Jump to content

Rob de Bie

Members
  • Content Count

    450
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

262 Excellent

About Rob de Bie

  • Rank
    Established Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,678 profile views
  1. Haha! For the record: I wasn't reporting this as a F-35-fanboy - I avoid having an opinion on the subject of the F-35 But the safety record is an amazing development in the history of the fighter aircraft. Yet I haven't heard that this was a design driver, or any other reason how this happened. Does anyone know? Rob
  2. What are the numbers for the F-16 in Belgian service? I don't know these numbers, but I guess it's not a huge improvement. I think the Belgian Mirage 5BA/BD had similar loss numbers. Plus, in my opinion you should judge it on the basis of accidents per 10,000 flight hours. Update: I checked this database: https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/airforce/BAF/1/ and found 41 written off, of 161 total. So, 25% lost instead of 36% - not a big improvement. Just for comparison: the loss rate for the F-35 is very, very low, at least an order of magn
  3. Jari, many thanks, again! Indeed the BLU-11/B is described as a shorthened M116 in manual TM 9-1325-200. It even states that the center section was shortened 25 inches. That exactly what I needed to know. Super! And what a photo.. I had never seen it before. Amazing how unstable those M116s were.. Rob
  4. Thanks! But I should have been clearer: the details visible on the nose of both the long M116 and the short Mxxx are very specific. The have recessed beads in the 'bulkhead', there's a big igniter, on the top side there's a triangular piece to guide the fuse wire, and on the bottom side there a spur-like bracket, that rotates 90 degrees if a nose fairing is fitted. The navy Mk 77 has completely different details on the nose. This is the best picture I could find quickly. Rob
  5. Recently I made a 3D CAD model of the 750 lbs M116 napalm bomb with open fuses/igniters, as used on prop aircraft. But I also see a 'short' version of this weapon, like on the A-1E's below. This photo shows the same load I believe, and it clearly shows they have exactly the same design for the nose section. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-07nQhv8M the same weapon can be seen at least four times. I made some screenshots: Does anyone know wh
  6. I forgot to include G26 and the viscosity numbers, so let me try again: Type potlife demould viscosity shrinkage Biresin G26 3-4 min 30 min 70 mPa.s ? Biresin G27 2 min 15 min 30 mPa.s ? Smooth Cast 300Q 0,5 min 4-5 min 80 mPa.s 1% Smooth Cast 300 3 min 10 min 80 mPa.s 0.5% Smooth Cast 305 7 min 30 min 80 mPa.s 0.35% Smooth Cast 310 15-20 min 2-4u
  7. I use Smoothcast 305, its pot life is just perfect for my methods. Here's some data that I collected some time ago: Type potlife demould shrinkage Biresin G27 2 min 15 min ? Smooth Cast 300 3 min 10 min 0.5% Smooth Cast 305 7 min 30 min 0.35% Smooth Cast 310 15-20 min 2-4hr 0.025% Rob
  8. Thanks for the compliments! You can become a mastercaster too: I just explained my casting techniques in a thread over on the ARC forum. The mould for the ALE-2 pod is shown there too. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/316680-learning-to-cast-resin/ Rob
  9. Thanks for the compliment! Here's another photo. Rob
  10. They are 1/48 scale. Over on ARC the construction process is documented: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/310955-ale-2-chaff-pod-under-construction-done/ Rob
  11. Here's a reasonably good view of the pylons used for the ALE-2 chaff pod: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-lockheed-t-33-shooting-star-showing-chaff-dispensers-under-wing-55263958.html It looks like a simple shape to me. Maybe you can find more photos, so you can do some measurements. For comparison, the ALE-2 is 13' 10.2" long and 19.58" diameter. I scratch-built that ALE-2 chaff pod for another subject. Rob
  12. I can scan the decal instructions of the Airfix kit for you. But is that what you want? You would replicate the kit, that's not much use.. I do not know of a solid reference of the car, and I've been on the look-out for many years! This kit has a bad reputation, but I think it's mostly undeserved. It's not a great kit, but I don't think it's much different from a typical Hasegawa Group-C kit. Here's my review of the model: https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/905review.htm Rob
  13. Initially I followed your approach: I wanted the facets to be nearly invisible, when I viewed the STL model in an STL viewer. But I ended up with a (binary) STL file of 277 MB for a part of 25 x 10 x 10 mm. And the slicer software did not like it at all - it crashed. After the above analysis, I decided to try a surface deviation of 0.01 mm, 2,5x smaller than the printer's resolution, to have a certain margin. And that gave me a Binary STL file of 0.5 MB size, 500x smaller! And if my reasoning is correct, it still gives the same printed model. I understand that it seems
  14. I've drawn this RNLAF F-104 start cart in 3D, and I'm busy having it printed in 1/72 scale (hello Brian!). I run into a problem with the STL export. It has four parameters: Surface deviation Normal deviation Max edge length Aspect ratio I'm quite sure the last two parameters are not important for my purposes: I don't care about the width and length of the STL triangles. The normal deviation is the angle between the normal vectors of the facets. It will determine the number of facets when you create a circle /
  15. Maybe, yes, but I want to see the naked performance figures, to see how the 104 compared to the competition of the time. Rob
×
×
  • Create New...