B-47 1/10.2th Scale, Boeing Stratojet...In The Beginning

[Flite-Metal]

Below is AirAge Media's C/L B-47D planset. It is used to audit the multiple view line art collected for this project. It serves as a good dims audit.

Propjet B-47D Description: A fine control-line scale model that could be modified for use with R/C. W/S: 54 in.; L: 43 in.;
engines (2) .15 Item Number: FSP05582 X05582 $14.95 USD. You may purchase it by clicking here:

Here it is/was after construction:

Mike Potter and his Boeing XB-47D



Planset shown for educational purposes...It is highly recommended you order this planset for reference if you are building along with our project.

[Flite-Metal]

That avitar had to change... ;^)

Thought I would share an observation with you. None of the multiple view drawings (6) of the B-47 are consistant either in points of
view or for that matter from one side of the airframe to the other. It is normal to find drawings with mirrored features...however every
drawing of the B-47 I have is consistantly "inconsistant" in geometry and content.

Above is the bottom view of the wing. It is being used for flap mechanism mark up. Inconsistancies begin to jump out at you once straignt
lines are placed onto drawings. You quickly learn to measure between your lines and not the multiple view drawing lines. Look at the wing
leading and trailing edge line.

:^) We use what we can find to use. The latest B-47 book turned out to be questionable in content differential from what I already
have so I jumped on a '92 KoKu Fan issue focused on the B-47. It will be interesting to see if the KoKu contains multiple view drawings
I already have...I doubt it because KoKu has always had accurate drawings.

Sam has a 700 plus page B-47 maintenance manual on order which should contain TONS of close-up and personal images for details.
I'll share what we find of importance.

[Flite-Metal]

I snagged a pilot/co-pilot on Ebay. They only had one so I'm still looking for three more so I don't have to ruin my original F-104
cockpit to use the one I have in it. These are 1/12th Tamyia Race Car Drivers & Mechanics which when configured properly will
provide an authentic looking early 50's USAF pilot and co-pilot.

B-47 pilots had sun glasses instead of built-in helmet sun shields and their uniforms were blue instead of green as I painted the pilot
I created for my ESCI F-104 cockpit. I originally intended it to go into an MD A-4 Sky Hawk but it accumulated too much weight for
a recip ducted fan and I sold it.

Here's a look at an authentic 1951 USAF B-47 pilot's flight suit

[Flite-Metal]

To share a little of where things have gotten to...All, and I do mean all of the previous drawings found here have been cast by the
side of the road as our trek takes us elsewhere. New drawings based on the MAN drawing are being compiled.

[singingperry]

I'm way too busy to scratch build a B-47 but would buy a kit in nothing flat! My dad was a crew chief for a B-47 during the cuban missle crisis, and when I bought him a hand carved wooden display model that was all he ever talked about. The big problem with an RC version is to have it electric ducted fan powered and keep it simple and scale looking. What to do? Will the above design have enough power?

[Flite-Metal]

Originally Posted by singingperry

The big problem with an RC version is to have it electric ducted fan powered and keep it simple and
scale looking. What to do? Will the above design have enough power?

Big Problem? I suppose you say this because you may not have read the previous posts within this thread.

Scale projects begin with researching precedences of par weight and balance, landing gear requirement, aerodynamic cleanliness,
1:1 flight issues encountered, datum line identification, physical layout with respect to known behavior of the 1:1, aspect ratio @
1:1 incidences, minimum mechanical configuration to achieve desired maneuvers in multiple flight plans, multi-view line art continuity,
previous endevor results, potential halo/eye candy value, minimum speed requirement, axis ctrl convention, singularity (number of models
built of a given 1:1), unique flight maneuvers to a given airframe, thrust to weight ratio, X minutes of flight @ Y throttle @ Z weight,
ease of construction, XPS~CF~FG~Wood AUW, net return on invested time~energy~money, and transportability w/o trailering.

All of the above proved to be of no real concern after George's Tu-95 proved to be an excellent platform @ 38# with a 108" w/s. The only
difference being George's Tu-95's contrarotation. If you have not seen the video on ScaleAero.com you won't understand how the two
aircraft are virually identical.

Its all in the laundry list and crossing off each element as you move forward...

[Hircflyer]

Originally Posted by Flite-Metal

In order to do that you'll need this, or these... : )

I was a crew chief on B-47's from 1958 tio 1963 stationed at Plattsburg AFB.

Interesting fact about the use of JATO for take-off...there were 33 bottles which produced 1000 lbs of thrust each....after take-off the rack and used bottles had to be dumped...aircraft could not land with them still attached to the aircraft....

Crews used to fly over to the Atlantic Ocean to dump the racks..
During that time of the cold war USSR had stationed " fishing Boats" along the coast which were really spy ships loaded with electronic gear...our crews used to try to hit the ships when they dumped the racks...never did but it was a lot of fun for them

[Flite-Metal]

Interesting tid bit Hircflyer. Good presentation fodder while maneuvers are performed.

For the coming week I am reworking what has evolved as a project master drawing. This is an enlargement of a 144th scale multi-
view drawing which first appeared in the June 1956 Model Airplane News, an AirAge publication.

The drawing is part of Model Airplane News series named "Planes Worth Modeling". I purchased it on eBay where there are others
focused on many other aircraft.

Interesting to note...it too suffers from a lack of continuity perspective to perspective. It is hand drawn, in vogue back in 1956...
When I ordered it on eBay I had high hopes for consistant continutiy. I audit each perspective to all the others to correct a few
inconsistancies.

By far, the M.A.N./AirAge drawing is the most consistant and accurate of all those I have found compared to photos and my other
documentation. Illustrations provided as reference materials during this how-to for educational purposes.

[Capt. Midnight]

Hi Ed!

Have you tried getting any 'data'/drawings from the Boeing Archives Office; if not, you might drop an email to Michael Lombardi at michael.j.lombard[email protected]; he might be able to supply some factual info.

Cheers,

Dave Plummer

[Flite-Metal]

Dave,

No, I have left Boeing to themselves. I concluded working up an 80A-1 in November and decided to move back to the B-47. The B-47
has been an itch which until the StuMax was virtually impossible, aka impractical. The AUW is the issue with turbines.

My trek with the 80A-1 had me dealing with a "fresh" Boeing project with respect to their aggressive propriatary attitude toward
modelers and model makers. There were 48th scale engineering drawings used by Boeing staff when they on their off hours were
involved in the lengthy reclaimation of the sole semi-surviving airframe found in a land fill. These were "excellent drawings" ! ! !

Boeing actually recalled the drawings claiming they were company property and all of the museum's drawing inventory was said to
have been handed over to Boeing. I was fortunate to have found a copy in Europe.

I have spoken to Michael on previous projects with little success due to the growth of the above plague the industry suffers from
when it comes to modeling. Sam bought a maintenance-flight manual (over 700 pages) and it should arrive this week. IMHO there
is probably going to be a wealth of illustrations within those pages.

I will call Michael this week to inquire. The other resource is the NASM Smithsonian archive. I don't recall the B-47 being in the inventory.
I have links to their index and use it often.

With the accuracy of the M.A.N./AirAge renderings I suspect there were resources made available to them at the time. It would have
been exceptionally difficult to acquire photo documentation to the extent I have collected...in 1955-56 considering the cloak surrounding
the B-47.

If you know Michael, I would appreciate your parallel inquiry which could influence his decision to share what they have become so close
to the vest with for the last five years.

[saka warrior]

Originally Posted by Flite-Metal

PHASE I: The Work-Up

Does anyone have interest in the Boeing B-47?

Sir, yes sir !!!!!!
American Valery Chkalov: http://b-29s-over-korea.com/John_S_L..._S_Lappo1.html

[Flite-Metal]

Didn't want to overlook the airfoil you may have been wondering about.

Here's an image of the real deal sans its leading edge:

Below is the lift coeffecient of a 6 deg incidence on a conventional wing where tip and root are the same. I am
using a 2 deg incidence on this model. Knowing I was keeping the weight down I thought it best to lighten up on
shovel effect with 1.5 ~ 2 degrees.

This airfoil (one of 2 claimed for the B-47) manages the flap area for you. Sam chose an interesting flap mechanism
and is hard at work on the mock-up you will see later.

Obviously the CG shown (25%) is not relative to the B-47 with its double tapered 35 degree swept wing.
Boeing disclosed the B-47's root and tip are the same laminar flow foil. The wing did not use multiple airfoils
across the wing as is the case with subsequent aircraft. Our CG will be shown when I arrive at final dims.

[Flite-Metal]

Well the good news is the 700 plus pages of Boeing training manuals for a B-47 have proved to be an excellent $40 investment. I
have yet to see it though Sam is so pleased with it he found it difficult to put down.

Covers literally everything from what he described...including flight maneuvers.

The not so good news is the KoKu Febrary 1992 issue arrived. The four view is decent, in fact if it were not for the AirAge 1956 MAN
drawing, it would be the most accurate. The cutaway on the facing page does show a lot of internal structure.

So far AirAge wins the B-47 accurate multi-view drawing award. Even with a lack of continuity the AirAge Model Airplane News 1956
drawings serve as the mainstay for anyone wanting to build a scale B-47E. If you wanted to use the KoKu to mean the issues out of
the MAN drawing it would work well.

After I complete rescaling each perspective I will post a compiled multi-view for reference.

I will sell the KoKu if anyone is interested in its four view drawing and photo documentaiton. Let me know if interested.

[Flite-Metal]

Dave,

I got no reply from your friend Lombardi. I may call the Museum Of Flight's director and see if she can convience their archives
manager to "share". She was exceptionally receptive when I sought the 80A line art. They are real skinny on dollar and manpower
resource at this time.

[Flite-Metal]

Sam sent the covers of the pilot and maintenance manuals for the B-47 and one of the best technical references. These were $40 USD.

[Capt. Midnight]

Hi B-47ers!

I received this three view from Michael Lombardi at Boeing's Archives Office:

[Flite-Metal]

Dave,

I have the dims from an earlier general layout. I believe Michael sent you dims for the A model. That 25% of MAC position is a rare
notation indeed... ;^) Thanks for sharing the resouce.

I called Michael this morning and got voice mail that sent me to Tom Lubermeyer who shares Michael's train of thought. Tom's voice
mail said to leave him a voice mail...and he'd get back...yeah, I'll bet.

After exhausting an hours search of the National Archives on aviation line art I resolved there is nothing better than either the KoKu
or the AirAge (M.A.N.) line art drawing below. Called Rich who is of the opinion AA doesn't have a high resolution scan in archives.

At bet its probably a microfiche of the '56 June MAN drawing at its printed page resolution. Rich did say he has a couple of that artist's
large format B-47E drawings in his office.

As indicated earlier, all of these need to be rescaled to provide consistancy between each perspective. The AirAge (M.A.N.) as it turns
out when scanned and enlarged gives a very good 1600+ pixel width.

As an example of how things are going with this project below is the new inboard nacelle to accommodate the StuMax 110 with the proper
85 degree outrigger retract.

1/10.2 B-47E-IV dims:

Wingspan: 137.19"
Fuselage Length: 120.72"
Maximum Fuselage Width: 11.14"
Nacelle Width: 9.653"
Nacelle Tube Length: 19.742"
Nacelle Total Length: 24.21"
Wing Tank Length: 27.56"
Wing Tank Diameter: 5.37"
Vertical Fin: 21.5"
Horizonal Stab Width: 38.22"

The nacelle shape appears as thumbnails below.

More shortly

[Capt. Midnight]

Hi Ed!

You may be correct. However, the file Michael sent me is titled "B-47E 3-View." Can't remember: have you or your partners tried the Smithsonian? (Don't know if they have any better sources, but sometimes they have some apparently reliable data.)

Dave Plummer

[Hircflyer]

Flite-Metal' as I mentioned earlier I was a Crew Chief on B-47E for several years and I am impressed with the effort you are making to have a true scale model of same. In that light may I give you a small detail that doesn't appear on the drawing from MAN...
Early models of the B47 had 6 starter generators mounted one on each engine....and the airplane was a DC powered airplane...the E model had in addition to the 6 DC starter generators...a Constant Speed Drive (CSD) and a AC generator mounted in the intake nose bullet intake in the nos. 1 and 6 engines which made these bullets larger than the other 4 engines...also had an opening in the bullet for cooling. These CSD's were heavy and quite a pain to replace...

[Flite-Metal]

Originally Posted by Capt. Midnight

Hi Ed! You may be correct. However, the file Michael sent me is titled "B-47E 3-View." Can't remember:
have you or your partners tried the Smithsonian? (Don't know if they have any better sources, but sometimes they have some apparently
reliable data.) Dave Plummer

Dave,

I have all the line art we need and moving forward with design against the '56 AirAge/M.A.N. multiple view line art. What I will be using
future line art for is to audit everything that has been used for documentation. There's always a degree of accuracy that suddenly appears
amidst a drawing where 90% of it is trash :^)

Sam and I have over 750 pages of Boeing assembly and training manuals. I have not looked into these at all and won't until at least Friday.
I assume the drawing you posted will be in these manuals.

Quite literally, from what Sam was reading to me as I called out item after item, we've pretty well got all the tie breaker drawings we need
and filler material for all the unasked questions thus far.

I am working on the pylon and nacelle blade at this point. After I resolved the minimum nacelle size which would accommodate the StuMax,
I was able to leap forward using known size and weight of retracts, struts, StuMax, batteries, tires, receiver, servos, etc.

I know it seemed like I was not moving forward at much of a pace for a while. That was while all the various components were being grouped
so it would be simple as I moved forward.

Hircflyer:

Thanks for your input. You refer to the alternator at the front of the nacelle inlet.

I perhaps should take this opportunity to explain a few baseline elements of competitive flying scale modeling.

There are multiple judging protocols. For all except two, static judging is conducted with the judges sitting 15 feet away from the
model while they judge the model using documentation I provide them.

FAI and AMA 515 events place static judges at "0" feet from models. Top Gun has the craftsmanship judge up close and personal
with a model from 3 feet and the balance of the static judges at 15 ft if memory serves me correctly.

Top Gun's craftsmanship judge is a friend and an aeronautical engineer who likes B-47's even more than I do and most definately
won't cut my butt any slack... I'll have to use our mutual uncle Dave's "illustion of scale" to do well in his eyes.

If you've kept up with this thread since I started you've seen me beating on the physical size of this model for three weeks. You
watched me work my way to the smallest wing span while providing proper space for all the known sizes of components which must
go into the model.

In competitive flying scale modeling you build a model with minimum wing area (sq inches) to sustain "controlled" flight with the least
accumulative weight to perform 9 maneuvers prototypical to the 1:1 aircraft replicated.

When I first arrived on this site and started punching keys, one of the first statements was I was here because the AUW of a turbine
powered B-47 is impractical. There are weight constraints imposed by sanctioning bodies who conduct scale competition.

You have watched me work up a partial mechanical detail..."0" eye candy. I will try to explain this with fewer words than I am known for... :^)

Depending on scale ratio of a model with respect to the 1:1, not a lot is seen from 15 ft away. What is seen better be on your
documentation or it is wasted energy, effort, and unnecessary weight.

Reread that last sentence...then consider anything you place on a model entered in scale competition as extra weight if its not seen on the
1:1 from 40' to 50' from the airframe.

The larger the aircraft, the further a camera has to be from it in order to take the 4 primary photographic views of it that are provided judges
to compare to your model along with the multiple view drawings you provide.

As you move further away from the airplane to take the photos, less and less is visible. Adding unnecessary detail to a model which can not
be seen from the vantage point of a judge is unnecessary weight and unnecessary vulnerability to downgrades of your score.

I hope that description doesn't appear as a negative reply to readers. Usually there is a great deal of misunderstanding about competitive
flying scale modeling. The point of it all is to "replicate what is seen on the 1:1 from a vantage point equal to that you portray in the
documentation "you" provide judges to compare to "your" contest entry...not to create a museum scale model.

To too many this is seen as an exercise in tension without any hope of decompression...hah hah.. Truth is, its a game and intended to
be entertaining (aka, fun) when played to the "advantage" of the participants...judges and competitors alike. There-in are the seeds of
misunderstanding on the part of warm bodies standing on the "opposite side of the spectator barrier". All too often they simply do not
understand what they are looking at and consider the process boring...second cousin to watching paint dry...

That is a topic unto itself and I won't go into here. If you click this link you can read a copy of "What's Going On Here?"
http://www.scaleaero.com/WGOH_Side_One.htm and if you like what you read you can pick up the rest of the resources at:

Static Resources:
http://www.scaleaero.com/static.htm

Flight Resources:
http://www.scaleaero.com/flitecomp.htm

Flight Maneuver Illustrations:
http://www.scaleaero.com/fltman1.htm

Scale Judge Guide:
http://www.scaleaero.com/scjginit.htm

[Alpea42]

Talley Ho , Flight Metal

[Flite-Metal]

Thanks, I needed that . Longer hours divided into fixed rate..."0" ;^)

Seriously, I have been beating on the nacelle heavily. Here's a bit of the results from an exhaust side. This is the only real challenge
because if the blade sweep area is maintained as if in a perfect world, the scale exhaust outlet would no longer be any where close
to the proper size.

Scale Size = Scale Fidelity = Fewer Deductions

What I sent Stu appears below. I wanted his opinion of the manner I chose to regain exhaust area while maintaining scale fidelity.
The typical rule of thumb would be to maintain 85% of the blade sweep area. The 110 has a blade sweep area of 73.8 sqcm.

While this illustration is not drawn with an 85% recovery accuracy, it is intended to illustrate the way the adjacent exhaust outlet is
used to achieve this. Elecro-mechanical issues are accommodated in this illustration which may or may not have been illustrated previously.
These include, but not limited to:

Retract Control System (1 per nacelle)
Retract Air Tank (1 per nacelle)
Retract Head Mechanism (1 per nacelle)
Retract Scale Strut & Wheel (1 per nacelle)
Eagle Tree Pwr Mgmnt Logger (1 per nacelle)
ECU (1 per nacelle) TBD
3 LiPo Packs (per adjacent nacelle blade)

This does not take into account the pylon blade box inside the pylon nor the blade insert with its many component shapes to accommodate
all those items.

I await Stu's feedback on this configuration... Your input is welcome.

[Flite-Metal]

I am "more than pleased" with Stu Maxwell's responsiveness and contribution to my B-47 project to assure it benefits from the
110-52's high effeciency. When I returned this afternoon his reply awaited me.

The short story is I scrapped the inboard nacelle position for the StuMax 110-52 EDF. I will return to an earlier configuration where
the 110 is centered forward between left and right nacelle inlets at the parting line between the front of the nacelle and the constant
width portion of the nacelle.

This position is mandated to relieve the issue with exhaust constriction and simplify the air path. This requires bi-focation of the inlet
and quasi-bi-focation of exhaust. After considering this configuration early on I dropped it in favor of using a pair of non-rotating retracts
on my shop wall. Outrigger is now 90 degree rotating. The specific retract partno will be provided with the new config illustration.

The inlet and exhaust pathway in a jet is typically comprised of an inlet tube and an exhaust tube attached to front and rear of fan shroud.
The StuMax 110 has a shroud lip designed to accommodate this. Traditioal ductig requires tube material and formers fore and aft to hold ducts
in place.

In my B-47, because 90% of the nacelle is composed of hot wired foam, the inlet and exhaust duct are relieved from the foam and glassed with
minimum layers of .6 oz to the sqyd glass cloth and Z-poxy then will be lined with Flite-Metal...Like what else would you expect? After all this
is a Flite-Metal poster child project...

This reduces weight by elimination of supporting formers and tube fore and aft of the StuMax. Pylon blade insert changes to a less complicated
shape than what had taken on the name of "bird house".

Shortly, I will return to post images of the revised nacelle configuration. Only "external" shape change anticipated is diameter of both exhaust
outlets to accommodate 85% of the 110-52's blade sweep area of 73.8 cm2.

[Flite-Metal]

Anyone interested in duplicating this project will not have to acquire too many non-shelf items to do so. This is obviously less
expensive but the big payoff is you do not have to own tools other than normal shop tools to build it.

Number one Stu Maxwell would love to see everyone following this thread order a pair of the StuMax 110-52 EDFs this afternoon...
Nothing wrong with that from where Sam and I sit, however you might want to order this NOW then send your order to Stu...

The canopy and its frame utilized in this project is an off the shelf (for as long as they last) Great Planes RV-4 canopy. Whether you
are building a 10th or 12th scale B-47 matters not because you will be cutting the clear RV-4 canopy down in order to use the proper
size for the scale you are building.

Pictures tell the story from here:

1st is the master canopy image to be printed at the proper size for your scale.

You will extract the canopy from the RV-4 canopy shape. Note, yes you are going to use another canopy for the windshield portion of
the B-47 canopy. The windshield protion is no biggie to find...it is the large canopy shape that is more difficult to properly match to
prevent having to make a plug and pull your own.

So, where do you find it?

Great Planes is the distributor of GPMA3037. You can order from a local hobby shop or from Hobbico's online retail outlet, Tower Hobbies.
A pair of GPMA3037 is $24.97 USD which includes domestic UPS. I recommend you order two canopies, one for the canopy itself and the
second to be used for canopy frame.

Two canopy movement paths exist. The B-47E-IV canopy frame motion elevates the front of canopy and moves back only two to three
inches at 1/10th. There are a couple of images below showing max rearward movement. If you want to see the actual canopy movement
a closeup shot of the opening seqeuence is in the movie Strategic Air Command.

[Flite-Metal]

Those three books are "the" resource if you are following along and want to build this B-47. I skimmed through them at Sam's and
brought them home to scan details I do not have images of. These contain all of the images I already had plus an additional equal
or greater number.

The two soft bound B-47 manuals are $40 for the pair and the hardback is $39. All of these are available online. These combined with
the AirAge M.A.N. drawing below are all you need...