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

[Flite-Metal]

What does this have to do with the B-47?



That is not a Mud Duck...

[GALVDA]

My father worked at the Radioplane Company at the Van Nuys, CA airport back in the late 50s around the time it was bought by Northrup. The company was started by Reginald Denny (the movie actor, not the truck driver who got the snot beaten out of him in one of the L.A. riots. See the corrupt old railroad baron in "Cat Ballou" if you want to see what the actor looked like late in life.) who had a hobby shop in Hollywood for many years.

Reginald Denny was nuts about models and was also one of the early pioneers of radio control. My friend Ascher Ward used to frequent the shop and by all accounts Denny was very approachable and completely into the hobby. The Radioplane company was an offshoot of his hobby and became a means of making target drones for the military. The one on the thumbnail is a very early version and was possibly steered with a controller that used an old style telephone dial (dial 1 for left 2 for right) if my memory serves me.

When my father worked there it was still making drones with McCollough 4 banger, 2-cycle power and I remember being totally blown away by the tripod mounted control box that could make the controls on the drone move proportionally to the movement of the stick on the box.

Buck Rogers stuff in those days.

Radioplane made parachutes also and the Ringslot and Ringsail chutes that brought the first Mercury capsules home were products of theirs. My father brought one of the chute prototypes home in a box and he, my brother, and myself ended up dragging all 300 some pounds of it out of the box and down the alley to untangle it and re-pack it in the box so he could take it down to El Centro for the Navy to attach a 1000 Lb bomb casing filled with sand to it and drop it from an airplane. I think I was about 13 or 14 at the time.

He also got hold of some working scale models of more conventional chutes and we made many more as well from scraps of Rip-stop nylon he got from the chute shop. He had been a minor league baseball pitcher and it never ceased to amaze me how high he could throw those model chutes. He gave them away while I was in college and boy was I ticked when I found out.

So to answer your question, I believe they made both the approach and landing drag chutes for the B-47.

Ya gotta expect posts like this when you inadvertently hit my "play" button like that.

[Flite-Metal]

This is what is so much fun about this project. I get to learn about the intricate components comprising my model...in this case,
a component of a flight maneuver I will perform...

That's an amazing story...and the fact they were making chutes for the Mercury program is even more amazing considering all
the parachute makers back then. Something else about Radio Plane's employees most people will find interesting. Working in the
Radio Plane plant were many women..."Rosie The Riveters" if you will.

During a publicity photo session where photographers took photos of Radioplane's manufacturing facility and employees at work.
One employee drew the attention of all the photographers. She and her "amber hair" seemed to be out of place, so to speak...



Perhaps she will look a wee bit more....familiar as a blond...

....Excuse me, there's more below...











Northrup purchased the company and brought it into the community of coalescing researchers we see the industry comprised of today.
Projects became more joint venture solutions...as exemplified by Lockheed and Douglas manufacturing B-47's in addition to Boeing.





There are four (4) radio control ECM drones on the above B-47E. Designed to provide false echos on enemy radar. Eventually
these led to initial U.S.cruise missle programs providing practical stand-off weapon delivery system alternatives to the L.A.B.S.
maneuver (shown below) which presented too great a nuclear blast "shockwave" threat to airframes performing maneuver.

[Flite-Metal]

I extracted the four individual perspectives from the composite 3VU. You can easily see the simplicity (there's those words... )
of powering each of the four GAM-67 with an FSA matched EDF. Using either ecu programmed servos or at minimum a free flight
with rudder (on left vertical fin only) control provides either individual or mass launch of all four Crossbow.

[pattern14]

I'm going to have to read the whole thread again... that picture of Marilyn really threw me

[Flite-Metal]

What was it about the Radioplane's two bangers up front that threw you off?

[Flite-Metal]

I need help replicating the Radioplane script on the vertical fins of the GAM-67. I do not have this font:



If you have this font or a combination of two, I think it will require two because the R does not match
the balance of the script as the up and down lines are double on the P, D, and L... I greatly appreciate
your contribution of a contribution to this project.



The GAM-67's color is red with white script. Of course I need the font in black so I can make the dry
transfers in white. Thanks for your consideration...

[Flite-Metal]

The Radioplane - Northrop GAM-67 evolved to be an anti-radiation (read as radar) air to ground offensive weapon.

Far from a "Wild Weasel" the GAM-67 evolved to be at the fore-front of that mission made famous in Vietnam with F-105's.
Col. Mike Kulczyk, a name familiar to everyone with '80s ducted fan experience...aka (bent over working hours for 1 or 2
flights)...was a "Wild Weasel".

In one of my mission plans I include four (4) GAM-67 "released" as decoys to cover delivery of the B-47's nuclear weapon.
Below is crude illustration of the maneuver. Each GAM-67 performs a decending 360 degree circle as it glides after release.

[Flite-Metal]

YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ! !



I subscribe to multiple discussion groups when I do a project. Anything related to the subject eventually will come to
the surface if it exists at all. Too often a person is trying to profit excessively from documentation...especially if they
did not consider the item of any real value beyond their discussion groups perceived value...typically inflated beyond
your wildest guess.

Mike J. Idacavage a 12 Squared model collector read my post on the 12 Squared forum wherein I sought assistance in
gathering documentation. This to either purchase or pay for temporary use of a 1/72nd GAM-67 Crossbow plastic kit
in order to fill voids in my documentation accuracy. Note, there are valuable decals in this kit... :^) Decals which will
permit a set of dry transfers to be created more easily with greater accurately.



I received Mike's email and replied explaining the GAM-67's place in my B-47E project. I offered to pay for USPS Priority
Parcel mailing both ways plus pay a bonus to cover Mike's time. Guess what...he's shipping me the kit so I can copy it
for documentation. He wouldn't accept a PayPal transaction...I will make it worth his time when I return it...and place
a credit to him in my documentation.



12 Squared models are exceptionally rare as they are no longer cottage/garage manufactured. Early models were non-
injected indothermic resin cast in lost wax molds. The GAM-67 Crossbow is an injected Stryrene kit. 12 Squared kits
range in value based on their production volume and subject.



For example the Monogram GAM-63 Rascal is valued at over $500. So you quickly gain respect for Mike's contribution to
my B-47. Yes, I will insure it on its return trip to Mike... :^) The GAM-67 Crossbow model is an injected Styrene plastic
model with surface details plus the munitions trailer shown in the black and white photo.

We keep Boeing~Boeing & Douglas'n along.

[Flite-Metal]

[Flite-Metal]

[Flite-Metal]

How can using this photo be problematic if used in your documentation binder?

Remember what you include in the binder is the "only" resource judges are
permitted when awarding your static score...

[Flite-Metal]

Anti-Radiation ECM & Decoy System: XMQ-1B ~ RP-54C ~ GAM-67

Doc 1:


Doc 2:



XMQ-1B ~ RP-54C ~ GAM-67 Anti-Radiation ECM & Decoy System.

Originally Posted by Flite-Metal

[Flite-Metal]

XMQ-1B ~ RP-54C ~ GAM-67 1:72nd scale is amazingly detailed compared to most larger modeling scales.






Note, Single rudder hinge locations in red.

[Flite-Metal]

Thanks George...

Hummmmmmmmmm...Another L.A.B.S. ~ Toss Bombing maneuver movie clip went South...

[Flite-Metal]

Reply from Narve Jensen, FAI F4C Technical Director relative to my request for approval of the GAM-67 Release Maneuver.

(Quote) "Dear Ed,



I have reviewed your proposed manoeuvre and this manoeuvre will on the score sheet be listed under option P or Q depending
on if you have only one or two manoeuvres of the type "Flight function by subject aircraft". As long as the decoys does not
endanger anyone on the ground, the place where they land does not matter too much.




In relation to the scoring for maximum points the landing area should be indicated before the flight and the closer to that area
the higher the scores should be. The main part to avoid is the model to cross the judges line (indefinite line through the judges
chairs) as this will score the manoeuvre ZERO, the decoys on the other hand is not controlled so these can get beyond the
judges line without penalty as long as they do not endanger anyone." (Unquote)

Maneuver can be performed in multiple ways. Release a single Crossbow, release four Crossbow (as illustrated above), or release
three Crossbow to perform 360 degree decending circle and one to continue forward as an ECM Anti-radiation attack or delivery
of a nuclear warhead carrying GAM-67 to a target followed by steep decent to low altitude at right angles to GAM line of flight to
minimuize effect of the nuclear weapon detonation.

[Flite-Metal]

Back some time ago there was considerable discussion about fuel load balancing which was a constant activity for one of the
three crew members during the entire flight.

This responsibility passed from the pilot to co-pilot, to navigator depending on what stage of the mission (flight) the crew were
in. Everyone had a set of fuel meters for each tank and controls for pumps between them.

The instruments showing the fuel content did just that. The switches on the panels controlled the fuel pumps. Hey, what was
used to calculate fuel consumption, transfer (distribution) rates, and total available fuel throughout the mission?

[pattern14]

Probably a slide rule, and previous experience. From what I know of early aviation, mathematics was a practical skill, long before calculators rusted our brains. There must have been a set of parameters to work within..

[GALVDA]

It could also have been easily done on the venerable Dalton E6B, the circular slide rule issued to every Air Corps and Air Force pilot from well prior to WWII.

They were the much nicer ancestors of the cheap metal versions sold in pilot shops these days and were usually accompanied by a Weems plotter. The eyelet on the side of the E6B was, I believe, part of the original patent. It was for a lanyard that allowed it to be slung around the pilots neck, an absolute necessity in any aircraft having no floor to speak of.

I once told an ATP class of newly seperated ex-military pilots about the origins of the eyelet and every smirking one of them showed up for class the next day with their E-6Bs (and a few CR-2s and 3s) slung around their necks.

(I also trained a class of Nigerian flight Engineer students to say "Dave is cool" when I walked in the door to start class but that's a different story.)

[Flite-Metal]

Well, white rule...slide type... :^) I want to thank Mike Wilson again for a contribution above and beyond the norm. This is the
first of I believe six. I will post the others when I return this morning.






















The above sequence of events was conducted continuously from pre-take-off until engine shut down after they landed the
B-47. The individual performing the task was determined by the individual with the least amount of demand work as mission
progressed.

Below are additional photos and pages from B-47 manuals to provide a visual scope of how busy this activity was for all on
board. I remember reading in the Pilot & Crew Training text marked in the margins with red arrows and awarnings....nearly
every page reminded the crew to watch fuel consumption and maintain distribution of remaining fuel.



The results of calculations were utilized to manage transfer of fuel from tank to tank within the fuselage or bled off from the
tanks hanging beneath each wing. The B-47's wings were not wet wings.

[Flite-Metal]

If you found yourself asking why I/we spent the time to focus on the 1:1 fuel distribution tasks...you will be pleased to learn
I/we asked ourselves the same thing...

The B-47 is obviously something that was built because it could be....vs...well you know... I consider a single task requiring
the undivided attention of 50% of the piloting effort to maintain...not just accomplish...a threat to the entire United States.

Yes, that is where things were back then. The best they could do was maintain a 50% effective deterant with the technology
available at the time.

Now, fire control computers have existed since WWI. These, with their huge number of gears and dining room table physical
size onboard battleships and cruisers are as good as it got "back in the day" for a multi-axis moving launch platform. One
would imagine there could have been a wee bit of automation beyond the multple slide rule calculators for fuel management
(read as weight & balance to maintain center of gravity across the timeline of each and every B-47 flight).

Add to this all the other issues I have uncovered with respect to take-off, Dutch Roll, approach method, and maintaining level
attitude during the entire landing maneuver. If you have been following this thread you know way back there in '62 the first
B-47, a D replica, was built and flown to a high confidence level that permited Joe Martin of Sherline fame to win the '64 New
England R.C. Championships. Back then they put your photo on the cover of the next year's handouts.

I have made it a point to ask everyone associated with flight behavior of the B-47 what their personal experiences were and
if they had any warnings for me. Would you believe everything Joe and I discussed for about two hours on the phone were at
the fore-front of everything fellow Bomber Field member, Horrace Cain, had to say about his front seat experiences in a B-47.

Its not unusual for Horrace to stare at someone in disbelief during a conversataion... :^) Politics aside... Horrace said he was
overwhelmed with the amount of detail I had put into researching the B-47. I told him about Joe Martin...then he understood.
Horrace said he'd forgotten about how busy things were in the cockpit. Its not as if Horrace had a choice.

Fact is, weight and balance has been at the root of my concerns from the beginning when I first committed to doing a B-47...
back in the late 70's when I considered the D. Now, with excessive confidence and a wee bit of OCD for good measure we
near the end of the project timeline for our B-47E. Thanks to Joe, Horrace, Mike, George, Bob, Sam, and all the others since I
began this obsession.

[Flite-Metal]

Nomenclature, detailed finishing. Its all about details. Every dot above has one of the D1 stencils at the location.....aka decal.
They are all over the sides, and bottom.

[Flite-Metal]

Today I added the large format restoration cockpit images from the SAC Museum's B-47. They did an absolutely worderful job!
As you can see in this "not so close" image. Yes, the majority were twice this size :^) For full size click thumbnail.

[Flite-Metal]

http://www.military.com/video/operat.../833603776001/

The GAM-67 maneuvers (2) were approved for use by the FAI.

The above two can not be flown with the same static docs. How then can this be done?

[Flite-Metal]

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse...I am addressing this because it is something I had completed, or felt I had
completed way back that I am paying close attention to on Dave's 1/16th thread as he nears a high speed taxi
test.

My incidence data was meaned across all the drawings I collected. I believe there are six in total. The one below turned out
to be the most consistant with angles when compared to photos... Its not often someone takes a photo at or near the airfoil
center 45 degrees out from the fuselage. Below are the individual incidences when lines are extended through each item.



I saw the 2 degree 45 second aka 2.75 degrees declaration on the 1:100 Boeing drawing. I chose to mean all data collected
because I have never found any incidence stated on any other drawing, or dim index. The rear rake is 6+ degrees as can be
seen below.



The manner in which I plan to replicate the root incidence is...I hope...going to eliminate calculation complexities....

The internal wing truss within a truss has a 2 degree 45 second angle differential between the internal and external laser
cut slots into which the spar inserts are locked down. I am working on the truss drawing at this time. The front-view of
the fuselage illustrates the 2 degree 45 second laser cut slot differential position between internal and external trusses.

Hot wired root airfoil is cut "after" internal diamond hot wire cut outs so chaffer angle of cut matches angle the wing sits
in its "cradle". Fuselage section over the wing is a removable piece permitting easy access to lock wing spar in its receiver.



In the illustration above the red and green lines represent the front to rear datum line of each individual component. The red
lines are "not" in the same plane. Green and blue lines represent the wing incidence at that component. Note, this indicates
wing tank red line droops at its front, as is observed in photographs of same in the air and when observed on the ground next
to nacelles and fuselage.

The Green and Red line are not parallel, their pylon attachment to the wing has a different incidence. 1/72nd model bing used
for reference illustrates same.

I have found AOT (angle of attack) for the B-47 and the B-52 referenced as the same nose down ~ tail high attitude. I spent 2
days looking for incidence documentation/confirmation with "0" results. For those who do not understand the importance of this;
the AOT @ ROG aka rear mains rise from runway is "the" issue. Its a matter of energy (battery capacity) required to achieve ROG.