jmb52760

Nose parts are self aligning:

jmb52760

Tank tray is used to assure proper angle of firewall and frame 2:

jmb52760

more

jmb52760

Next I'll remove the plan and make an alignment jig for the empennage.

jmb52760

Productive Day

jmb52760

Flat top fuse is pretty simple to get straight:

jmb52760

Ready for top and bottom blocks

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Coming along nicely Mitch.

Nice touch on the fuse side wing cradle doublers.

I should have some updates on my build tomorrow (too lazy to take pictures tonight). Fin, rudder and stab should be framed up. Wing prep almost finished, just trying to decide how best to route the retract pushrods - a little tricky on a 40" wing with a 2" fuse opening.

David.

jmb52760

David,

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I've only got six days of holiday left and my goal is to have the plane ready to cover/finish (I haven't decided how or what colors).

I have to decide what to do with the vertical fin soon, The one from the original kit is pretty rough. The parts are glued together but are not in perfect alignment and are very banged-up. I also think this design is very heavy. It would be neat to do a built-up fin made exactly like a wing, with ribs and a "D" box. It would be lighter, for sure, but probably take much more time than just starting with this 1/2 inch slab and carving/sanding away anything that doesn't look like a Deception fin.

No picture yet, but the landing gear block and nose block are ready to be installed. I will coat the entire area under the tank tray with a thin layer of epoxy.

Mitch

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Mitch,

I'm sure we're having very similar parallel thoughts on these builds.

I framed up my fin from 5/16" balsa (the 1/2" scaled thickness) the other day. Between fuse top, thick balsa sides and a fair amount of triangle stock, the fuse/fin assembly is one solid, and rather heavy, structure. Having stared at the plans of the 40" model for a while thinking about how to lighten it, I decided the easiest thing was to stick to the plans and drill out lightening holes wherever possible. Doing so on the fin creates a "framed-up" like structure without too much extra work or loss of strength. I figured two holes 1 - 2" in diameter (depending on scale) forward of the hinge line along with another smaller hole parallel to the first in the forward part of the fin. On the rudder, three smaller holes (2 moving and 1 fixed) should be doable after it has been shaped.

I weighed my fin/rudder to 0.7 oz (20g) without lightening holes. I think that can come down to 0.4-0.5 oz without a problem. I plan to use this approach throughout on fuse sides, fuse top, fuse bottom as well as ailerons (3 holes moving/1 fixed) and elevators (2 holes between the three hinges). I feel that this could bring the weight down of the overall frame by as much as 20%. Give or take we'd have:
[ul][*] 40" - 15 size model: 40 oz -> 32 oz[*] 63" - 60 size model: 136 oz -> 109 oz
[/ul]
Even if you are only able to remove 16 oz from the plane you might end up with a 7 - 8 lb model which would be excellent for a 2c 60 or 4c 90. I'm hoping to bring mine in at 40 oz or less (this will depend on engine and exhaust).

Of course having a fuse that appears to have been in the woods during bird hunting season does complicate things a bit if you intend to glass/paint but there are options. Apparently Sig Koverall is not bad as a base layer for paint. Never used it before but I'm curious to try it on the larger birds. I plan to paint only the required areas including the engine bay, canopy and wing bottom if necessary for a clean finish. The rest will be covered in film so the holes don't pose a problem.

Sounds like an exciting 6 days!

David.

jmb52760

One can only hope that there is an airplane inside of this wooden box

Canopy and top block are not glued yet in this pic.

jmb52760

Stabilizer joined with weldbond at butt-joint, microglas, and epoxy over.

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Hey Mitch,

I was wondering how your D60 was progressing? Were you able to accomplish what you wanted in the 6 days?

I'm looking forward to seeing your progress and finished model!

On another note, I started a thread on wing dihedral wrt the Deception to sort out some doubts I had about the dihedral for the reduced scale 40" version. The thread is here:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8327949/tm.htm

One thing I noticed that is different between the BHE plans that you're building from and the MAN plans I'm using is the total dihedral called for. BHE says 3", MAN says 2".

Have you joined your wing? Did you use 3" total? I'm debating which dimension angle to use...

David.

Skylane

My Feedback: (3)

Back in the 1980s I built two Deceptions from Bridi kits and used the 3 in dihedral. I felt that this was too much as there was an unwanted proverse roll with rudder application. On a visit to California I asked Joe Bridi about this and he claimed that Jim Kimbro suggested the added dihedral and he included it in the kit design. I'm building a new Deception from plans and it has the 2 in dihedral called for in the MAN plans. We'll see how that works. On the other hand, Rich Earnst has built two Deceptions recently from Bridi kits and he used the kit dihedral and was happy with it. But with today's radios one can do a lot of fine tuning that wasn't possible twenty-five years ago.

Jeff

flywilly

My Feedback: (121)

Go with 2" of dihedral. 3" will definitely give you some proverse roll coupling. I'm guessing that Jim hadn't tried the additional dihedral when he suggested it to Joe Bridi, because he told a friend of mine at the Nats (around 1980, maybe '79) that the kit was incorrect. I built 5 Deceptions (2 from the kit and 3 from scratch) all with 2'' of dihedral and they all flew great - my first one almost had 3" of dihedral, but a buddy finished his first (from the kit) and was so unhappy with the roll coupling he cut the wing in 1/2 and reduced it to 2".
-Will

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Excellent news guys! 2" it will be then.

I've seen Rich's planes and look very nice indeed. In fact, they're both at the top of the D10 build thread. It seems he has gone back and forth between taildragger and trike configurations as well as switched between 2c and 4c power on the same planes. He must have built them with optional retracts as well as an "under the tank" landing gear mount for TD configuration as Mitch has done on his.

Flywilly, I'll get back to you on your PM shortly.

Thanks again for your input guys, David.

jmb52760

David,

I didn't quite achieve the goal of being ready to finish at the end of the break due to "family things". I am however, almost ready to join the wing. I sanded the wing joint in accordance with the plans that I have for the 3 inches of dihedral. After reading this I am tempted to reshape the joint for the 2 inches.

I also am very tempted to cut the wing root joint to provide a straight trailing edge (sweep only on the wing leading edge). This would be easy to do if I reshape the joint. This just feels right to me as my Calypso has a straight trailing edge. I don't know why Jim K. would have preferred the double tapered wing, I see no benefit. This would, of course move the CG back a bit from the location shown on the plans.

I have completed the aileron servo boxes and installation and I'm slowly shaping the trailing edge stock as it is too thick as it came in the kit. I'll post pictures soon.

Mitch

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Mitch,

good stuff. From the sounds of the latest RCU wisdom, 2" is where it's at. Jim Kimbro himself replied in the thread inquiring specifically about dihedral:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_83.../anchor/tm.htm

The essence is a flat top wing (as is often the case with classic pattern designs).

Regarding wing TE taper you might be interested in reading Jim's article in his rationale for a double tapered wing. It's an issue of roll vs tracking (loops) performance that dictates what the designer chooses. Dick Hanson also discusses this in his article on the Tiporare which originally had a wing with a planform similar in concept to the Deception. Later, GP modified the design (I don't know whether Dick had input on this) to include a wing with (additional) equal taper planform.

Just a little food for thought.

David.

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Mitch,

just a reminder that we're still here...

Now, don't you be building without us seeing!

Seriously, I hope your D60 is coming along and all's well with the family.

So far, I've had nothing but a positive experience on the build of the little sibling. D10 fuse is up next!

I have the feeling it'll come together quickly although I plan to make some alterations...

David.

jmb52760

I've only re-shaped the wing joint for the "flat top" dihedral and continued to plane/sand the wing, trailing edge, and ailerons - nothing too interesting.

It's supposed to warm up today so I plan to get in the garage and make some chips and dust.

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Excellent. I'm sure the dust is flying about as we speak!

Mitch,

I noticed that the BHE plans moved the wing/fuse TE junction back. This would leave the F3 former exposed when viewing the radio bay area. Is this how your model went together? The MAN plans have the F3 former as a continuous section with the bottom third angled back and the wing interfacing with the belly pan ending forward of F3. The F3 section in the BHE plans shows this layout too.

... I'm just wondering if that's a mistake in the side view of the BHE plans (presumably along with the dihedral angle).

Can you tell us what the aileron chord is?

Thanks, David.

jmb52760

My Bridi plans are as you describe the MAN plans to be, with the f3 former being continuous but angled back at the wing trailing edge (or at least that's how I interpret it. The lower portion of f3 is 1/4 inch balsa and fills the gap between the wing cutout ant the wing belly pan trailing edge which is also 1/4 inch balsa.

The aileron chord is 1 3/4 inches.

jmb52760

Correction: Just looked at the plans again. There is a small gap between the f3 upper and f3 lower pieces, about 1/8 inch. This gap could be easily filled.

I have not added this lower F3 piece yet or fitted the wing belly pan. That will come after the wing joint.

(edited to add last sentence)

doxilia

My Feedback: (3)

Mitch,

check out the plans from my build that you downloaded and compare to yours.

You'll see what I'm referring to.

David.

jmb52760

David,

Yes, there is a definite difference. It appears that your plans moves the upper F3 back to be on top of the lower F3 to correct the gapping condition that my plans show. No worries, I can simply close the gap.

I wonder if the width of F3 has been adjusted in this move or if the width of the fuselage simply changes a bit to accept the new F3 location.

On progress: I have created a large pile of razor plane chips and sawdust after work today by planing and sanding the elevator surfaces and horizontal stabilizer tips.

I forgot how much hand carving there really was in these old-school kits!

I didn't get in nearly as much carving in on Sunday as I wanted as I let the excellent weather lure me into taking a Cessna 172 up to Newton for touch-and-go practice (full scale).

Mitch

(pics later)