical
representation of the model surface compared to the photographic documentation presented.

I only personally know of one dedicated scale builder on the island where I live, whose De Havilland Mosquito is a work of art.
It hung from the ceiling of the LHS before it closed down, for quite some time, and did not appear to be a plane that was flown
regularly. That much work makes for a devestating crash, and our weather conditions would not help much.

It is an extremely rare occassion to find a model (sport or scale) built and flown that has not crashed. During the performance
of scale maneuvers and participating in scale contests there are typically 20% to 25% recip and turbine powered entries crashed.

In FAI F4C if your entry is drawn to fly first round while others are being static judged...you may very well have an issue presenting
challenges to static presentation when it is your turn. This however is not held against your model during judging "as long as the
airframe can still be flown" in subsequent rounds of flight competition.

I can only surmise that there is no end to detail, except in your own mind all the best.....

Actually, as the rules define, you replicate documentation which is reviewed...aka judged for its accuracy of replication from 3
meters or in USSMA and AMA scale contests... 15 feet away.

There is nothing difficult considering the typical photograph series showing each of three views (sides) of the aircraft typically
require a point of view that equates to thirty feet away from the 1:1...if not further. Click on the multiple view photos below
to see the amount of detail required in replication. In all but the extremely close image of the nose showing bomb sight and
forward looking radar sending unit the points of view are at least 75 feet away from the aircraft.

I suggest you take the time to look at photographic three views of any aircraft and see how little there is to be seen "at first glance".
Judges and entrants alike are advised to play the game to their individual advantages by taking closer looks.

They do, and so should you...its easy to do and fun....dispite what some people say. Try it, you might catch the bug

[GALVDA]

Still fascinated with the progress herein and also still totally mired down in the Goshawk project. Tore the fuse apart in a moment of compulsion and literally started over.

Ed, I am curious at to whether any of the previous builders of B-47 models you interviewed actually used vortex generators to increase the effectiveness of the ailerons on their models. I would also be very interested to know if they did, how effective they were.

The reason I ask is that I am familiar with their raison d'etre at transonic speeds in full size a/c, (i.e., re-attatchment of airflow to the wing in front of control surfaces, the separation being caused by the effects of the shock wave forming on the wing) but we are talking about much higher Reynolds numbers at much slower speeds in a far smaller model than the full-size.

Were they tried on the models you mentioned and if so, how effective were they? If they were tried I suspect they acted more as turbulators than actually generating spinning vortices off the tip of each generator blade. I hope they prove effective if for no other reason than that any model airplane with this level of investment in time and toil better be fully controllable throughout its flight envelope.

There are probably a bunch of aeronatical engineers out there who can give a much better explaination than I can for the reason for them and whether or not they are effective at this size.

I'm sure you've been all through this before but for those who might wonder what I am talking about, I used to teach ATP students that Reynolds numbers are one of the side effects of scaling down models and airfoils. In other words you can scale down the airplane but you can't scale down the medium it flies in, air itself. Air reacts differently to smaller scale flight surfaces.

Keep 'em coming. BTW, great shot of that refueling door in those thumbnails.

[Flite-Metal]

Replies are within post below....

Originally Posted by GALVDA

Still fascinated with the progress herein and also still totally mired down in the Goshawk project. Tore
the fuse apart in a moment of compulsion and literally started over.



Joe Martin (seen above at the 1964 (11th) New England Scale Championships) designed and built the largest B-47D ever flown
in competition. Yes, this was 46 years ago...project began in 1962. For a better perspective to serve the calendars of younger
modelers....that would be parallel to development of the Ford Falcon and its spin-off the Ford Mustang.



Ed, I am curious at to whether any of the previous builders of B-47 models you interviewed actually used vortex generators to
increase the effectiveness of the ailerons on their models. I would also be very interested to know if they did, how effective
they were.


The above photo gives the impression the "Turbulators" were surface mounted to the wing...ala epoxied to the surface as is a
commonm practice for aerodynamic evolutionary compensating add-ons to all airframes. Below you can see these are much
more complex...even to incorporate deicing.



No, they all suffered the same fate relative to needing to, but not consistantly landing virtually level after experiencing hyper
effects during minimum controlled approaches...even control line had issues...



The reason I ask is that I am familiar with their raison d'etre at transonic speeds in full size a/c, (i.e., re-attatchment of
airflow to the wing in front of control surfaces, the separation being caused by the effects of the shock wave forming on
the wing) but we are talking about much higher Reynolds numbers at much slower speeds in a far smaller model than the
full-size.



Ah...you see why my friend was/is upset with my deductive reasoning.

Were they tried on the models you mentioned and if so, how effective were they? If they were tried I suspect they acted
more as turbulators than actually generating spinning vortices off the tip of each generator blade. I hope they prove
effective if for no other reason than that any model airplane with this level of investment in time and toil better be fully
controllable throughout its flight envelope.

No, the smaller models were simply too small for a cause and effect to be witnessed. However, Joe Martin's 80" version in
1962 was large enough but the readily available documentation resource was skinnier than you can imagine. I thought it to
be skinny when I started until talking to Joe who had next to nothing outside of eye witnessed resources flying overhead.

There are probably a bunch of aeronatical engineers out there who can give a much better explaination than I can for the
reason for them and whether or not they are effective at this size.

My aeronautical engineer friend is extremely upset...and sees my posted points 180 degrees out to scientific knowledge
base. He has been patient with me, even acknowledging he is not a modeler... Below is the Boeing relex airfoil found on
the production B-47. It is the same from root to tip. Ground effect is expected to elongate and assist in leveling before I
touch down.



BACXXX meaned reflex



NACA 64(1)-212 MOD A (Boeing Altered Reflex)

The Boeing B-47 wing takes the baseline reflex airfoil and flattens it to the rear to achieve the airfoil below. This matches the
airfoil shapes shown in every Boeing/USAF training and maintenance manual we acquired. It is on Beoings 1/100th engineered
drawing of the B-47E and on our 72nd scale Hasegawa plastic model. It is "the" default airfoil illustration derived from known
reflex airfoils and appears on the B-47E IV and WB-47B.




I'm sure you've been all through this before but for those who might wonder what I am talking about, I used to teach ATP
students that Reynolds numbers are one of the side effects of scaling down models and airfoils. In other words you can scale
down the airplane but you can't scale down the medium it flies in, air itself. Air reacts differently to smaller scale flight surfaces.

Ah....our shared knowledge base is beginning to come into view.

Keep 'em coming. BTW, great shot of that refueling door in those thumbnails.

[pattern14]

Actually Ed, I did read the part about judges being 3 metres from the aircraft. That's only a short distance, and depending on your visual acuity, lots of minute detail should be obvious. Under the scale detail section, Instument panel, and cabin or cockpit interior is mentioned. From @ 9 feet it would depend on a lot of variables i.e, open cockpit, streamlined canopy etc. Another perspective I should mention, is that I have never been to a scale judging competition, or had anything remotely to do with this top end of aeromodelling. This whole thread has been a total learning one for me, and I am certain that there are many other readers out there who find that this particular build stands alone in it's level of research and execution. Words like "simple', and "easy" are completely and totally subjective as to where you are coming from. I'm sure you have seen other threads on wattflyer, under the "scale " heading, so I don't need to explain this further. Still, I'm committed to following this to the end now, and I am looking forward to the actual build, cheers.......

[Flite-Metal]

Reply within your post:

Actually Ed, I did read the part about judges being 3 metres from the aircraft. That's only a short distance, and depending
on your visual acuity, lots of minute detail should be obvious.

FAI F4C static judging is from 3 meters except for craftsmanship judge who reviews at 1 meter the surface texture, lustre,
closeness of parting point gaps, fit and finish, attention to detail such that components do not appear in a semi-completed
(aka sloppy) state. Top Gun retains a craftsmanship judge at this same distance. AMA & USSMA contests are judged from
15 feet.

Under the scale detail section, Instument panel, and cabin or cockpit interior is mentioned. From @ 9 feet it would depend on
a lot of variables i.e, open cockpit, streamlined canopy etc.

All but the craftsmanship judge are seated facing the model positioned on a table facing them in the head-on positiion (postion
FAI judging begins). Three placards of documentation are prepared for the judges to compare to each model. This is the same
documentation utilized to construct and finish the model.

Judges are seated while performing their duties observing the model:

1) Head on
2) Side
3) Top Down

Another perspective I should mention, is that I have never been to a scale judging competition, or had anything remotely to do
with this top end of aeromodelling. This whole thread has been a total learning one for me, and I am certain that there are many
other readers out there who find that this particular build stands alone in it's level of research and execution.

Obviously I had a choice of where to create this project thread. I could have placed it in RCU, RCScaleBuilder, RCGroups, or
ScaleAero.com. I chose to place it where I thought it would "yield" the greatest ROI.

Words like "simple', and "easy" are completely and totally subjective as to where you are coming from. I'm sure you have seen
other threads on wattflyer, under the "scale " heading, so I don't need to explain this further. Still, I'm committed to following
this to the end now, and I am looking forward to the actual build, cheers.......

We rapidly approach the "assembly" portion of this thread. It is assembly because compared to many scale projects, I am not
having to weld or machine landing gear, brakes, motor mounts, or create fiber glass molds from which to lay up parts for the
airframe.

The process I illustrate is one which reduces the typical four year project to 12 months. Because I chose to utilize 3D CAD &
CNC for complex shape parts I create about a 30% reduction in pencil to flight line time. In the process of creating the shapes
and prescribed arrangements and removal of materials, I am the designer of the end model.

Whether I decide to hand carve or machine carve foam matters not. It is the end result of my accumulative time and research
applied to materials of my choice and assembly process. Believe me...when I say something is simple and easy...it has to be if
I am doing it...

As an example of what I consider proper documentation for judges to utilize in an AMA or USSMA contest you can click either the
button below or underlined text.... http://004edc4.netsolhost.com/Documentation/Beechcraft_YC43_Docs/Beechcraft_YC43_Docs.htm

[Flite-Metal]

! ! I NEED YOUR HELP ! !

I need your help to acquire stenciling and placarding photos for my B-47 project. One might think its easy...coming from a typical
fighter model builder. (Try finding photos of stenciling and placards on something 106' long by 116' wide).

I need photos taken of the surface of B-47E's or RB-47's sitting as gate guards, memorials, and in museum collections. Below I am
providing a guide and example of what I am looking to receive digital photos of. I even provide a walkaround path for you to follow.

This is to say I need two (2) images of "each stencil and placard" style. The reason for two is I need the photos to be:

#1: Straight On View With Flash.
#2: Step Rt or Lft 1 Ft & Take 2nd Image With Flash.

This will bracket two images of the same stencil/placard if you leave your camera's exposure setting on automatic exposure.

Below I provide a multiple view line drawing of the B-47 as an overall guide and a typical stencil location for each access hatch,
door, drain, and electrical ground attach point on the airframe.



Below is the typical walkaround path one would take to photograph surface of a plane....this is the path the crew followed to
inspect the B-47 before each flight.



Below are the locations which will have stenciling and placarding on the B-47E.






Where Are The B-47 Survivors?

Click underlined BuNo below to see detailed description of what and where...courtesy of Jim Diamond at the B-47 Association.

Don't just show up.... ;^) Be sure to contact the responsible party for security and maintenance of a B-47 you intend to digitally
photograph stenciling and placarding of. You and I should discuss your intentions prior to your doing so. A 4' to 5' step ladder is a
typical essential item during shoots as many B47 are sitting on concrete pedistals. All photographs are for the purpose of properly
finishing my B-47.

XB-47 #2 46-066 Octave Chanute Aerospace Museum, Rantoul, IL

B-47A 49-1901 Pima Air & Space Museum, Tucson, AZ (rumored to be a full airframe now)

B-47B 50-062 Mighty Eighth Air Force Heritage Museum, Savannah, GA

B-47B 51-2075 Air Force Flight Test Center Museum, Edwards AFB, CA

B-47B 51-2120 Whiteman AFB, MO

B-47B 51-2315 Grissom Air Museum, Peru, IN (No nomenclature stencils or placards suspected to survive the paint brush session)

WB-47E 51-2360 Reported to be at Hill AFB, Utah (Based on this photo I suspect this could be a good stencil and placard photo shoot)

B-47E 51-2387 Oklahoma City Fair Grounds, Oklahoma City, OK

WB-47E 51-7066 Seattle Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA (Not believe to have stenciling or placards after being painted)

B-47E 51-7071 Hightower Park, Altus, OK (Not anticipated to have stenciling or placards after being painted gray)

B-47E 52-166 Castle Air Museum, CA (Reported to have stenciling and palcarding on surfaces)

EB-47E 52-410 South Dakota Air and Space Museum, Ellsworth AFB, SD
(This airframe is disassembled, the nose and engines are on the RB-47 displayed in Dayton at USAF Museum)
(It is however unknown if the second B-47 at the museum is still intact or the above appended to its fuselage)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EB-47E 52-412 Dyess Linear Air Park, Dyess, TX (I am attempting to learn if this sistership to the EB@ Seattle has ever been painted over
I imagine the USAF would have let the NAVY remain on the side of this airframe for long)

B-47E 52-595 Little Rock AFB, AR (This airframe appears to have had its upper surfaces painted over with gray with no stencils remaining)

B-47E 52-1412 SAC Museum, Omaha, NE (Airframe appears to retain stenciling and placarding)

B-47E 53-2104 Pueblo Historical Aircraft Society, Pueblo, CO (Appears to retain its original stenciling and placarding)

EB-47E 53-2135 Pima Air & Space Museum, Tucson, AZ (Repeated (9) calls to Pima were never completed...sys er)

B-47E 53-2275 March Air Reserve Base, CA ("Betty Boob" does not appear to have original stenciling)

B-47E 53-2276 8th Air Force Museum, Barksdale AFB, LA

B-47E 53-2280 North Canton/Akron Airport

B-47E 53-2385 Plattsburgh, NY (40 miles from Canadian Border...Looks Like It Has/Had All Stenciling)

B-47E 53-4213 McConnell AFB, KS

RB-47E 53-4257 Tinker AFB, OK

RB-47H 53-4296 USAF Armament Museum, FL

RB-47H 53-4299 USAF Museum, Dayton, OH (In the display hangar on floor)

[Flite-Metal]

Best news is the SAC Museum is going to create a stencil walkaround for us. We all benefit from this upon its arrival in-da-house.
When received I will make the stencils available with the balance of B-47 documentation on a DVD or multiple CD's for those who
want to duplicate our effort.

I should have the stencil and placard images in about a week. These will be available as dry transfers @ 1:8.7 scale for those
interested in purchasing along with CNC milled fuselage from the leading edge section forward, nacelles, wing tanks, wing tips,
rear tail-cone w/20mm cannon section...The DVD/CD will have the images so they can be scaled to what ever size you need.

Yo, we be moving down the road at a lightn'n pace...;^)

[Flite-Metal]

I acquired high resolution decals in support of Sam's "Stinger" WB-47B. It also contained excellent support for the 1000th B-47.
Depending on what the reply is to my FAI prototype question I may go that route.

[Flite-Metal]

And you think your documentation is hard to find...

[Flite-Metal]

Question..........what color are the two cable race perimeter lines on the 1000th?

As seen below they "appear" to be black. I seek a top down or oblique down color image of 52-609. I welcome the contribution
of additional images of 52-609. These in either artist rending or photographic form.



Below is the reason I ask you seasoned Vets who serviced of flew as crew on the B-47E's.



Above, the cable race perimeter stripe color thought (assumed to be black), appear with a red tint... as if we are viewing red stipes from too
far away to tell they are red. If you can help resolve this with documentation on the color of the perimeter stripes it will save me tons of time.