Mach 10 canopy

[foose4string]

I'm currently working on In Flight's Mach10 clone. True to the original instructions, the In Flight instructions have you mount the forward edge of the canopy 1/4 inch from the front edge of the tube. This seemed further forward than what I thought I had remembered seeing, so I checked the catalog pics to make sure I wasn't imagining things. I know drawing and camera perspective can play tricks on the eyes, but is it just me, or does the canopy look like it sits farther back than 1/4 inch?

http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/centuri71d/71dcen44.html
http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/73cen032.html
http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/centuri77/77cat8.html

If I were to guess, I'd say the canopy was closer to 1/2 to 3/4 inch from the front. In later catalog photos, it is exaggerated even more ...perhaps as much as an inch or more?

I know the canopy placement probably isn't critical and just an aesthetic thing, but what is everyone else's take on this?


Apologies if this has been covered before.

[InFlight]

My instructions are based off the scans on the Jimz site (Plans (http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/ka-4.htm) ) but the PDF instructions are different and show the canopy at 1" from the front. The scans show 1/4" from the front. Crazy :chuckle:

It's really going to be your choice at this point. :cool:

.

[tbzep]

Compare the launch lug diameter to the distance to get a better perspective. It's definitely more than 1/4". I've found over the years that Centuri instructions and model photos don't always jive. In some cases, they don't tell you anything at all and you just have to guess at it. I'd use the TLAR method since there is evidence of variable placement at Centuri.

[foose4string]

My instructions are based off the scans on the Jimz site (Plans (http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/ka-4.htm) ) but the PDF instructions are different and show the canopy at 1" from the front. The scans show 1/4" from the front. Crazy :chuckle:

It's really going to be your choice at this point. :cool:

.

I didn't see the 1 inch designation in the .pdf file either. That one says 1/4" as well.
Looks like the TLAR method is going be about as definitive as it's going to get.

*Edit*- Dcastle noted the same discrepancy on TRF. I missed that post somehow. Looks like the 1" measurement is listed on the plans here at YORP, and the 1/4" is on both the pdf and tiff files on Jimz.

I'm going with the 1" measurement as submitted by Bill E.

[InFlight]

I didn't see the 1 inch designation in the .pdf file either. That one says 1/4" as well.
Looks like the TLAR method is going be about as definitive as it's going to get.
:chuckle: oops!

I meant this PDF http://www.inflightrockets.com/public/centuri_mach_10.pdf

.

[foose4string]

oops... ;) you beat me to my edit!

[blackshire]

Compare the launch lug diameter to the distance to get a better perspective. It's definitely more than 1/4". I've found over the years that Centuri instructions and model photos don't always jive. In some cases, they don't tell you anything at all and you just have to guess at it. I'd use the TLAR method since there is evidence of variable placement at Centuri.

The Centuri Mini-Dactyl is another good example of this. The pop pod nose cone in the catalog illustrations looks like their balsa 4:1 ogive (the plastic version of this nose cone was used in their Star Trooper kit, and the Estes Gnome's plastic BT-5 nose cone is almost identical to the Centuri one).

When I ordered the Mini-Dactyl parts set from Semroc and printed out the scans of the original Centuri Mini-Dactyl kit instructions from JimZ's web site, I was surprised to find that the pop pod nose cone was/is much shorter and has a rounded tip. This balsa nose cone was apparently only used in the Mini-Dactyl kit.

[Bravo52]

There are plenty of examples out there on the web, however, I used 1 in on mine because I thought it looked better.

I don't think it could possibly make that much of a difference, but mine required a fair amount of nose weight to get it crash a little better then "straight in". I also didn't put a pod on the nose so that has a lot to do with the nose weight. I am building a skeg to go between the lip of the body tube to the edge of the front wing to help prevent damage to the leading edge of the wing where it meets the body tube.

[GregGleason]

Nice F-86 look Jerry!

Now you need a Mig 15 to go with it. :D

Greg

[foose4string]

Completed the Mach10 last week and flew it yesterday. Launched on a B6-2. I tad squirrelly on the way up, but not too bad. Transitioned nicely into a glide. I didn't add any trim weight at all and it seems to glide pretty well. Not the best glider in the fleet, but it did ok.

[Bravo52]

Completed the Mach10 last week and flew it yesterday. Launched on a B6-2. I tad squirrelly on the way up, but not too bad. Transitioned nicely into a glide. I didn't add any trim weight at all and it seems to glide pretty well. Not the best glider in the fleet, but it did ok.

Guys let me qualify the statement above......... What Craig ment to say was that; "I got it back so unlike everyother glider I've built, it didn't gain altitude and fly away, so it just did a broad circle around the field and landed 10 ft from the launch pad.....") :rolleyes:

He is way too modest. I'm sure it flew like a dream.....just not like the X-15.

[foose4string]

Guys let me qualify the statement above......... What Craig ment to say was that; "I got it back so unlike everyother glider I've built, it didn't gain altitude and fly away, so it just did a broad circle around the field and landed 10 ft from the launch pad.....") :rolleyes:

He is way too modest. I'm sure it flew like a dream.....just not like the X-15.


:chuckle:

Not too dreamy. I'd say Mr. Branche and Mr. Filler's Mach 10's fit that description. But your right, getting it back sure beats the heck out of watching it sail over the trees! :D

[Mark II]

Hey, if it didn't immediately go vertical into a death-dive and take a core sample of the launch field, then it's a GREAT glide in my book, and it flew much better than any of my gliders usually do. :rolleyes: (I haven't built my Mach-10 yet, though.)

MarkII

[rosko_racer]

Completed the Mach10 last week and flew it yesterday. Launched on a B6-2. I tad squirrelly on the way up, but not too bad. Transitioned nicely into a glide. I didn't add any trim weight at all and it seems to glide pretty well. Not the best glider in the fleet, but it did ok.


That Mach 10 looks great Craig!!! In a way I am glad is not one of your best gliders because all of your best gliders are not with you anymore... they always fly away!!!

I am building one and was thinking about the canopy also. How would it look with a Fake Wulf canopy?...

- Raul