Producing Plans
09-24-2012, 05:41 PM
#1
Producing Plans
I've been in this hobby for many years, but I have never scratch-built anything. I have plenty of experience with plans-built aircraft, kits, and so forth, but I have never drawn a set of plans. I want to build a Boeing Model 40 biplane at 1/4 or 1/5 scale. I have yet to decide on which scale I will use. The scale will determine the size of the radial engine and there are a few out there that can do the job.
I have plenty of large paper to do the job. Does anyone have suggestions on how to progress?
Bob
I have plenty of large paper to do the job. Does anyone have suggestions on how to progress?
Bob
09-24-2012, 06:13 PM
#4
RE: Producing Plans
Scan them in to your computer and import them in to a CAD program. Use lines, circles, polylines, etc. to trace over the three views. When you're done, scale the drawing up to the size you want. Make the modifications to get the structure you'll need. Dan.
09-24-2012, 06:48 PM
#5
RE: Producing Plans
Bob, here's the website where I got a good set of three views for a model I designed and built.
http://www.markkaiser.com/japaneseaviation/hien.html
I drew the plans up in AutoCad. Ill attach the fuselage side view and a shot of the model ready to go. Dan.
http://www.markkaiser.com/japaneseaviation/hien.html
I drew the plans up in AutoCad. Ill attach the fuselage side view and a shot of the model ready to go. Dan.
09-24-2012, 09:22 PM
#6
Senior Member
RE: Producing Plans
The suggestion on importing the photos and drawings into a cad program is something you should consider. I've been working on a 1910 Deperdussin Monoplane for several months now. The 3 views I've found are all very inaccurate. Some just flat out wrong. I also found there are huge differences between planes of the same vintage. I found a great set of drawings for a Deperdussin B, 1911 vintage at http://www.ww1aeroinc.org/
They have a very detailed and extensive set of information on early aeroplanes. I think they are associated with the Rhinebeck Aerodrome. Anyway, I got a very detailed set of sketches for the Deperdussin B. I at first assumed that there would be little difference between them other that the engine difference, the A used a Anzani Y and the B used a Gnome. The one I am trying to model is the one at the Shttleworth collection in in the UK. Lots of videos and a lot of photos are available, but the closest I could find to an accurate 3 view was some drawings published in the UK magazine Aeromodelier who has changed hands. They were dated 1981. I’ve been working with the Shuttleworth crew and after paying a very modest fee, I have been given detailed measurements that I've requested, and some photos. I’ve purchased a photo set from another source for this individual plane. In the last few months, I've discovered that there really isn't an A and B version, but A, A', AB B', B etc. there is not sharp line determining one from the other, but rather a flow of ideas over a two year period. Even the engine had variations.The one on the Deperdussin at Shuttleworth had two spark plug holes in the cylinder.One was plugged with a brass plug, depending on which cylinder it was on.Others photos show no plugs, but the spark plugs on the same side of the cylinder.
So, pick an individual plane and gather the information, all you can find for that plane and go from there. I happened to get a nearly perfect side view of mine in flight, and with a couple detailed measurement from the Shuttleworth guys, I have been able to gel together a lot of detailed information. The key piece was the diameter of the tire on the landing gear. From that, I'm able to calculate dimensions down to +/- 5 mm or so. From there you can make assumptions. IE they probably didn’t use a 41.5 mm spacing but rather a 40 mm spacing on bolts. The attached photo/CAD screen shot shows the measurement I took from the drawing. No scale, just proportions. From there, I know the tire diameter is 26", so I used the retrieved measurements and proportion them to the tire. My calculations were only off by 3mm on the length of the rudder base on a set of drawings I found as wwIAeroinc.org, so I am comfortable with the process.
They have a very detailed and extensive set of information on early aeroplanes. I think they are associated with the Rhinebeck Aerodrome. Anyway, I got a very detailed set of sketches for the Deperdussin B. I at first assumed that there would be little difference between them other that the engine difference, the A used a Anzani Y and the B used a Gnome. The one I am trying to model is the one at the Shttleworth collection in in the UK. Lots of videos and a lot of photos are available, but the closest I could find to an accurate 3 view was some drawings published in the UK magazine Aeromodelier who has changed hands. They were dated 1981. I’ve been working with the Shuttleworth crew and after paying a very modest fee, I have been given detailed measurements that I've requested, and some photos. I’ve purchased a photo set from another source for this individual plane. In the last few months, I've discovered that there really isn't an A and B version, but A, A', AB B', B etc. there is not sharp line determining one from the other, but rather a flow of ideas over a two year period. Even the engine had variations.The one on the Deperdussin at Shuttleworth had two spark plug holes in the cylinder.One was plugged with a brass plug, depending on which cylinder it was on.Others photos show no plugs, but the spark plugs on the same side of the cylinder.
So, pick an individual plane and gather the information, all you can find for that plane and go from there. I happened to get a nearly perfect side view of mine in flight, and with a couple detailed measurement from the Shuttleworth guys, I have been able to gel together a lot of detailed information. The key piece was the diameter of the tire on the landing gear. From that, I'm able to calculate dimensions down to +/- 5 mm or so. From there you can make assumptions. IE they probably didn’t use a 41.5 mm spacing but rather a 40 mm spacing on bolts. The attached photo/CAD screen shot shows the measurement I took from the drawing. No scale, just proportions. From there, I know the tire diameter is 26", so I used the retrieved measurements and proportion them to the tire. My calculations were only off by 3mm on the length of the rudder base on a set of drawings I found as wwIAeroinc.org, so I am comfortable with the process.
Last, I chose a ¼ scale as that is the scale of the Les Cherney Anzani engine kit that I have.I am astounded at the small sizes of parts in the plane, full scale.Once scaled down to ¼ scale, I’m gong to have to make a lot of #00 size bolts and nuts.The hinge rod for the rudder will be only 1mm.I really can’t imagine the ¼ scale aeroplane and ¼ scale engine being a match.I’m going to try though.
Don
09-25-2012, 06:25 AM
#7
Banned
RE: Producing Plans
"I have plenty of large paper to do the job. Does anyone have suggestions on how to progress? "
Take a course in drafting. It is fine to have the lools; IF you know how to use them.
Les
Take a course in drafting. It is fine to have the lools; IF you know how to use them.
Les
09-25-2012, 07:52 AM
#8
RE: Producing Plans
Thanks for all the help with my questions. Although not as extensive as a drafting course, I had some education in drafting in high school and really enjoyed it. My flying buddy is an aeronautical engineer and I guess I can press him into service if need be.
As far as accurate three-views go, I emailed Addison Pemberton (only flying Boeing Model 40 restoration) a while back and he said he could help with some drawings. The sticking point was that he asked if I could make a static one for him.
Bob
As far as accurate three-views go, I emailed Addison Pemberton (only flying Boeing Model 40 restoration) a while back and he said he could help with some drawings. The sticking point was that he asked if I could make a static one for him.
Bob
09-25-2012, 09:03 AM
#9
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Eugene,
OR
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Producing Plans
The best way will be to design it in a CAD, that way you will have the ability to scale is as you like.
If you want to do it on paper you have to determine the scale first.
Draw a straight centerline to start with.
After you got you scale and line divide the 3 view into sections. Usually I will section it so section lines match my formers.
Next you want to calculate the scale Difference between 3 view and your model. You know what length you want your fuse or wings to be
From there just measure the 3 view and convert it to your plan
Hope this helps you to get started
If you want to do it on paper you have to determine the scale first.
Draw a straight centerline to start with.
After you got you scale and line divide the 3 view into sections. Usually I will section it so section lines match my formers.
Next you want to calculate the scale Difference between 3 view and your model. You know what length you want your fuse or wings to be
From there just measure the 3 view and convert it to your plan
Hope this helps you to get started
09-25-2012, 11:29 AM
#10
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chilliwack, BC, CANADA
Posts: 12,425
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
RE: Producing Plans
As mentioned already it really does not matter if you use pencils, rulers and paper or if you do it in CAD. It's all about knowing the tools you're using.
Since you've built some models already it's both easy and a lot of work to simply say "make your plans look like the plans from those other projects". It's easy because you have a standard to work with. It's hard because it's going to take a lot of work to learn as you go to get things right.
Taking on the task of learning a CAD program at the same time likely isn't a good idea. But if you want to take this chance to learn a CAD package then pick one you can afford to keep and upgrade, which pretty much lets out AutoCAD as an option, and learn to use it by making up plans for simple things first so you can concentrate on the CAD application. For example a good first project would be a simple chuck glider that has curved surfaces. Then maybe learn how to import an image and trace over it by making plans for a profile electric Spitfire or something similar. The time you spend learning how to do this stuff with the simple projects will pay off many times over on your Mailplane project.
You'll want to figure out what engine you're going to use first and come up with a projected wing area and weight that can be handled by that engine and which will produce "friendly flying" charactaristics. Try to avoid the urge to "build strong" because often adding a little here and some there to make a model overly strong means it comes out overly heavy. But do build in enough to ensure an adequite strength and structure.
Another factor is that if you want to take advantage of laser cutting for a semi kit then you will be best off doing your project in CAD. Even if that means taking on the additional challenge of learning a CAD program.
You're looking at a long and hard uphill climb to do all of this at once. But take your time and learn to do the stuff well and you'll be rewarded with a great set of plans.
Since you've built some models already it's both easy and a lot of work to simply say "make your plans look like the plans from those other projects". It's easy because you have a standard to work with. It's hard because it's going to take a lot of work to learn as you go to get things right.
Taking on the task of learning a CAD program at the same time likely isn't a good idea. But if you want to take this chance to learn a CAD package then pick one you can afford to keep and upgrade, which pretty much lets out AutoCAD as an option, and learn to use it by making up plans for simple things first so you can concentrate on the CAD application. For example a good first project would be a simple chuck glider that has curved surfaces. Then maybe learn how to import an image and trace over it by making plans for a profile electric Spitfire or something similar. The time you spend learning how to do this stuff with the simple projects will pay off many times over on your Mailplane project.
You'll want to figure out what engine you're going to use first and come up with a projected wing area and weight that can be handled by that engine and which will produce "friendly flying" charactaristics. Try to avoid the urge to "build strong" because often adding a little here and some there to make a model overly strong means it comes out overly heavy. But do build in enough to ensure an adequite strength and structure.
Another factor is that if you want to take advantage of laser cutting for a semi kit then you will be best off doing your project in CAD. Even if that means taking on the additional challenge of learning a CAD program.
You're looking at a long and hard uphill climb to do all of this at once. But take your time and learn to do the stuff well and you'll be rewarded with a great set of plans.
09-25-2012, 08:38 PM
#11
Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: BREMERTON,
WA
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Producing Plans
You might give this website a look: http://www.aeroaces.com/jamdrwgs2.htm Mr Morrow has several sets of three-views available for the Boeing Model 40 and even has a set for the Model 95. I have pictures I took at the Seattle Museum of Flight that I can process and provide if there is a specific detail you need. They were shot at 16 megs but can be reduced to a manageable size. I didn't get any pictures of the interior because that was behind the line. It's a beautiful aircraft and would look great at quarter scale. WS a little more than 132inches.
09-25-2012, 09:02 PM
#12
Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: BREMERTON,
WA
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Producing Plans
This is the type of photos I have. Mostly where things connect and rotate on the bird. The lighting was poor for taking a full portrait of the aircraft. [img][/img]
Been awhile since I posted a picture. I'll try again if I need too.
Been awhile since I posted a picture. I'll try again if I need too.
09-26-2012, 07:45 AM
#14
Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: BREMERTON,
WA
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Producing Plans
I've recently reordered his Model 95 drawings. I have a set of the Cleveland rubber-band plans I had enlarged to quarter scale to get a feel for the size of the aircraft. I also have the same 3 views of the Model 40B-4 by Nye. I've been redrawing the Model 95 on large sheets of paper filling in the construction details based upon construction methods presented by much better designers/builders than I. The Cleveland plan is only a good outline. I had a set of the Morrow drawings but have lost them in my clutter. I have no idea how to determine their accuracy so I'll build what is provided.
If you give me a little while I'll add a section to my website that will include aviation pictures I've taken. I normally focus on landscape but I have a number of aircraft that I have taken details of in the past, the Boeing Model 40 being one of those.
My link is www.wanderingphotolog.com Here are a few that I have processed that may be of interest. On my website they will be published as 500K pictures or larger if you like. I thought I had taken these with my Nikon D90 at its largest resolution but they were taken as jpeg at 2.5Meg so are easier to process. I normally shoot in RAW and correct in photoshop. I've recently transitioned to the Nikon D800. I could probably take the indoor shots with that camera because it has a much better light meter and ISO capability.
If you give me a little while I'll add a section to my website that will include aviation pictures I've taken. I normally focus on landscape but I have a number of aircraft that I have taken details of in the past, the Boeing Model 40 being one of those.
My link is www.wanderingphotolog.com Here are a few that I have processed that may be of interest. On my website they will be published as 500K pictures or larger if you like. I thought I had taken these with my Nikon D90 at its largest resolution but they were taken as jpeg at 2.5Meg so are easier to process. I normally shoot in RAW and correct in photoshop. I've recently transitioned to the Nikon D800. I could probably take the indoor shots with that camera because it has a much better light meter and ISO capability.
09-26-2012, 10:53 PM
#16
Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: BREMERTON,
WA
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Producing Plans
Bob- Photos are posted on my website under Aviation Photographs. Please let me know if you'd like a little larger picture. I've reduced them to 72pix from 300 to make them easier to download. My pictures aren't copyrighted so feel free to download them. Mark
09-27-2012, 05:18 AM
#17
Senior Member
RE: Producing Plans
EAA publication 'Vintage Airplane' November 2008 has a nice article and photos of 1928 Boeing 40C, N5339. If you don't have it then the EAA can supply one to you. Probably for free if already a member.
09-27-2012, 07:42 PM
#20
Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: BREMERTON,
WA
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Producing Plans
The pictures were taken at the Museum of Flight in Seattle WA in 2009. I haven't managed to revisit even though I live about 50 miles from there. I'm not sure if the Model 40B is still there or if it has been relocated. It was nice that they had a couple of the fuselages available to place on display with it. They provide some of the pictures showing the wing and landing gear attachments. I'll be going there this winter since I have more time on my hands and the spouse continues to work. Mark
10-01-2012, 01:39 AM
#23
RE: Producing Plans
Bob, If want my advice... draw it.
If the space/budget allows, get a decent drafting table (they're almost giving them away these days) and associated goodies (trangles/french curves etc) There is something truely marvelous about drawing one to one, that simply isn't there with CAD. I work with a lot of designers and 95% of everything is done on paper before it's eventually transfered to a CAD system for production. Even cars are sketched, then drawn full size on greats sheets of paper fixed to the wall. Brilliant!
One you've decided to draw it, got some decent 3 views, you need to decide on your basic construction method. Square framed central crutch with multiply curced formers, like Brian Taylor or the half former/top and bottom method used by Dave Platt etc.
Take your 3 views to you local copy shop and get 'em scaled up to the correct size, lay them down and cover them with a sheet of drafting film (thick tracing paper) and enjoy. Draw on a perminant datum line (why not use the same one as the 3 views) then forget the ink pens, just use a pencil and hand sketch the construction.
Seeing it full size, is much better than on a screen, regardless of how big. Full size means 1/2" looks like 1/2", 1/4" looks like 1/4" etc, really aids the construction planning, as does being able to lay down a real engine/tank/servos etc etc.
Just remember, you're not going to get it perfect first time, you're not supposed to, this is a creative process. You're going to draw the basic construction/shapes etc and then when happy overlay a new sheet of film and redraw accuratly enough to shart cutting parts formes etc.
When you're building, you'll see/build in small modifications that would aid/simplify construction. These would eventually be tranfered on to your plan at a later stage.
Just go for it, the drawing/planning is just as enjoyable as the building IMO
If the space/budget allows, get a decent drafting table (they're almost giving them away these days) and associated goodies (trangles/french curves etc) There is something truely marvelous about drawing one to one, that simply isn't there with CAD. I work with a lot of designers and 95% of everything is done on paper before it's eventually transfered to a CAD system for production. Even cars are sketched, then drawn full size on greats sheets of paper fixed to the wall. Brilliant!
One you've decided to draw it, got some decent 3 views, you need to decide on your basic construction method. Square framed central crutch with multiply curced formers, like Brian Taylor or the half former/top and bottom method used by Dave Platt etc.
Take your 3 views to you local copy shop and get 'em scaled up to the correct size, lay them down and cover them with a sheet of drafting film (thick tracing paper) and enjoy. Draw on a perminant datum line (why not use the same one as the 3 views) then forget the ink pens, just use a pencil and hand sketch the construction.
Seeing it full size, is much better than on a screen, regardless of how big. Full size means 1/2" looks like 1/2", 1/4" looks like 1/4" etc, really aids the construction planning, as does being able to lay down a real engine/tank/servos etc etc.
Just remember, you're not going to get it perfect first time, you're not supposed to, this is a creative process. You're going to draw the basic construction/shapes etc and then when happy overlay a new sheet of film and redraw accuratly enough to shart cutting parts formes etc.
When you're building, you'll see/build in small modifications that would aid/simplify construction. These would eventually be tranfered on to your plan at a later stage.
Just go for it, the drawing/planning is just as enjoyable as the building IMO
10-01-2012, 07:22 AM
#24
RE: Producing Plans
Thanks for the input, David. I'm leaning toward the paper and pencil method because I do not want to have to learn another skill, as in a CAD program. I'm waiting for the 3-views to arrive and I'll go from there. I like the idea of seeing progress in full size as opposed to looking at a monitor.
Bob
Bob
10-02-2012, 07:48 AM
#25
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Shenfield, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Producing Plans
I agree drawing full size on paper with pencils is the easy, relaxing way to design.
A drawing board can be made of 1/8 plywood on a softwood frame then propped up on the bench ( I hinged mine on the wall) Paper is attched with traditional drawing pins or better still map pins. A normal size tee square can be used from the top edge as most lines are vertical ( only the datum is horizontal most of the rest are angled )
You can scale up any drawing using a calculator - measure the small drawing wingspan and divide the span you want by this figure. Put the result as a ' constant' into any calculator ( often press * twice achieves this ) Then just measure the small drawing and put into the calculator to multiply. Millimetres are much easier for this even if you do not think in metric. But you can measure in mm and convert to decimal inches in the one calculation if you want ( divide by 25.4 when you do the constant )
Drawing on a board causes much less eyestrain as you vary the distance all the time and none of strain on the wrist that a mouse causes Any components such as engines, tanks or servos can be compared direct to the drawing. It's just fun not concentration & frustration like CAD
A drawing board can be made of 1/8 plywood on a softwood frame then propped up on the bench ( I hinged mine on the wall) Paper is attched with traditional drawing pins or better still map pins. A normal size tee square can be used from the top edge as most lines are vertical ( only the datum is horizontal most of the rest are angled )
You can scale up any drawing using a calculator - measure the small drawing wingspan and divide the span you want by this figure. Put the result as a ' constant' into any calculator ( often press * twice achieves this ) Then just measure the small drawing and put into the calculator to multiply. Millimetres are much easier for this even if you do not think in metric. But you can measure in mm and convert to decimal inches in the one calculation if you want ( divide by 25.4 when you do the constant )
Drawing on a board causes much less eyestrain as you vary the distance all the time and none of strain on the wrist that a mouse causes Any components such as engines, tanks or servos can be compared direct to the drawing. It's just fun not concentration & frustration like CAD