F-18 Super Hornet (3D Printed Parts + Plywood Wings/Fins + BT-60/BT-55 tubes)

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

BigMacDaddy

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
3,405
Location
Northern NJ
I realized I had never created a thread for this model although it has been built (by me and others).

I know there are/were other F-18 models out there but it really bugged me that so many (all?) of them only had a single engine. The dual engine setup is something distinctive about the F-18 -- also why not embrace launching with a 2x engine cluster (and heck why not make it a pair of 24mm engines). This also turned out to be a model that really lent itself to 3D printing. The center transition from the front BT-60 tube to the rear pair of BT-55 tubes can also incorporate the underwing intakes. It is funny how sometimes a part I want to design winds up taking so long but this part actually came together pretty quickly and works really well to bring together all the tubes as well as to mount / align wings and vertical stabilizers (although went through a few revisions).

As always my goal is to be as close to scale as I can be while working with standard body tubes and motors/engines (also while keeping weight as well as print time reasonable - i.e., using tubes and plywood where possible). I decided to do the F-18 Super Hornet since I liked the look of the intakes more. Below are a couple of pictures I found comparing the F-18 versions.

1712609529145.jpeg

1712609636878.jpeg

I get my scale via a few different processes. Sometimes I have to measure hundreds of dimensions from pictures of prototypes, other times I can bring scale drawings or photos into my design software as references images, I almost always use available measurements to check my work (and in rare cases there are enough measurements available that I can use that + pictures to design the model). Lastly, I sometimes use an existing scale 3D model as a prototype to help me design everything to scale. I still have to design all the parts from scratch (so they print optimally) and adapt to work with standard body tubes and to fit motors, but it helps to not have to constantly check scale for each little detail on each component. It also takes quite a while to find a good 3D design that is accurate enough to use for scale (or costs $$$) but I was able to do that here. Below is a mock-up that might help show how the original design can help guide the design of components for the 3D printed rocket.
1712615624748.png
Unlike many build threads, my process is a bunch of boring design time in various CAD-like design software, with some printing of prototypes, building full models, launching, and lots of revisions / iteration. No definitive - here is how I milled, sanded, and built-up this one-of-a-kind (one-off?) nosecone piece or something. 3D printing allowing iteration in the design is actually critical but the revisions come so fast and frequent that I am not sure it would be interested to see many of them. Here you can see how the various parts fit together to match the prototype.

1712614613351.png
1712614792608.png
Here is an early prototype of the main 3D printed components. Front tube is BT-60 and rear tubes are BT-55. The front tube is more cylindrical than the body on the real F-18 so the intakes wind up a little closer to the main body tube than on the real plane.

1712610279279.png

Test fitting wings and stabilizers. I made this about as big as I am able with my 2mm x 300mm x 200mm plywood that I use for almost all my models. I thought about (and mocked up) a two-part wing setup, but decided to do a single piece wing even though this requires that I let the grain in the plywood run horizontally through the wing. These are a little floppy before gluing to the body (the plywood is a light-ply with 3 layers but the direction of the grain in the outer two layers makes a big difference in strength). As I hoped, the wings are very strong once glued to the body so I think the decision to use a single piece of plywood was ultimately a good one.

1712610621589.png

Finally, here is the complete model next to a Big Bertha for size comparison.

1712610878036.png
 
I posted my flight results for this model a long time back in the "What did I do today..." thread. This model flew better than I expected and I was able to launch with 2x 24mm D12 engines without needing too much nose weight. Here are the OpenRocket sims to show how it was / is expected to fly (with a pair of D12-5 engines it is anticipated to fly over 530'):

1712616311840.png

First flight was on 2x D12-5 engines. This build has a slightly extended main body tube (2" longer) to help keep increase stability with less nose weight. 2oz in nose and 24" chute.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Bm3szP3VXE0

Next flight was on 2x C5-3 engines (arched over a little bit but exaggerated in video - landed 50' from me). Nice tumble / glider recovery result on this test flight (I attached the chute only to the heavy nosecone and let body come down on its own). 2oz in nose and 24" chute.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t4RIPZeyhDA

Here are the requisite pics on the pad:
1712616516264.jpeg 1712616528338.jpeg
 
Nice comparison between the legacy Hornet and the Rhino. Interesting to see the modeling representation decisions, especially compared to cardmodeling (my main hobby these days), in which conical surfaces and multiple pieces are easy, and strength isn't such a concern, while generally 3-D printed pieces aren't used, so complex geometry, especially compound curvature, is hard to represent. Funny that in both types of modeling the boundary layer splitter between the jet engine air intake and the body is tricky to represent.

Also neat to see it fly so stably, given such a non-axisymmetric shape.
 
Last edited:
Nice comparison between the legacy Hornet and the Rhino. Interesting to see the modeling representation decisions, especially compared to cardmodeling (my main hobby these days), in which conical surfaces and multiple pieces are easy, and strength isn't such a concern, while generally 3-D printed pieces aren't used, so complex geometry, especially compound curvature, is hard to represent. Funny that in both types of modeling the boundary layer splitter between the jet engine air intake and the body is tricky to represent.

Also neat to see it fly so stably, given such a non-axisymmetric shape.
Thanks - yes, constraints of building materials and general build approaches are interesting in how they impact the final design.

I have decided to focus on adding more details than existing model rocket designs but I am not trying to compete with plastic model kits (or fully 3D printed models). At the same time, trying to scale models to make a good size impression (often larger than existing plane models available from Estes and others) but keep models light enough to launch on standard Estes engines/motors (but also strong enough that they can launch on larger 24mm or 29mm engines if desired). Also trying to provide a blank slate that allows people to make the model their own -- see the next post.
 
You should add sidewinder missiles to the wings-- you might be able to fins them online in the right scale!
 
Yes, that is what I mean. I was just thinking you should add some missiles to this build, it would look really cool!
 
Back
Top